BrandonSi wrote:
That's my hope as well.. I'm sure I was one of the first orders they had, so hoping I made the cut. I have a backup order elsewhere, but not sure if I would've made their first allotment. Perhaps in the grand old tradition of waiting for camera gear, I'll start a "Shipping" thread for all of us waiters to complain in.. :P
I suspect part of the shipping preferences will go to the Hasselblad Corporate direct sales, whereas I prefer to support my long term Hasselblad dealer which I suspect will only cause a further delay. I too ordered first day but I am 3rd in line at this very good store but I have prepared myself for a longer wait vs had I ordered direct.
What do you think of the very short sequence in the teaser video starting at about 01:34 min?
Has anyone noticed it yet?
Take a closer look.
Is this face detection or is it just the camera moving?
What do you think of the very short sequence in the teaser video starting at about 01:34 min?
Has anyone noticed it yet?
Take a closer look.
Is this face detection or is it just the camera moving?
It's already been reported that face/eye detect is coming in an update.
An interesting new feature in X2D is the ability to write Log Data to the card and send it to Hasselblad in case of a problem. DJI has it in its drones. I assume it helps improve the stability of the camera.
I was tempted by the A1 as well, but it's too much of an in-between for me.. Not quite at X1D II levels for IQ, and is too much camera for just some soccer and kids stuff.
I had the x100v for a while, I just didn't gel with it. I couldn't get over it feeling cheap and it just wasn't special in any way or inspiring to me. The Q2 was much better in that regard, and the GR III(x) is just so small and tiny and, while plasticky, is still rather dense and solid.
Maybe I'll give the x100 series another shot whenever they drop in the new 42 mp sensor. For now, the X-T4 and XF 18mm f/2 is a pretty tiny and capable package.. and even when I swap in the kit 18-55 it's still very portable.
Curious to see how the a7c and a7IV perform against each other. I think the a7c AF is supposed to be the next-gen after the A7 III.. and obviously A7 IV is even newer. Rentals should be in on Tuesday..
I took your advice and decided against the X100V. I probably won't be able to get past how cheap it feels. For the time being I'll use my A7C with a Samyang 35/1.8 and ECM-G1 (mini mic) as a walkaround camera. It's about the same size/weight as the Q2, but I'd gain eye AF, a flip screen and capable video capabilities, which are all important nowadays for my grandkids.
And my order is in for the X2D and 38. I also pre-ordered the 90. I think I'll skip the 55 as it's a bit too close to the 38, and I'll probably pick up the 21 again down the line.
snappu wrote:
I think I'll skip the 55 as it's a bit too close to the 38, and I'll probably pick up the 21 again down the line.
It's about 30% difference in focal length, which is pretty significant. I think the key question is whether either lens appears shorter or longer relative to the stated 35mm-equivalent focal length...in other words, is the 38 a "true" 30mm equivalent or closer to 32mm on FF? Or is the 55 closer to 45mm in 35mm FF equivalent?
I'm a 35mm focal length guy and as I consider swapping my M11 for an X2D, I am debating between the new 38 and 55 or the existing 45P. I want the faster lenses so it'll be an interesting question about the apparent focal length vs stated and which one gets me closer to what looks/feels like a 35mm lens on FF.
Sep 19, 2022 at 12:19 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
It's about 30% difference in focal length, which is pretty significant. I think the key question is whether either lens appears shorter or longer relative to the stated 35mm-equivalent focal length...in other words, is the 38 a "true" 30mm equivalent or closer to 32mm on FF? Or is the 55 closer to 45mm in 35mm FF equivalent?
I'm a 35mm focal length guy and as I consider swapping my M11 for an X2D, I am debating between the new 38 and 55 or the existing 45P. I want the faster lenses so it'll be an interesting question about the apparent focal length vs stated and which one gets me closer to what looks/feels like a 35mm lens on FF. ...Show more →
What would attract me to the 38mm is that is you use a 4 X 3 (or 4 X 5) aspect ratio commonly on both camera (as I do), then the 38mm on the Hassy will be like a 28mm on full frame 35mm, and the 55 will be like a 40mm. I have always liked both angles of view on both full frame 35mm and 44 X 33 mm sensors.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What would attract me to the 38mm is that is you use a 4 X 3 (or 4 X 5) aspect ratio commonly on both camera (as I do), then the 38mm on the Hassy will be like a 28mm on full frame 35mm, and the 55 will be like a 40mm. I have always liked both angles of view on both full frame 35mm and 44 X 33 mm sensors.
Not sure this is right. A 4:3 aspect ratio is (I think) going to feel tighter/narrower than a 3:2, isn't it? So the Hasselblad 38 is going to feel tighter than the crop factor would have you think.
If you look at a comparison of 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd need a wider lens on a 4:3 to capture a similar amount of context around your subject?
Sep 19, 2022 at 04:40 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
Not sure this is right. A 4:3 aspect ratio is (I think) going to feel tighter/narrower than a 3:2, isn't it? So the Hasselblad 38 is going to feel tighter than the crop factor would have you think.
If you look at a comparison of 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios, wouldn't it stand to reason that you'd need a wider lens on a 4:3 to capture a similar amount of context around your subject?
That totally depends if you are talking context horizontally or vertically. You will get opposite answers depending on what you choose. The numbers I provided are accurate, but they assume you are using the same aspect ratio for both cameras. That means you are cropping the full frame 35mm to 4 X 3 or 4 X 5 and personally I do that with the majority of my shots on full frame 35mm. I really dislike the 3 X 2 aspect ratio especially in portrait mode, so I don't use it very often at all. So for me the right crop factor, as I shoot full frame 35mm the majority of the time cropping to a squarer aspect ratio, is .727. The math is right and I can go through it if you like, but it is kind of tedious.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That totally depends if you are talking context horizontally or vertically. You will get opposite answers depending on what you choose. The numbers I provided are accurate, but they assume you are using the same aspect ratio for both cameras. That means you are cropping the full frame 35mm to 4 X 3 or 4 X 5 and personally I do that with the majority of my shots on full frame 35mm. I really dislike the 3 X 2 aspect ratio especially in portrait mode, so I don't use it very often at all. So for me the right crop factor, as I shoot full frame 35mm the majority of the time cropping to a squarer aspect ratio, is .727. The math is right and I can go through it if you like, but it is kind of tedious....Show more →
Let's assume horizontal/landscape orientation. I'm coming from FF and not regularly cropping to a different aspect ratio. So what is the crop factor going from 3:2 aspect ratio on a FF 35mm sensor to a 4:3 aspect ratio on a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor?
Sep 19, 2022 at 05:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
Let's assume horizontal/landscape orientation. I'm coming from FF and not regularly cropping to a different aspect ratio. So what is the crop factor going from 3:2 aspect ratio on a FF 35mm sensor to a 4:3 aspect ratio on a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor?
I think what you have to realize is that if you have a different aspect ratio, then you have a different picture. If you like the skinny rectangle of a 3 X 2 aspect ratio, then you will need to crop the medium format image to have that look. If you do so, then the crop factor is .818. If you really like the 3 X 2 aspect ratio, however, you might be better served by looking at the Leica S medium format system that is native 3 X 2 aspect ratio and the crop ratio is .8 without any cropping as that sensor is 30 X 45 mm.
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
Let's assume horizontal/landscape orientation. I'm coming from FF and not regularly cropping to a different aspect ratio. So what is the crop factor going from 3:2 aspect ratio on a FF 35mm sensor to a 4:3 aspect ratio on a 43.8 x 32.9mm sensor?
If you crop like that (you'll more than likely just adapt to the new ratio) to 2:3, then the XCD38V will be like a 32-33mmmm and the 45P will be like a 37-38mm. The 55V will be around a 45-47mm. But the 45P is a poor performer Af wide on the X2D. The difference in AF speed between the 45P and 38V is vast.
Ignoring the change in ratio without any cropping the 55V is equivalent to a 43mm and the 38V is a 30mm.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think what you have to realize is that if you have a different aspect ratio, then you have a different picture. If you like the skinny rectangle of a 3 X 2 aspect ratio, then you will need to crop the medium format image to have that look. If you do so, then the crop factor is .818. If you really like the 3 X 2 aspect ratio, however, you might be better served by looking at the Leica S medium format system that is native 3 X 2 aspect ratio and the crop ratio is .8 without any cropping as that sensor is 30 X 45 mm....Show more →
This is a huge truth, that is no matter what focal length equivalence math you use, 4:3 changes everything. The images will never look like a 35mm lens on a 35mm sensor. You’d have to crop to 3:2, in which case you’re getting very little benefit from moving up in sensor size. Of course, you might find that you really like 4:3 images and are ok with the results from an equivalent focal length.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That totally depends if you are talking context horizontally or vertically. You will get opposite answers depending on what you choose. The numbers I provided are accurate, but they assume you are using the same aspect ratio for both cameras. That means you are cropping the full frame 35mm to 4 X 3 or 4 X 5 and personally I do that with the majority of my shots on full frame 35mm. I really dislike the 3 X 2 aspect ratio especially in portrait mode, so I don't use it very often at all. So for me the right crop factor, as I shoot full frame 35mm the majority of the time cropping to a squarer aspect ratio, is .727. The math is right and I can go through it if you like, but it is kind of tedious....Show more →
I also detest 3:2 in portrait mode (& shot mainly Mamiya 7 for over 15 years, which looked perfect in portrait mode), but my modus operandi now is to shoot 3:2 vertically, composing in my mind knowing I will chop off the bottom of the frame to make it approximately 4x5 ratio, which is more pleasing to my eye. The effect is exactly equivalent to having a built-in shift to the lens, leading to fewer problems with convergence. Of course you "lose" pixels, but the lower degree of keystone correction actually makes up for some of that. Having shot so many years in 4x5 or 6x7 ratio I can do it all previsualized, and don't need frame lines to compose.
If you like shooting panaramic formats, then using the X2D and cropping the top (or bottom) to get the aspect ratio you want will also be equivalent to having quite a bit of shift in your lenses. Don't fret the loss of pixels!
highdesertmesa wrote:
This is a huge truth, that is no matter what focal length equivalence math you use, 4:3 changes everything. The images will never look like a 35mm lens on a 35mm sensor. You’d have to crop to 3:2, in which case you’re getting very little benefit from moving up in sensor size. Of course, you might find that you really like 4:3 images and are ok with the results from an equivalent focal length.
AT 3:2 you'd still have a 43.9x29.3mm sensor and nearly 90MP. Quite close, actually to the original 43.9x 32.9mm and 102MP.
The visual benefits/changes are huge. The actual crop is small.
It's a bigger crop to go from 3:2 to 4:3 than the other way around.
Tested the new 38V and 55V lenses on my older X1DII and 907x after todays firmware upgrade. The function ring is now usable with the XCD-V lenses and programable. You don't get the same focus assist as the X2D though. Only auto enlarge and focus peaking are supported, as before.
I might be imagining it but it felt like the new lenses got a small bump in AF speed as well on the X1DII. It *feels* like they're faster.
ArchnemeSwiss wrote:
It's about 30% difference in focal length, which is pretty significant.
For me, a 30 and a 43 (FF-equivalent FL) is too close. I prefer at least a 70-80% spread. With my M cameras, for example, I never carried a 35 and 50 together. For a 2 lens kit, I've always preferred 35/75 and for a 3 lens kit it was 28/50/90.
I bought the 38V as my first lens, and my second lens will likely be the 90V or 80. Next will be a wide. If I had as many XCD lenses as Gordon I might purchase both, but as I am rebuilding my Hassy kit from scratch I would get the zoom before even considering the 55.
flash wrote:
Tested the new 38V and 55V lenses on my older X1DII and 907x after todays firmware upgrade. The function ring is now usable with the XCD-V lenses and programable. You don't get the same focus assist as the X2D though. Only auto enlarge and focus peaking are supported, as before.
I might be imagining it but it felt like the new lenses got a small bump in AF speed as well on the X1DII. It *feels* like they're faster.
).