I’ve been a faithful X1D 2 and 907x the past 2 years, bigger MP for the new X for me is not a priority. 50 is already plenty enough to process and print.
Maybe a full frame X will be a game changer, with 75mp.
One wish for me a silly flip screen would be nice on the X
When I got my first flip screen camera, I discovered the joy of shooting from waist-level. Once I started shooting film, I was very surprised that many film-based medium format cameras have a waist-level finder and were intended to be used in that position. I am surprised how some high end cameras still do not offer a flip screen, then again, kneeling down is still simple enough for me.
"Accordingly, the Hasselblad X2D could be equipped with the Sony IMX661 sensor. It has a resolution of almost 128 megapixels, creates 13 frames/s with a color depth of 14 bits and offers a so-called global shutter."
Oldwino wrote:
Maybe I am missing something here...but what use would a global shutter be if all of the XCD lenses have a central shutter built in?
The global shutter is almost certainly fantasy by people who would like to adapt lenses (it would be good for that), but with the leaf shutter lenses would serve little purpose on this camera. If they could do a global shutter it could be a lot faster than 13 fps as well. That spec on the sensor sounds like what can we dream up that would be clearly better than the Fuji 100(s) sensor? And then they reported that is what it is going to be.
The sensor that it seems people really want is fairly simple: 50MP with phase detect (make it BSI as well). If they could just do that and add IBIS to the camera I think the X2D will be a success.
Apr 25, 2022 at 10:10 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
flash wrote:
I shoot multiple mini MF systems (HB, Fuji, Leica and Pentax) and have to partially agree. Fujifilm seem like the only one moving forward in this space. The other three have stagnated or come to a complete stop, which is a shame becaue they all have merit.
As to what the X1d/907x do better than Fuji....
1. The ergonomics are vastly better. they don't just look good. They're design masterpieces.
2. The menus are VASTLY superior.
3. Leaf shutters.
4. The lenses are slightly better. A bit more accutance and a bit less CA. The weakest lens is the original 45mm and it's merely wonderful. The zoom is the best zoom I've ever used and the 80mm might be the best short portrait lens of all time.
5. If you shoot long exposures then the X1D has no equal. No need for dark frames to a metered hour long exposure with a programable timer remote release. And it let's you know how long the exposure has left.
6. Inbuilt GPS
7. Better colours. The HB colour science is unmatched. Fuji colours are fantastic. HB's are better.
I think on a tripod the X1D is a better camera, even though it has no flippy screen. The differences in the files are subtle but obvious between the Fuji and HB.
My GFX100S is my main system because of its flexibility and adaptability. And it's definitely the system I'd recommend to those going up a sensor size and those that print bigger than A3. The results are incredible. It has some zooms and fast lenses. IBIS and flippy screens. Adapts my Canon TS lenses well (as does the X1D) etc etc. When the 20-35 arrives it'll be fairly complete (although why there's a big gap in the zooms range no matter how you combine lenses is beyond me...) up to about 350mm (250+1.4x). In 99% of places you can shoot it like a big DSLR from Canikon with more... The 110mm is magic.
But *if* Hasselblad can get it together and actually get an X2D out the door with PDAF and IBIS then I'll switch back full time. There's *something* about the files that Fuji can't quite match. Until then I'll bounce between my M11 and 907/X1DII as my daily carry and use the Fuji when I'm serious.
Excellent summary Gordon. I am in a similar situation. I am about to change from the Fuji GFX 50S and I will probably just get the GFX 50S II, but there have been some somewhat maddening choices by Fuji. I think the 110 f/2 is brilliant, but it is awfully close in focal length to the 80 f/1.7 and the announced 55 f/1.7 is pretty close once again. They have really bunched the fast primes. If the X2D has PDAF and IBIS, then I might well go with Hassy for all the reasons you suggest. I think both the 80 f/1.9 and the 135 f/2.8 are brilliant and spaced much better than the Fuji lenses. If they would add something like a 45mm or even a 50mm f/2 I would be happy with just that lens and the 80 f/1.9 and 135 f/2.8 plus 90 and 135 Canon TSE lenses as a great MF kit for what I use it for. I will probably stay with Fuji for now, but I look forward to the possibility of moving to Hassy in the future for all the reasons you mention.
Oh, and although I don't shoot zooms, it is quite a puzzle why Fuji has the three normalish zooms 32-64; 35-75; and 45-100. I think the 20-35 makes very good sense, as does the 100-200 (although this is one of their weakest lenses), but combining these two with any of the 3 normalish zooms doesn't quite work. I think Fuji is at least 2 zoom lenses away from a coherent set of zooms for the GFX system.
The basic problem is that the 32-64 and 45-100 are not well matched and then they added the 35-75 which I guess is ok as a budget alternative, but it doesn't fix the problem. They could certainly add something like a 60-120 f/4 but the huge overlap with the 45-100 would of course be odd. They could also make another ultra wide, something like a 23-46 f/4, but the overlap with the 20-35 would be pretty odd too (if they are going to go with route then I expect the 20-35 to be f/5.6 or have a variable aperture and the 23-45 to be f/4). Regardless of what they decide to do with normal and wide zooms I think they still need a 120-250 f/4 or a 100-200 f/4 to get something more like a 70-200 f/2.8 on FF 35mm. And even that might not be enough as some landscape shooters are clamoring for something like a 200-400 f/5.6 or maybe it could be a 250-500 f/6.3. Suffice it to say that even though they are adding an ultra wide zoom before too long, I don't think Fuji is done building zooms any time soon,
Steve Spencer wrote:
Excellent summary Gordon. I am in a similar situation. I am about to change from the Fuji GFX 50S and I will probably just get the GFX 50S II, but there have been some somewhat maddening choices by Fuji. I think the 110 f/2 is brilliant, but it is awfully close in focal length to the 80 f/1.7 and the announced 55 f/1.7 is pretty close once again. They have really bunched the fast primes. If the X2D has PDAF and IBIS, then I might well go with Hassy for all the reasons you suggest. I think both the 80 f/1.9 and the 135 f/2.8 are brilliant and spaced much better than the Fuji lenses. If they would add something like a 45mm or even a 50mm f/2 I would be happy with just that lens and the 80 f/1.9 and 135 f/2.8 plus 90 and 135 Canon TSE lenses as a great MF kit for what I use it for. I will probably stay with Fuji for now, but I look forward to the possibility of moving to Hassy in the future for all the reasons you mention.
Oh, and although I don't shoot zooms, it is quite a puzzle why Fuji has the three normalish zooms 32-64; 35-75; and 45-100. I think the 20-35 makes very good sense, as does the 100-200 (although this is one of their weakest lenses), but combining these two with any of the 3 normalish zooms doesn't quite work. I think Fuji is at least 2 zoom lenses away from a coherent set of zooms for the GFX system.
The basic problem is that the 32-64 and 45-100 are not well matched and then they added the 35-75 which I guess is ok as a budget alternative, but it doesn't fix the problem. They could certainly add something like a 60-120 f/4 but the huge overlap with the 45-100 would of course be odd. They could also make another ultra wide, something like a 23-46 f/4, but the overlap with the 20-35 would be pretty odd too (if they are going to go with route then I expect the 20-35 to be f/5.6 or have a variable aperture and the 23-45 to be f/4). Regardless of what they decide to do with normal and wide zooms I think they still need a 120-250 f/4 or a 100-200 f/4 to get something more like a 70-200 f/2.8 on FF 35mm. And even that might not be enough as some landscape shooters are clamoring for something like a 200-400 f/5.6 or maybe it could be a 250-500 f/6.3. Suffice it to say that even though they are adding an ultra wide zoom before too long, I don't think Fuji is done building zooms any time soon,...Show more →
Yes. I agree with everything you've said here. Some of the choices made by both companies is strange.
Firsitly the disclaimer that either system is capable of stunning results and we're taliking about small percentages, not gaping differences......
Generally I prefer Hasselblad's lenses. On average the HB lens is slightly better than the Fuji one. Except the 110 and 250 which are staggering. The 110 is one of the great lenses of all time. The HB range is chock full of epic glass. The weakest lens, the original 45, is merely as good as Fujis. Meaning it's also excellent. The 80 1.9, 135, 120, 65, 21 are all epic. If you get the 135 with the TC you can then use it on the HC210 to give you the reach the Fuji has (combined with the adaptor) with its 250 and TC.
Hasselblad desparately needs an 80-160 zoom to compliment the 35-75. The 35-75 is by a country mile the best zoom on the planet. So good it keeps up with the primes I mentioned above. They also need a 25/28mm to fill a hole in the range. But without at least one more zoom it's a big bag to drag up a hill.
On the plus side adapting HC lenses is well catered for. A plain adaptor or a reducer are available. With the adaptor you can also use the XCD teleconverter on HC lenses.
I can't agree more with Fuji's weird ass approach to the standard zoom. Sony and Olympus also have 5 options for a standard zoom. I don't get it. The upcoming 20-35 is ideal and it'll fit with the 45-100 and the 100-200 (the weakest of Fujis zooms but still not a bad lens. Very good actually). But why they didn't try for a 20-45 or make the 45-100 a 35-100 seems strange to me. Fuji have a few primes they need in the wide end. Again a 25mm would be nice.
The big worry is, of course, what's happening internally at Hasselblad. There's been nothing new for 4 years (907x was announced that long ago). I can shoot basically forever with what I have. But I do have concerns that if HB go down that batteries will become an issue into the future. Are they becoming another Pentax? Still here but not really. I think a well calculated leak or a development announcement (think Nikon Z9) wouldn't do them any harm.
I'm off on a six week road trip next week and interestingly it's the 'blad I'm leaving at home. I'm taking the GFX100S and my M11/M10M. This'll be the first road trip in 5 years I haven't had the blad with me. I don't know what that's saying but it's saying something. Mostly about the M11 I think.
flash wrote:
The big worry is, of course, what's happening internally at Hasselblad. There's been nothing new for 4 years (907x was announced that long ago).
I agree. The 45P was launched in January 2020 and the 907x came one month afterwards (but was announced much earlier).
That is simply too big of a gap... Hopefully there is some news soon.
Having a focal plane shutter is must for me to consider it. I personally don’t care much about resolution. I am not a fan for X lenses mainly due to focus by wire implementation.
Having said that, GFX is really a good tool I have to say. Just need a bit better ergo and menu implementation IMHO. At the time of new X, GFX may due an update as well. I look forward to seeing what will they do. In the meantime, my highest expectation/hope is still Leica S MILC camera if there is one.
Has anyone noticed lately that some brand new H lenses in box never opened (not the orange dot ver) are selling on EBay for 1/5 the original price. It seems some dealers must know what’s about to happen with Hasselblad.
2613pch wrote:
Has anyone noticed lately that some brand new H lenses in box never opened (not the orange dot ver) are selling on EBay for 1/5 the original price. It seems some dealers must know what’s about to happen with Hasselblad.
Well, I think it pretty much accepted that Hasselblad is dropping the H series. So those lenses need to find homes.
zhangyue wrote:
In the meantime, my highest expectation/hope is still Leica S MILC camera if there is one.
Nor sure who the target audience would be?
If certain rumors are to be believed less than 1,000 bodies of the S3 were produced...
The main reason for that obviously is that Leica has not shown any commitment to the S since a long time... but with the SL they kind of already built a medium format system (albeit in 35mm)...
If Leica does the mirrorless S well (provided there is one) it would almost certainly eat into SL sales (more IMO than in Fuji, Hasselblad or Phase One sales).
Curious to see what comes of this. Hasselblad feels like a company on slightly shaky ground because they haven't honed in on what they want to be in this new world. They're not quite an aspirational luxury camera brand like Leica and they're also not going for bleeding edge image quality, they've ceded that ground to Phase One. They're not trying to be affordable MF because that feels off brand, Fuji is eating there, and perhaps they desire higher margins?
They seem to be in a bit of a no man's land but who knows. I still love my 503CW and love the idea of the CFV backs, but haven't bought one because sensor size/price/tech. It's been the perfect marriage of no, for me. I hope that changes one day.
Oldwino wrote:
Maybe I am missing something here...but what use would a global shutter be if all of the XCD lenses have a central shutter built in?
Uh ...
You mean other than getting like up to 1/16,000 or 1/32,000 sec or possibly even higher shutterspeeds with full flash sync and no rolling shutter ever, and not having any wear and tear on any physical shutter mechanism, thus having a camera with potentially unlimited lifetime ?
Also I think that Fujifilm has no central shutter in their lenses for exactly this reason, because they're planning to go organic sensor with lossless global shutter in the end.
