p.4 #1 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Anyway, I'd get this Hassy over the Pentax 645Z simply due to the size difference. I've played with the 645D/Z models at trade shows and could never get past the size.....
I'm guessing there might be a lot of Pentax cameras hitting the used market soon... (depending on interim lens adaptability to the Hassy)
p.4 #2 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Aren't sharp to blur transitions a function of lens design, and not inherent to the format? Explain how a slight increase in sensor size using a slower lens translates to a differing sharp to blur transition. The Leica lenses might give you a different look than what you get on the Sony/Zeiss lenses, but as a result of the format? Nah.
Man, there are people (not just in the general public but on serious photography and cinematography forums) who are completely oblivious to color profiles / color science / debayering algorithms to such an extent that (a) in the cine world many select cameras based on their default profiles (nevermind that you can change those even if you *aren't* shooting raw) and (b) here the stills world people actually think CCD has an inherently different look than CMOS (and Leica is actually rumored to be releasing a CCD camera to appease them).
You're never going to convince these people that blur transition is inherent to lens design not frame size or that color gradation is inherent to bit depth not frame size. Might as well save yourself the heartburn.
p.4 #3 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Personally I am happy to see Hassy jump in the water, others will follow and most likely be more cost effective solutions. It's a start of great things to come in mirrorless MF. For many years in my film days I used a pair of MF rangefinder cameras, the Plaubel Makina 67 & 67W and have been hoping for a digital equivalent ever since they were retired. Here's hoping!
p.4 #4 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Lee Saxon wrote:
Man, there are people (not just in the general public but on serious photography and cinematography forums) who are completely oblivious to color profiles / color science / debayering algorithms to such an extent that (a) in the cine world many select cameras based on their default profiles (nevermind that you can change those even if you *aren't* shooting raw) and (b) here the stills world people actually think CCD has an inherently different look than CMOS (and Leica is actually rumored to be releasing a CCD camera to appease them).
You're never going to convince these people that blur transition is inherent to lens design not frame size or that color gradation is inherent to bit depth not frame size. Might as well save yourself the heartburn.
Heck, I've been trying for years to correct the fallacy that longer focal lengths change perspective. Especially egregious is when they say they like FF because an 85mm lens has a more flattering perspective and compression vs. a 55mm lens on APS-C. (If you believe that, you're wrong...perspective is solely a function of distance).
p.4 #5 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
freaklikeme wrote:
Not the newer, designed for digital lenses. Rrodenstock's Digaron HR's are designed to hit their peak wide open or one stop down, and this camera looks like it's just begging to be used with those lenses on a tech cam like the Actus or the f-Universalis. If the camera has a focal plane shutter, I will be waiting patiently for decently priced used model.
Hi Brad,
Unless I am mistaken, Rodenstock and Schneider have deisinged the newer digital designed lenses sharpness at larger apertures at the expense of DOF. In the past of course in the case of the film based lenses were of great importance for landscape and other areas where DOF is important. Perhaps it is time for Rodenstock and Schneider to also design newet lenses with that to be considered as well as having larger image circles for camera movement.
Having not used the newer Digital lenses on my 4" X 5" cameras I can not say how they perform when stopped down and when needing movements on what would be medium format film (or a digital back) since these lenses are designed for medium and not large format.
p.4 #6 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
IF this turns out to use leaf shutter lenses and there is not an electronic shutter option of some sort, it's appeal will be fairly dimished as it will in essence be a closed system. It's going to be interesting to see if that's the case or not.
p.4 #7 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
rscheffler wrote:
I'm looking forward to seeing the full specs on Wednesday before deciding whether Leica, Pentax, and Phase have a lot to worry about.
I think its going to be great news for Hasselblad! Quite a change from the past few years. Keep in mind they have the 50mp digital back at a pretty good price too. Its a nice turn around.
Leica ... well I gave up on the M-dreams the moment Zeiss released the first Loxia 50mm, an I guess that with the money I saved I'm more than half way towards owning this new Hasselblad From what I can tell, Leica is mostly selling the Q and SL to existing customers, so I wonder if they will notice too much.
p.4 #8 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Lee Saxon wrote:
Man, there are people (not just in the general public but on serious photography and cinematography forums) who are completely oblivious to color profiles / color science / debayering algorithms to such an extent that (a) in the cine world many select cameras based on their default profiles (nevermind that you can change those even if you *aren't* shooting raw) and (b) here the stills world people actually think CCD has an inherently different look than CMOS (and Leica is actually rumored to be releasing a CCD camera to appease them).
You're never going to convince these people that blur transition is inherent to lens design not frame size or that color gradation is inherent to bit depth not frame size. Might as well save yourself the heartburn.
No, but these things aren't totally independent either. You may not be able to look at the output of 10 cameras and sort them by CCD and CMOS-- but you're kidding yourself (and taking too much hear burn medicine) if you think that the design constraints associated with CCD vs CMOS don't have an impact on the output (or choices made regarding electronics and knock-on impacts on color science decisions).
Jman13 wrote:
Heck, I've been trying for years to correct the fallacy that longer focal lengths change perspective. Especially egregious is when they say they like FF because an 85mm lens has a more flattering perspective and compression vs. a 55mm lens on APS-C. (If you believe that, you're wrong...perspective is solely a function of distance).
This is another straw man. Perspective doesn't change because of focal lengths-- but back in the real world photographers move forward or backward when framing an image in part because of the focal length of their lenses and the format of what they are shooting (not to mention sticky things like MFD). It doesn't matter that you can get the same perspective shooting a 14mm or 400mm lens... in the real world you don't shoot those two lenses at the same subjects from the same distances (and that's not even discussing resolution, enlargement, output, viewing distance).
Similar relationships hold when considering larger formats.
Optics is one thing (my background is physics, mind you). Actual shooting, in the real world, means that we ultimately think and make decisions in terms of concepts like "functionally" and "equivalent."
p.4 #9 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
justruss wrote:
You get a different look from the larger sensor and photosites. It's not just in terms of technical measures we like to look at like noise, DR, and DOF*.
*In my experience as a professional photographer and earlier as an assistant to commercial photographers, shallow DOF is almost universally a quality chased by amateurs and enthusiasts. These lenses are going to be shot mostly stopped down for work, often quite a bit. So I'd take DOF right off the table as a factor.
My issue with this is that the sensor in this new camera is only slightly bigger than full frame, which means all of the lauded advantages finer tonal graduations, DOF transitions or whatever, are only slightly better.
I'm thrilled that it exists as it's the first truly mirrorless medium format camera and it lends credibility to mirrorless designs in general, but I'm not buying into the hype surrounding medium format when it's not even full frame 645 (which itself always used to be the baby of the MF crowd).
p.4 #10 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Bottom line Matt is the jump is not that great here. But for folks that are currently shooting this sensor . They may jump all over this. Sony still has its advantages in many different areas. For me this is very limited use cam so it's a no go unless I kept my Sonys and I need the lottery for that hat trick. This for a niche MF shooter that is sick of the big DSLR bodies aka Pentax , Phase , Hassy and Leica S . A lot of MF guys mostly landscape high end hobbyist will be first in line.
Matt Grum wrote:
My issue with this is that the sensor in this new camera is only slightly bigger than full frame, which means all of the lauded advantages finer tonal graduations, DOF transitions or whatever, are only slightly better.
I'm thrilled that it exists as it's the first truly mirrorless medium format camera and it lends credibility to mirrorless designs in general, but I'm not buying into the hype surrounding medium format when it's not even full frame 645 (which itself always used to be the baby of the MF crowd).
p.4 #11 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
Bottom line Matt is the jump is not that great here. But for folks that are currently shooting this sensor . They may jump all over this. Sony still has its advantages in many different areas. For me this is very limited use cam so it's a no go unless I kept my Sonys and I need the lottery for that hat trick. This for a niche MF shooter that is sick of the big DSLR bodies aka Pentax , Phase , Hassy and Leica S . A lot of MF guys mostly landscape high end hobbyist will be first in line.
p.4 #12 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Taylor Sherman wrote:
Well, given that the sensor is barely visible behind the mount, I'd say they've committed to this size and nothing larger.
I think that the demand for true 4.5 x 6cm sensors is likely to be quite small. The quality obtainable from the 33mm x 44mm mini MF sensors is really quite excellent. Except for the lower MP, it is roughly equivalent to stitching two 24mm x 36mm 50 MP frames with room for overlap.
Such cameras could eventually be the ideal for those whose highest goals include best print quality. That is a small market perhaps...
Jman13 wrote:
I guess I don't really get it that much....
and... justruss replied:
You get a different look from the larger sensor and photo sites...
Yes, but... the difference is not nearly equivalent to the difference between full frame DSLR (24mm x 36mm) and old school MF (which was 645 or larger). There are a few ways that 33mm x 44mm 50MP can improve on 24mm x 36mm 50MP, though the difference is likely to be significant to a somewhat small group. The larger format holds the potential for better system resolution, which is different thing than sensor or lens resolution. There are potential noise/DR advantages. Higher photo site densities could achieve some extremely high sensor resolution levels.
There are some downsides as well. Cost is clearly one. The size and bulk/weight of lenses is another. The difficulty of producing very long lenses is an issue. Given the extremely high quality obtainable by current full frame systems, the point at which the improvements from mini MF become visible is far enough out toward the edge that most users won't find it to be a good trade.
Some who prefer the 4:3 aspect ratio (and I'm in this camp) will find that to be an advantage over full frame cameras with the same MP but using the 3:2 ratio.
p.4 #13 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
At the assumed sensor size, I would have wanted the 90 to have been an f/2.8 at least. Even though I'm unloading my Leica gear (due to problems I'm having with current management) I'd sooner take a 100/2 + S-006.
p.4 #14 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
rscheffler wrote:
Anyway, I'd get this Hassy over the Pentax 645Z simply due to the size difference. I've played with the 645D/Z models at trade shows and could never get past the size.....
I'm guessing there might be a lot of Pentax cameras hitting the used market soon... (depending on interim lens adaptability to the Hassy)
Definitely seems to have a lot going for it over the Pentax, but no UWA options and most likely a lack of weather sealing are the first things that jump to mind. I hope these lens prices will put some pressure on Pentax to release a new lens that's less than $4k.
This design with a full 645 sensor would be amazing and would solve the UWA problem.
p.4 #15 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Ryan, the assumption of course is Hassy will bring out those UWA lenses. Right now the camera is like the original a7 from Sony... a couple lenses to get you going and probably the assumption of lens adaptability for the rest or your current needs, assuming there's a suitable shutter option, etc. You can buy it to shoot alongside your Pentax and slowly transition to Hasselblad as the desired lenses materialize. Seems to be very much how things are working for Sony. Initially everyone wanted to and had to adapt lenses to them, now it seems most prefer the convenience of native lens mount support.
freaklikeme wrote:
Not the newer, designed for digital lenses. Rrodenstock's Digaron HR's are designed to hit their peak wide open or one stop down, and this camera looks like it's just begging to be used with those lenses on a tech cam like the Actus or the f-Universalis. If the camera has a focal plane shutter, I will be waiting patiently for decently priced used model.
naturephoto1 wrote:
Hi Brad,
Unless I am mistaken, Rodenstock and Schneider have deisinged the newer digital designed lenses sharpness at larger apertures at the expense of DOF. In the past of course in the case of the film based lenses were of great importance for landscape and other areas where DOF is important. Perhaps it is time for Rodenstock and Schneider to also design newet lenses with that to be considered as well as having larger image circles for camera movement.
Having not used the newer Digital lenses on my 4" X 5" cameras I can not say how they perform when stopped down and when needing movements on what would be medium format film (or a digital back) since these lenses are designed for medium and not large format.
Rich, those digital lenses are optimized for MF DB coverage, so they're not going to project a large enough image circle for use on traditional 4x5. They're so highly optimized specifically due to the smaller imaging area and the resulting need to enlarge the images considerably more than you would with a 4x5 or 8x10 film image. Those film-era lenses didn't have to contend with 10-20x enlargements, for the most part. Therefore they didn't have to deliver the super-high lp/mm performance the digitally-optimized lenses do. Since enlargement was so low, diffraction effects played a minimal role, if any, in final image quality. Not the case for relatively small sensor digital images.
p.4 #16 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Assuming this thing is real, the biggest question for me is "what's missing." $8995 is what I would expect such a camera from Pentax to cost, and perhaps half what I would expect from Hasselblad. Hell it's barely more than the SL.
p.4 #17 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
adamdewilde wrote:
At the assumed sensor size, I would have wanted the 90 to have been an f/2.8 at least. Even though I'm unloading my Leica gear (due to problems I'm having with current management) I'd sooner take a 100/2 + S-006.
Or wait to see what Fuji cooks up :P
Hassy is taking Sony's footsteps. They released a mirrorless camera along with two compact lenses. (35/2.8 and 70/2.5 full frame equiv.) Sony did the same with their A7R and FE 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 lenses + existing adapted lenses.
The are definitely pushing the idea of best of both worlds. Superior MF IQ in a small system.
p.4 #18 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
rscheffler wrote:
Ryan, the assumption of course is Hassy will bring out those UWA lenses. Right now the camera is like the original a7 from Sony... a couple lenses to get you going and probably the assumption of lens adaptability for the rest or your current needs, assuming there's a suitable shutter option, etc. You can buy it to shoot alongside your Pentax and slowly transition to Hasselblad as the desired lenses materialize. Seems to be very much how things are working for Sony. Initially everyone wanted to and had to adapt lenses to them, now it seems most prefer the convenience of native lens mount support.
Rich, those digital lenses are optimized for MF DB coverage, so they're not going to project a large enough image circle for use on traditional 4x5. They're so highly optimized specifically due to the smaller imaging area and the resulting need to enlarge the images considerably more than you would with a 4x5 or 8x10 film image. Those film-era lenses didn't have to contend with 10-20x enlargements, for the most part. Therefore they didn't have to deliver the super-high lp/mm performance the digitally-optimized lenses do. Since enlargement was so low, diffraction effects played a minimal role, if any, in final image quality. Not the case for relatively small sensor digital images....Show more →
Hi Ron,
I knew the newer digital lenses were designed for MF. That was why I was suggesting using them on my LF camera with MF film or a digital back. I knew they would not cover 4" X 5". But, there is a place for the need for greater DOF and or image circle to provide for tilt, shift, rise and fall. But, I have not had the opportunity to use these lenses to see how they would fare for these applications. If they do not fare that well, then as I had mentioned, it may be appropriate for Rodenstock and Schneider to design lenses that would afford that ability and where more DOF is required.
p.4 #20 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Personally, I find the difference between the A7R2 and the Pentax 645Z significant, well beyond the modest resolution differences. If this is the same sensor (and H get the same performance out of it as Pentax) then it's going to be very interesting. It'll need a lens range for me to give up my Pentax but this is the right camera for me. I'm just finishing a 5 day landscape trip and the 645Z is in my pack and the SOny is at home. I'd love to have a lighter *system* with this performance.
From what I can tell, Leica is mostly selling the Q and SL to existing customers, so I wonder if they will notice too much.
.