p.29 #1 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Sorry if my question isn't as learned as most on this thread. The leaf shutters I know of (Sony RX-1, this Hassy) are used in a fixed-lens configuration. Is there any reason why they couldn't be designed on an interchangeable-lens camera?
p.29 #2 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Lee Saxon wrote:
...then why didn't you give it one...
They placed it in the lens. Having two mechanical shutters is not cost and weight effective. Leaf shutters have definite advantages in flash sync, sound and shutter vibration. It is something that defines this camera. It would not have been the same without the leaf shutter.
p.29 #3 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
philber wrote:
Sorry if my question isn't as learned as most on this thread. The leaf shutters I know of (Sony RX-1, this Hassy) are used in a fixed-lens configuration. Is there any reason why they couldn't be designed on an interchangeable-lens camera?
I think Ron pinpoints the problems of shutter placement in the optical path in this post:
p.29 #4 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
killersnowman wrote:
Ive used a sony a7r for over a year and much prefered the color and tones from the canon files over that camera, even though the sony has "a superior, modern sensor"
These days that's like preferring an Ford over a Jaguar because the driver's seat was in a more comfortable position when it was delivered.
The profiles used by your RAW converter have a much greater influence on how the colours come out than the sensor/camera. But you can change the RAW converter profile, so you just need to find one that works for you (or create your own).
p.29 #5 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Fred Miranda wrote:
My theory is that bigger pixels allows for a stronger color filter array which translates to better tonal range and color response.
It's nothing to do with bigger pixels (the A7R has larger pixels than the Phase One XF100MP), it's simply a choice to have dyes with a narrower colour responses. That choice comes with downsides such as reduced sensitivity, and problems working under fluorescent lights, which is why 35mm cameras use dyes with greater transmission. But for a camera mostly used in the studio or under natural light it makes sense.
killersnowman wrote:
one question though....
why is 16bit Analog to Digital conversion limited to Medium Format? why has this not come to the 35mm world? is there something i am missing?
16-bit ADCs are slower than 14-bit ADCs. Again that is something that is acceptable for a studio/landscape camera, but less so in one used for events etc. Here the difference is even smaller.
Pixel size has an influence here also. Light is a discrete quantity - when you convert only 40,000 photons, trying to measure that with 65,000 values doesn't make a lot of sense. Now some MF sensors are probably capable of converting more than 65,000 photons, however you have a nonzero amount of noise in the process, if your read noise is 2e- then you're not really benefiting from those extra bits.
In any case you can always add a couple of bits of randomness to 14-bit RAW data, and that will also reduce banding in areas with very shallow gradients.
p.29 #6 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Just a thought from me regarding long lenses.
The only long lens that looks desirable to use with such a system is the HC 300. I had a look at the MTF curves (measured) for the current version, and they look terrific on their own.
It is difficult to compare MTF across anything and especially across systems. But at least we have some measured MTF curves at infinity and 10 through 50 lp/mm for many 35 lenses at TDP.
For simplicity, and to make it possible to compare at all, I round the crop factor to 0.8. Then we can compare MTF at 50 lp/mm for 35 mm lenses with 40 lp/mm for the HC. Remember to cut off the HC MTF charts at 27 mm image height for the 44x33 mm sensor.
It turns out that the Canon lens at ~200 mm is effectively sharper in the center, but towards the edges and corners they are quite close. So close that it would not be meaningful to say that there is an important optical difference in the final image for landscape use.
Now introduce the 1.7 TC and assume it doesn't degrade the image significantly on its own. For comparison, the effect of the maginfication can be compensated for by moving from the 50 lp/mm line to the 30 lp/mm lines for the 35 mm lens. That is factor of 1.7.
The Canon lens would be at 400 mm for comparable AOV. Again, it turns out that the Canon lens is effectively sharper in the center, and now the difference is higher. The advantage is also kept throughout the frame.
As long as I would have to use a teleconverter to get to focal lengths equivalent to 400 mm ont 35 mm format, there is a sacrifice in optical quality by using the best avalaible Hasselblad lens. And that comes on top of losing the possibility to get the desried framing using a zoom lens. This is not only about convenience, for this use it is not possible to change the framing by moving around. Cropping would effectively erode the advantage of the larger sensor.
So for the longest focal lengths, there is not only a price and weight penalty in addition to less convenience, but also a sacrifice in optical quality by moving to MF. If the advantages at other focal lengths are large enough, it is something that could be lived with, at least there is a viable option to get to ~250 and 400 mm effective focal lengths.
p.29 #7 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
freaklikeme wrote:
My guess is Sony is happy to be the enabler for digital MF without taking on the risks of a new camera and format, for now, at least.
For you all considering investing in this for a landscape camera, have you considered an Actus-DB and CVF-50c? You get the exact same sensor and a much broader range of focal lengths to choose from plus a lot more flexibility in movement. It'll be larger than the XD1 and it's native lenses, yes, but it will be significantly smaller than the XD1 + H-adapter + HTS + H lens.
I know it sounds expensive, but it doesn't have to be, at least not in comparison to buying into the XD1. With the current $10k new price on the back, gently used copies are going between $8 and 9k. I guess it's possible to pick up the Actus-DB used, but you don't see them often, so we'll just use the new price there of $3200 for the Actus, the DB mounting plate, and two Copal 0 boards. For the 45 and 90, I would go with Rodenstock's APO-Sironar-Digital 45/4.5 and 90/5.6, both of which pop up regularly used for a grand or less (I paid $725 for my 90 a year ago, and $800 for the 45 this year, both mint). You get a 115mm IC with the 45 and 150mm with the 90, so you'll run out of shift before you run out of IC with either. You'll want the center filter for the 45, which will run you another $300 and another $300 for the Kapture Group HA-001 release cable you'll need between the back and shutter. So all in, you wouldn't be looking at much more than the X1D and the native lenses.
For your wide solution, you could spend $12k new on a Hassy 28/4 and the HTS to end up with a 40/5.6 with a 70mm IC or $6k on a 24/4.8 with no movement because it doesn't work with the HTS, or you could spend $8k new on a Rodenstock HR Digaron-S 23mm with a 70mm IC that is 23mm and allows for movements. I know I may sound like a broken record when it comes to their lenses, but HR Digaron-S lenses couldn't be better designed to play with this sensor.
Another advantage of going the Actus route is that you can delve into the system in pieces and proceed as far as you wish or are able. You can start with the camera and your digital camera including those in the A7 series as a back and I believe some enlarging lenses to begin with to allow for focusing to infinty and for taking advantage of the camera's movements for distance and close-up. You can also use many mefdium format lenses to allow for movements (and possibly even infinity if the standards can be brought close enough to cover the need for a camera adapter to the camera body?). You can add those expensive new digital Rodenstock and Schneider lenses and digital back when you wish.
p.29 #10 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
flash wrote:
Me too. I like it better than some say on the internet. I find it's good to about 140 and then falls off at the long end on mini MF. I bought two copies. Both are about a stop behind my (excellent) 45-85 from 80-140mm and a bit behind the 120 and 150 at similar apertures.
It is a kilo though.
Gordon
I'm using mine with a Mirex adapter on a FF body for a small percentage of my landscape work.
p.29 #13 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
I should post a couple shots of my tech cam setup I had . Make your wallet melt in front of your eyes. Cambo anniversary model. Gorgeous
The lenses are making me drool. Those blue bands do not show up at bargain prices on the used markets.
The cameras are cool, but I'd rather deal with a bellows than worry about getting lenses with cones, helicoids, and TS bases. My dream kit at this point would be a CFV-100c back, the Actus-DB, the Digaron-W 40/4, and my 90 and 120 Macro. So, you know, I'm only a back that doesn't exists and I couldn't afford if it did, an Actus upgrade, and one very expensive lens away from my dream.
p.29 #16 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Brad,
Another advantage of going the Actus route is that you can delve into the system in pieces and proceed as far as you wish or are able. You can start with the camera and your digital camera including those in the A7 series as a back and I believe some enlarging lenses to begin with to allow for focusing to infinty and for taking advantage of the camera's movements for distance and close-up. You can also use many mefdium format lenses to allow for movements (and possibly even infinity if the standards can be brought close enough to cover the need for a camera adapter to the camera body?). You can add those expensive new digital Rodenstock and Schneider lenses and digital back when you wish.
Exactly, Rich. Although, in the long run, it is more expensive to purchase the Actus-Mini for DLSR's and then upgrade it to the DB-2, it is my eventual goal and, in the meantime, I get to use an awesome little camera with an a7x back and great lenses.
p.29 #18 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Yea forgot about the dang shutter. Okay you can use a copal shutter with enlarging lenses as well. Capture Integration has a lot of info on there site. There my drug dealer they sell all MF gear in phase, leaf and Hassy. Steve Hendrix has done a lot of testing with this. See if you can get some more info but a lot if glass you can use out there that don't cost you to sell your BMW. Lol
p.29 #19 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
flash wrote:
Is that what you want from a min MF camera? Tracking AF like a D5?
Gordon
I want it all for a minimum $12K system! (or nearly $27K system in the case of the Leica S)
But all kidding aside, if a camera manufacturer talks about having AF, I want it to be really good. I don't need AF for most of my shooting preferences (landscape, portraits), and so only use it when I can't realistically get critical focus in a given situation (e.g., fast moving subjects in action portraits, but nothing as challenging as wildlife or low-light sports). If the AF isn't any good at tracking, then it quite frankly isn't useful to me, and I would rather not have it. I can purchase smaller, less mechanically complex lenses that I can easily MF either through an EVF with focus peaking, a huge VF, or an RF.
p.29 #20 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Arka wrote:
I want it all for a minimum $12K system! (or nearly $27K system in the case of the Leica S)
But all kidding aside, if a camera manufacturer talks about having AF, I want it to be really good. I don't need AF for most of my shooting preferences (landscape, portraits), and so only use it when I can't realistically get critical focus in a given situation (e.g., fast moving subjects in action portraits, but nothing as challenging as wildlife or low-light sports). If the AF isn't any good at tracking, then it quite frankly isn't useful to me, and I would rather not have it. I can purchase smaller, less mechanically complex lenses that I can easily MF either through an EVF with focus peaking, a huge VF, or an RF. ...Show more →
Apparently, Sony's MF 50MP sensor does not have on-chip PDAF and therefore the new X1D mirrorless only works with CDAF. (A7R deja-vu)
To me, the X1D is what the "A7R" was to full frame 35mm, except for adaptability. Sony was able to lure many Canon shooters (myself included) into adapting their lenses and take advantage of the new sensor. The absence of a mechanical shutter, unfortunately lessens that appeal for the new Hassy mirrorless.
