DWOfPaul wrote:
Some mounts might be big enough to accommodate it, but I think in general, if we want a square 36mm sensor with lenses that have good corner sharpness, we would need a mount with a larger throat diameter and larger lenses. Admittedly, the flexibility of a 36mm square sensor would be cool.
Canon (54mm) and Nikon (55mm) already have very wide mounts, especially compared to Sony (46.1mm).
For Sony, it would make more sense to go straight to 44x33 rather than modify their 135 sensors. They would own the market with a stacked or partially stacked sensor 44x33 camera.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Canon (54mm) and Nikon (55mm) already have very wide mounts, especially compared to Sony (46.1mm).
For Sony, it would make more sense to go straight to 44x33 rather than modify their 135 sensors. They would own the market with a stacked or partially stacked sensor 44x33 camera.
They would own the market if they could tame down their IU to a reasonable level like Hasselblad, talking 44x33.
Out of curiosity, I did some quick comparisons of the Hasselblad XD2 vs the Fuji GFX, and I have to admit I do seem to prefer the results from Hasselblad over all. Maybe Hasselblad has pulled some extra magic out of MF then Fuji. I have spent more time looking into Fuji in the past because, price aside, worse AF, being limited to leaf shutter lenses, and having such a small selection of lenses available makes the X system fairly unattractive to me currently.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Out of curiosity, I did some quick comparisons of the Hasselblad XD2 vs the Fuji GFX, and I have to admit I do seem to prefer the results from Hasselblad over all. Maybe Hasselblad has pulled some extra magic out of MF then Fuji. I have spent more time looking into Fuji in the past because, price aside, worse AF, being limited to leaf shutter lenses, and having such a small selection of lenses available makes the X system fairly unattractive to me currently.
How did you compare? JPEG or RAW? I ask because the only way to get the real deal "Hasselblad Natural Color System" results with RAW files is to develop the Hasselblad RAW file in Phocus. Lightroom and Bridge have a camera matching profile for Hasselblad RAW, but it's not the same.
On the Fuji side, the only way to get the real deal Fuji image is to process the RAW file in camera and export as a JPEG (or TIFF if you're using X-Raw Studio, which processes using the camera). The Lightroom camera matching profiles for Fuji RAW files are OK but not the same as Fuji's own film simulations. And then there's the question, which of the Fuji film simulations did you decide was "Fuji" when you compared to Hasselblad?
I'm not trying to be difficult here! It's just that there's a lot going on under the hood that makes comparing output from System A to System B complicated.
I quite like the Hasseblad colours you get when you use the whole Hasselblad Natural Colour System, but I can get where I want to with Fuji GFX using camera profiles.
X2D RAW files in LR at least need no WB fiddling. Phocus indeed helps the colors, and the Phocus 2 mobile app is phenomenal...I tried getting it to work on my Apple Silicone Studio but couldn't get it to see the camera...a bummer, because it has just about every major editing control I need where Photoshop can handle the extras it doesn't as needed.
You certainly don't NEED to let the GFX create a JPEG, you can easily use X RAW Studio and do everything the camera can do from a color point of view. Using X RAW Studio is the same idea as using Phocus...any other software is just an approximation. X RAW does a better job at demosaicing RAF files.
rdeloe wrote:
How did you compare? JPEG or RAW? I ask because the only way to get the real deal "Hasselblad Natural Color System" results with RAW files is to develop the Hasselblad RAW file in Phocus. Lightroom and Bridge have a camera matching profile for Hasselblad RAW, but it's not the same.
On the Fuji side, the only way to get the real deal Fuji image is to process the RAW file in camera and export as a JPEG (or TIFF if you're using X-Raw Studio, which processes using the camera). The Lightroom camera matching profiles for Fuji RAW files are OK but not the same as Fuji's own film simulations. And then there's the question, which of the Fuji film simulations did you decide was "Fuji" when you compared to Hasselblad?
I'm not trying to be difficult here! It's just that there's a lot going on under the hood that makes comparing output from System A to System B complicated.
I quite like the Hasseblad colours you get when you use the whole Hasselblad Natural Colour System, but I can get where I want to with Fuji GFX using camera profiles.
bernardl wrote:
Nope. Capture One has native profiles developed with Fuji that give much nicer colors than LR.
Cheers,
Bernard
I've heard that Capture One collaborated closely with Fuji, and that Adobe was unable to have that relationship, so its film simulation camera profiles are not as faithful to the Fuji results. That's great for Capture One users. It's a shame Capture One couldn't play nice with Hasselblad.
However, unless the output created by C1 is pixel-for-pixel the same as what the Fuji camera creates, then my statement remains true. The only way to get exactly what Fuji intended is to process via the camera.
Spent a week with an 907x+100C combo, and while it was enjoyable, I won't be buying into the system anytime soon. Hasselblad's white balance was pretty spot on, so the colors matched what I saw closer than my Sony or Fuji files, but I'm used to pushing my files pretty hard. The files felt more malleable, but that may be in my head. I don't know what to attribute that to technically. My digital tech days are a decade behind me, so my knowledge is dusty. I do greatly prefer the sensor's native aspect ratio though. I'm curious to mess around with a GFX 100II or 100S II and see how I like those.
I didn't end up using it with my 500 series as much as I thought I would. The digital back is unforgiving with those old lenses, specifically with regards to focus accuracy. I still think it's cool AF. With that out of the way, the IQ gain from the miniMF sensor wasn't apparent enough to offset the other frustrations or the cost. I look at the images I took and I've achieved similar if not better results with more affordable systems that require less user precision. I'm not surprised by that, but the reality of it takes the oomph out of the G.A.S.
RomanMF wrote:
Spent a week with an 907x+100C combo, and while it was enjoyable, I won't be buying into the system anytime soon. Hasselblad's white balance was pretty spot on, so the colors matched what I saw closer than my Sony or Fuji files, but I'm used to pushing my files pretty hard. The files felt more malleable, but that may be in my head. I don't know what to attribute that to technically. My digital tech days are a decade behind me, so my knowledge is dusty. I do greatly prefer the sensor's native aspect ratio though. I'm curious to mess around with a GFX 100II or 100S II and see how I like those.
I didn't end up using it with my 500 series as much as I thought I would. The digital back is unforgiving with those old lenses, specifically with regards to focus accuracy. I still think it's cool AF. With that out of the way, the IQ gain from the miniMF sensor wasn't apparent enough to offset the other frustrations or the cost. I look at the images I took and I've achieved similar if not better results with more affordable systems that require less user precision. I'm not surprised by that, but the reality of it takes the oomph out of the G.A.S.
rdeloe wrote:
I've heard that Capture One collaborated closely with Fuji, and that Adobe was unable to have that relationship, so its film simulation camera profiles are not as faithful to the Fuji results. That's great for Capture One users. It's a shame Capture One couldn't play nice with Hasselblad.
However, unless the output created by C1 is pixel-for-pixel the same as what the Fuji camera creates, then my statement remains true. The only way to get exactly what Fuji intended is to process via the camera.
Why being so incredibly stringent with Fuji to the pixel?
How can you be certain that Sony files through LR (or any other camera to any other non brand specific converter for that matter) is close to what was intended or delivered in jpg?
Fuji having worked with C1 pro is as close as it gets really.
And yes, the lack of Hasselblad support in C1 Pro is an absolute pity and a key reason why the X2D only has limited appeal to me.
Grenache wrote:
That is more a marketing statement. The medium format look is not about resolution. Film had the same resolution, regardless of whether it was rolled into a Hasselblad cassette or a Nikon F1.
Not really, unless you measure per inch, which most don’t. Most people use the total resolution from the entire frame when comparing resolution. The stock was the same but cut to different sizes. There is just more information on a 645 frame than a 135 frame. The same as going from the A7R5 to the X2D. Pixel pitch is the same but resolution is greater because of the greater imaging area. Also you put less stress on the optics with a lager format at the same output size. The improvement in 135 format optics is really the biggest thing that’s changed the image quality balance between the formats.
The biggest problem with Fuji is how much do you care about Fuji film simulation profile.
I don't think PS raw converter for Fuji is bad but it has some restrictions.
This is according to a friend who used to work a lot with Nikon but more recently started to work
with Fuji as well and he talked extensively with Fuji technical staffs about color and raw conversion etc.
This is what I gather so far. When recording RAW, Fuji has standard RAW file which ACR sees and interpreted. Difference in demosaic was not discussed however. However, the camera also write additional information on film simulation, grain size, color cast in hilight, shadow, color curve which will be different with each ISO value etc etc. PS/LR does not see that information at all so you get basic RAW information only. Capture One sees more of those information than PS/LR but only part of it.
The only way to get the full simulation is to use X Studio with Fuji Camera attached to the computer as X Studio is just an interface and it uses camera engine to add all those information. You can convert raw file to tif file with all of film simulation features applied to the file then open that in PS or whatever program you prefer. That would be as close to Fuji JPG output as you can.
Using PS with various camera profile such as provia, velvia in ACR does not really do anything much except a bit of adjustment in hilight, shadow and saturation and not really much of film simulation at all. I have not figure out if there is a way to apply film simulation setting that I want for batch conversion yet, only one by one basis and the program is rather slow and clunky. I guess if you are a film simulation shooter, in camera jpg is really the path of least resistant
I guess what you value more, camera function such as AF and ease of use or exact color profile of the camera that you shoot.
Fuji will be more capable in many more situations than X2D but to get the exact Fuji color science in RAW file, it is a lot more complicated than Hasselblad unfortunately. If you don't care about film simulation feature then no big deal.
rdeloe wrote:
How did you compare? JPEG or RAW? I ask because the only way to get the real deal "Hasselblad Natural Color System" results with RAW files is to develop the Hasselblad RAW file in Phocus. Lightroom and Bridge have a camera matching profile for Hasselblad RAW, but it's not the same.
On the Fuji side, the only way to get the real deal Fuji image is to process the RAW file in camera and export as a JPEG (or TIFF if you're using X-Raw Studio, which processes using the camera). The Lightroom camera matching profiles for Fuji RAW files are OK but not the same as Fuji's own film simulations. And then there's the question, which of the Fuji film simulations did you decide was "Fuji" when you compared to Hasselblad?
I'm not trying to be difficult here! It's just that there's a lot going on under the hood that makes comparing output from System A to System B complicated.
I quite like the Hasseblad colours you get when you use the whole Hasselblad Natural Colour System, but I can get where I want to with Fuji GFX using camera profiles. ...Show more →
Admittedly, this is not a scientific test, but it's the best way I have found to compare the results of different camera gear.
I go on Flickr and look at groups, tags, and camera finder (if applicable) for gear I am interested in. Then I look through at least a few 100 photos to get a good idea of how the gear renders the type of photos I am interested in. I will then also view images that highlight what key things I am looking for at 100% in high resolution samples. The ability for people to upload full res images on Flickr is great for seeing how gear performs. ThenI will look at more formal gear reviews and see if I notice the same trends / findings. I didn't do this last step in the Hasselblad case, which is why I said it was a quick comparison.
The reason I like this approach is I feel it's more a real world sample of how I should expect gear to work if I purchase it. There are probably 20+ raw converters out there now, and 100s if not 1,000s of profiles to use. Sample images can also be taken to be biased to a camera's strengths or weaknesses. For example, taking photos that don't push a camera's dynamic range. We now even have AI image editing to add into the mix.
So far, this approach has worked well for me. If I were photographing in a highly controlled setup like a studio, I would be much more interested in testing raw files and raw processes.
bernardl wrote:
Why being so incredibly stringent with Fuji to the pixel?
How can you be certain that Sony files through LR (or any other camera to any other non brand specific converter for that matter) is close to what was intended or delivered in jpg?
Fuji having worked with C1 pro is as close as it gets really.
And yes, the lack of Hasselblad support in C1 Pro is an absolute pity and a key reason why the X2D only has limited appeal to me.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, I was reacting to your suggestion that C1 results are the same. To me that means something specific (identical, at the pixel level). I think what you meant was "so close that differences don't matter", which is fair enough. If C1 can give people a "Fuji-like" experience using RAW files, that's amazing and kudos to them.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Admittedly, this is not a scientific test, but it's the best way I have found to compare the results of different camera gear.
I go on Flickr and look at groups, tags, and camera finder (if applicable) for gear I am interested in. Then I look through at least a few 100 photos to get a good idea of how the gear renders the type of photos I am interested in. I will then also view images that highlight what key things I am looking for at 100% in high resolution samples. The ability for people to upload full res images on Flickr is great for seeing how gear performs. ThenI will look at more formal gear reviews and see if I notice the same trends / findings. I didn't do this last step in the Hasselblad case, which is why I said it was a quick comparison.
The reason I like this approach is I feel it's more a real world sample of how I should expect gear to work if I purchase it. There are probably 20+ raw converters out there now, and 100s if not 1,000s of profiles to use. Sample images can also be taken to be biased to a camera's strengths or weaknesses. For example, taking photos that don't push a camera's dynamic range. We now even have AI image editing to add into the mix.
So far, this approach has worked well for me. If I were photographing in a highly controlled setup like a studio, I would be much more interested in testing raw files and raw processes....Show more →
Sounds like you have a method that works well for you. Ultimately we all have to figure out for ourselves what is going to please us.
suteetat wrote:
I guess what you value more, camera function such as AF and ease of use or exact color profile of the camera that you shoot.
Fuji will be more capable in many more situations than X2D but to get the exact Fuji color science in RAW file, it is a lot more complicated than Hasselblad unfortunately. If you don't care about film simulation feature then no big deal.
Indeed.
Sometimes it comes down to seemingly small things. For example, as much as a Hasselblad CFV 100C would make a lot of sense on my digital view camera outfit, compared to the GFX 100S I use, I would find the Hasselblad frustrating.
It's "little" things I use every time I head out, like geo-tagging, being able to write lens information into EXIF automatically, and the ability to record a voice memo in a sidecar file (yes with Fuji, but no with Hasselblad).
I'm also irritated that Hasselblad knows they have a problem with wide symmetrical lenses that are shifted, but isn't fixing it. Getting rid of the stripes using a tool someone else wrote would be irritating.
These functional things matter vastly more to me than "colour science" because I work in RAW and don't use Adobe's versions of Fuji's film simulations.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Admittedly, this is not a scientific test, but it's the best way I have found to compare the results of different camera gear.
I go on Flickr and look at groups, tags, and camera finder (if applicable) for gear I am interested in. Then I look through at least a few 100 photos to get a good idea of how the gear renders the type of photos I am interested in. I will then also view images that highlight what key things I am looking for at 100% in high resolution samples. The ability for people to upload full res images on Flickr is great for seeing how gear performs. ThenI will look at more formal gear reviews and see if I notice the same trends / findings. I didn't do this last step in the Hasselblad case, which is why I said it was a quick comparison.
The reason I like this approach is I feel it's more a real world sample of how I should expect gear to work if I purchase it. There are probably 20+ raw converters out there now, and 100s if not 1,000s of profiles to use. Sample images can also be taken to be biased to a camera's strengths or weaknesses. For example, taking photos that don't push a camera's dynamic range. We now even have AI image editing to add into the mix.
So far, this approach has worked well for me. If I were photographing in a highly controlled setup like a studio, I would be much more interested in testing raw files and raw processes....Show more →
It's funny, because I used to do this until I realized that so few people are getting anywhere close to the maximum results from their lenses.
Now I'll find example RAW files posted around the internet and edit them in my style to see what the gear is really capable of in my hands before I purchase, vs relying on middling edits from strangers with totally different workflows.
