Putting aside lens cost and lens selection (assume both systems give you the focal lengths you would want), which would you go with now? Just curious what others are thinking these days, especially given that the cost difference in the two systems is narrowing.
If I were not already invested in the GFX system, I would still choose it since I like adapting lenses to it and the mechanical shutter is a huge plus in this respect. Flash Gordon has also mentioned that the EVF finder in the GFX 100ii is the best available. As he now has the X2Dii, I would be curious to hear from him if he still believes it is superior to the EVF finder in the X2Dii.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
If I were not already invested in the GFX system, I would still choose it since I like adapting lenses to it and the mechanical shutter is a huge plus in this respect. Flash Gordon has also mentioned that the EVF finder in the GFX 100ii is the best available. As he now has the X2Dii, I would be curious to hear from him if he still believes it is superior to the EVF finder in the X2Dii.
I'm curious to hear Gordon's take as he seems objective about the pros and cons of every system. Adapting lenses is also a factor for me, and I find a mechanical shutter invaluable. (And the Hassy lacks) The 100 II has a 9.44m-dot EVF, which makes it superior to the Hasselblad at least in resolution. If you were referring to the 100S II, it shares the same 5.76m-dot resolution EVF as the Hasselblad. (although the hassy's EVF has offers higher magnification at 1.0x)
I really enjoy Fuji's colors (and film simulations)...they appeal to me more than perfectly accurate ones.
I think Hasselblad remains the top choice for professionals shooting fashion or anything requiring precise color. The flash sync from leaf shutters is another major advantage for pros. Since I'm less concerned with absolute accuracy, I'm leaning toward Fuji if I decide to explore medium format.
I think I prefer the 100S II over the 100 II mainly for its more compact size and less weight, but I really wish Fuji would release a GFX 100R in a rangefinder style.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I'm curious to hear Gordon's take as he seems objective about the pros and cons of every system. Adapting lenses is also a factor for me, and I find a mechanical shutter invaluable. (And the Hassy lacks) The 100 II has a 9.44m-dot EVF, which makes it superior to the Hasselblad at least in resolution. If you were referring to the 100S II, it shares the same 5.76m-dot resolution EVF as the Hasselblad. (although the hassy's EVF has offers higher magnification at 1.0x)
I really enjoy Fuji's colors (and film simulations)...they appeal to me more than perfectly accurate ones.
I think Hasselblad remains the top choice for professionals shooting fashion or anything requiring precise color. The flash sync from leaf shutters is another major advantage for pros. Since I'm less concerned with absolute accuracy, I'm leaning toward Fuji if I decide to explore medium format.
I think I prefer the 100S II over the 100 II mainly for its more compact size, but I really wish Fuji would release a 100R in a rangefinder style....Show more →
I was referring to the larger 100 II with the better EVF. Even the so-so EVF resolution in my 100S is fine but I would definitely much prefer the 1x magnification of the Hasselblad EVF and the larger GF 100 II. It may be that the Hasselblad strikes a nice compromise as you still have the 1X but in a smaller body (though with less EVF resolution).
I still use strobes for the occasional job in the studio and the mechanical shutter with an adapted Pentax 645 120 Macro is not something I could use on the Hasselblad with strobe. Of course, this would not be an issue at all with native glass on the Hassy.
I think the color difference is somewhat overblown IF shooting raw. On the Fuji, if one desires a neutral image, the Eterna profile is about as accurate - and dull - as it gets! It probably provides a great starting point for taking the color and contrast in any direction one would want. I do think the Hasselblad offers a very pleasant "memory color" of a scene by default and it could make a difference for some depending on preference. I'm hoping that Cobalt might release a Hasselblad Emulation one day soon as I would love to play around with the Hasselblad color on my Fuji.
Used all of the GFX and XD series so far and also thinking about getting back into 33x44.
With the GFX 100ii, would be adapting 2x anamorphics, then use the 20-35 as only native lens as my favorite shots were on the 23mm.
For X2D2 would never adapt lenses. Tried adapting many lenses with the X1D2 and X2D and was felt too restrictive. The native V lenses are great though though I'm disappointed that the 20-35e won't be getting af-c support, so would probably get the 25v and 75p duo.
I'm leaning towards GFX again though since I'm most interested in testing vertical anamorphic which is basically the opposite of the precision fidelity of Hasselblad usage.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I was referring to the larger 100 II with the better EVF. Even the so-so EVF resolution in my 100S is fine but I would definitely much prefer the 1x magnification of the Hasselblad EVF and the larger GF 100 II. It may be that the Hasselblad strikes a nice compromise as you still have the 1X but in a smaller body (though with less EVF resolution).
I still use strobes for the occasional job in the studio and the mechanical shutter with an adapted Pentax 645 120 Macro is not something I could use on the Hasselblad with strobe. Of course, this would not be an issue at all with native glass on the Hassy.
I think the color difference is somewhat overblown IF shooting raw. On the Fuji, if one desires a neutral image, the Eterna profile is about as accurate - and dull - as it gets! It probably provides a great starting point for taking the color and contrast in any direction one would want. I do think the Hasselblad offers a very pleasant "memory color" of a scene by default and it could make a difference for some depending on preference. I'm hoping that Cobalt might release a Hasselblad Emulation one day soon as I would love to play around with the Hasselblad color on my Fuji. ...Show more →
That's the beauty of Hasselblad colors. They come out looking great and accurate with very little post work. You can match or at least get close to the look with other cameras, but in my opinion that's the real differentiator.
Having said that, Hasselblad runs a very different color pipeline compared to Adobe or Capture One. Their system is built around proprietary LUTs and calibration that go beyond Adobe's dual-illuminant profiles, though the details are closed off. The strength of HNCS comes from having the right internal tables for the light in the scene, and from the software knowing when to apply them. That complexity is what makes it so hard to mimic at least with a color profile.
The reality of adapting to GFX is that Canon is one of the only semi-modern options for best results, and even then, the lenses sometimes need physical adjustments like baffle removal. I was never all that interested in buying EF glass just to put on my GFX, but it's certainly an option. Once you start getting into Helios/Jupiter type vintage glass, you can find some fun options, but the focus aids are lacking and the EVF on everything but the 100ii isn't great for non-zoomed in MF.
On the flip side, I would never adapt a single lens to an X2D camera using its awful electronic shutter.
I'm glad I bought an X2D so I could see firsthand what the HNCS hype is about. It's real, although the camera itself is quite a fringe proposition and so so limiting compared to the GFX line. I found editing in Phocus 2 Mobile an absolute delight, and if you have an iPad pro, I think using that as your main post tool would be fun.
Sep 07, 2025 at 02:38 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RoamingScott wrote:
The reality of adapting to GFX is that Canon is one of the only semi-modern options for best results, and even then, the lenses sometimes need physical adjustments like baffle removal. I was never all that interested in buying EF glass just to put on my GFX, but it's certainly an option. Once you start getting into Helios/Jupiter type vintage glass, you can find some fun options, but the focus aids are lacking and the EVF on everything but the 100ii isn't great for non-zoomed in MF.
On the flip side, I would never adapt a single lens to an X2D camera using its awful electronic shutter.
I'm glad I bought an X2D so I could see firsthand what the HNCS hype is about. It's real, although the camera itself is quite a fringe proposition and so so limiting compared to the GFX line. I found editing in Phocus 2 Mobile an absolute delight, and if you have an iPad pro, I think using that as your main post tool would be fun....Show more →
I have to agree to disagree. There are some really interesting and quite decent medium format options that can be adapted to GFX.
I will just note the options that I have used and liked from three 645 systems.
First, is the Hassy H system lenses. There is a great adapter made by Fuji available for these lenses and they work great on it. The AF sucks, but otherwise they function great. Lenses I have used include:
24 f/4.8 -- which is almost as good as the Fuji 23
100 f/2.2 -- which has a really nice look for portraits
300 f/4.5 -- which is a very nice longer lens
All of these in my view have better native GF mount options that are closer now, but they all adapt really well and from the very beginning made good options and still could be used productively.
Mamiya 645 manual focus -- These lenses are easy to adapt and there are a couple of gems that perform well and are quite inexpensive. They include
55 f/2.8 S - This is a pretty small and really nice performing lens. It still is one of my favorites on the GFX
120 f/4 A macro - This is a great little macro with high performance and quite inexpensive
200 f/2.8 APO - This is a wonderful medium telephoto on the GFX with really nice performance
Contax 645 -- Fringer makes a very nice AF adapter, but the AF is pretty bad
Zeiss 35 f/3.5 -- This makes a really decent environmental portrait lens on the GFX
Zeiss 50 f/3.5 -- A lot like the Mamiya 55 f/2.8 S, but I like both the handling and performance of the Mamiya just a bit more
Zeiss 80 f/2 -- Fairly soft wide open, but still a quite nice portrait lens with a lower contrast rendering
Zeiss 120 f/4 APO Macro -- By far my favorite lens for macro and the primary reason I still keep a GFX camera
Zeiss 140 f/2.8 -- A quite nice portrait lens
There are a couple of Hassy 6 X 6 lenses I like as well, but I will stop there for now. You talk as if EF lenses are the only options, but some of us with experience adapting lenses don't think that is the case at all. Of course, YMMV, but mine definitely does if you think EF lenses are the default for adapting to the GFX mount.
I've had both systems and after using the X2Dii, I'd never go back to gfx unless there was a complete overhaul to the entire system. The Hasselblad is just so much more enjoyable to use with zero jank and clunkiness. The focus is pretty decent and it's just overall a great experience.
The Fuji has some great lenses (55 and 110) but it wouldn't keep me in the system.
GregS wrote:
Putting aside lens cost and lens selection (assume both systems give you the focal lengths you would want), which would you go with now? Just curious what others are thinking these days, especially given that the cost difference in the two systems is narrowing.
I do have the three cameras in hand (X2Dii, GFX100ii and GFX100sii) as well as the X2D and GFX100S. I only received the 35-100 on Friday , minutes before I went away for the week end so I haven’t really shot with it yet. For me, the addition of this zoom is the biggest thing I wanted, for travel use. The other X2D upgrades are nice but the lens was it for me.
But to answer a few preliminary questions.
1. The EVF in the X2Dii remains unchanged so the GFX100ii still has the best EVF in any mirrorless camera. X2Dii 2nd, just. The new EVF in the GFX100Sii is a major upgrade on the original. The rear LCD on the X2D is bigger and on the mk 2 there’s a switch to disable the EVF sensor, finally, but I still prefer the three way LCD’s on the Fujis. It’s the best design for photographers.
2. I would not adapt lenses to the Hasselblad. Period. The Fuji is a vastly better option here.
3. The HB joystick is easier to operate but the Fuji has diagonal movements. A wash.
4. The HB with the 35-100 is ergonomically superior to the 45-100 on either GFX. They both feel front heavy. You also reach more for the buttons on the Fujis.
5 Hasselblad has the best menus available and Fuji possibly the worst. HB’s main failing is you can’t change the top back buttons and the dials. I would like to customise the dials for use in manual with AUTO ISO.
6. Focusing…. Has HB caught up? Well, so far (it’s VERY early days) yes and no. The X2Dii seems very much like the Fuji in single point. It also focuses in complete darkness. People detect seems about the same between them. Fuji is still noticeably better with animals. The HB does focus on the body too often in lower light. In good light it’s fine but so is the Fuji, so Fuji wins for animals. Arbitrary tracking feels about the same. Older lenses aren’t fully supported on the HB. This will be huge for some. Now I really want a XCD 80mm mk2.
7. Lenses. Fuji lenses are faster, cheaper, bigger and heavier than the nearest HB equivalent. They have aperture rings (yay!). There are more zooms and longer options. The 20-35 I feel, is slightly better than the ‘blad. I will try test the 45-100 vs 35-100 this week. Initial impressions is they’re equivalent but the blad is faster and smaller. There’s no longer zoom for the ‘blad, yet. The 35-70 is super nice to travel with and Fujis best small option although it’s slower.
Blad lenses are smaller and lighter, generally with better and more consistent ergonomics. You can pack a smaller kit with the Hasselblad than you can with the Fuji. A 28P or 75P on the X2Dii feels like a Sony in size and weight. The Fuji always feels substantial in hand even with the pancake. Blad lenses tend to have more character options whereas Fujis are more *clinical* (except the 55 and 110). Older XCD lenses are not fully supported on the new body which really makes the range of lenses smaller.
8. Flash. Fuji works with everything but HB has leaf shutters. You can use ProFoto triggers and some Nikon stuff with TTL on the X system. For me HB wins easily ( I shoot manual flash mostly) but if you have a room full of Godox then Fuji wins.
9. Long exposures. The HB thumps the Fujis. Metered exposures up to an hour with no LENR required. Also fast infinity focus for Astro is awesome.
10. Colour. Hasselblad. No profiles because you don’t need them HNCS just makes beautiful files. I would like a B&W profile though. That would be awesome.
11. Workflow. HB for Lightroom shooter and Fuji for C1 shooters. HB and Phase have disliked each other for years. Never going to happen. HB does work with Adobe but their profiles are limited compared to Phocus which gives you a full colour managed workflow using HB tech. Generally I work in Lightroom and will only send special files to Phocus.
For mobile I have no idea. Phocus on iOS is great but their profiles fact there’s no Android version is a huge deduction for me. It’s just lazy plain and simply stupid. At least with Fuji I can use an app to fire the camera. I’ve tried travelling with just an iPad and hated the workarounds so I’ll be taking a MBP anyway.
For me, I’m still camp Hasselblad. The new zoom is a huge upgrade and if a 100-2xx arrives then it’s probably game over for me. As a travel and landscape photographer it ticks all my boxes. I do a lot of long exposures and I like to travel relatively light. I have no use for MF video. I prefer the ergonomics and setup of the X2Dii. The focus feels equivalent for my needs. I’ll still be using a Sony for wild life. I never adapt lenses.
For adapting the Fuji crushes the Hasselblad. Also you have more lens options. The X2Dii really only have the newer lenses available if you want all the functionality.
I suppose my main take is that the Fuji GFX100Sii makes the most sense. It’s really good at everything. The 100ii is a better camera at way more money, size and weight. You really have to love that EVF (and it can be adapted to tilt!!) to upgrade. The Fujis are wildly better for adapting lenses.
However if you have the lenses you need in the new Hasselblad lenses, and you shoot stills, it’s a way more engaging system. It’s got that X factor. The ergonomics are spectacular and the industrial design and build a re class leading. Nothing does better long exposures. For travel it’s brilliant. I’m not sure a landscape shooter can do better than the original X2D. I’d only upgrade if you shoot more generally, like travel or people.
Hopefully I’ll have some actual lens comparisons latter this week. It’s a busy one but I *needs to know*….
flash wrote:
I do have the three cameras in hand (X2Dii, GFX100ii and GFX100sii) as well as the X2D and GFX100S. I only received the 35-100 on Friday , minutes before I went away for the week end so I haven’t really shot with it yet. For me, the addition of this zoom is the biggest thing I wanted, for travel use. The other X2D upgrades are nice but the lens was it for me.
But to answer a few preliminary questions.
1. The EVF in the X2Dii remains unchanged so the GFX100ii still has the best EVF in any mirrorless camera. X2Dii 2nd, just. The new EVF in the GFX100Sii is a major upgrade on the original. The rear LCD on the X2D is bigger and on the mk 2 there’s a switch to disable the EVF sensor, finally, but I still prefer the three way LCD’s on the Fujis. It’s the best design for photographers.
2. I would not adapt lenses to the Hasselblad. Period. The Fuji is a vastly better option here.
3. The HB joystick is easier to operate but the Fuji has diagonal movements. A wash.
4. The HB with the 35-100 is ergonomically superior to the 45-100 on either GFX. They both feel front heavy. You also reach more for the buttons on the Fujis.
5 Hasselblad has the best menus available and Fuji possibly the worst. HB’s main failing is you can’t change the top back buttons and the dials. I would like to customise the dials for use in manual with AUTO ISO.
6. Focusing…. Has HB caught up? Well, so far (it’s VERY early days) yes and no. The X2Dii seems very much like the Fuji in single point. It also focuses in complete darkness. People detect seems about the same between them. Fuji is still noticeably better with animals. The HB does focus on the body too often in lower light. In good light it’s fine but so is the Fuji, so Fuji wins for animals. Arbitrary tracking feels about the same. Older lenses aren’t fully supported on the HB. This will be huge for some. Now I really want a XCD 80mm mk2.
7. Lenses. Fuji lenses are faster, cheaper, bigger and heavier than the nearest HB equivalent. They have aperture rings (yay!). There are more zooms and longer options. The 20-35 I feel, is slightly better than the ‘blad. I will try test the 45-100 vs 35-100 this week. Initial impressions is they’re equivalent but the blad is faster and smaller. There’s no longer zoom for the ‘blad, yet. The 35-70 is super nice to travel with and Fujis best small option although it’s slower.
Blad lenses are smaller and lighter, generally with better and more consistent ergonomics. You can pack a smaller kit with the Hasselblad than you can with the Fuji. A 28P or 75P on the X2Dii feels like a Sony in size and weight. The Fuji always feels substantial in hand even with the pancake. Blad lenses tend to have more character options whereas Fujis are more *clinical* (except the 55 and 110). Older XCD lenses are fully supported on the new body which really makes the range of lenses smaller.
8. Flash. Fuji works with everything but HB has leaf shutters. You can use ProFoto triggers and some Nikon stuff with TTL on the X system. For me HB wins easily ( I shoot manual flash mostly) but if you have a room full of Godox then Fuji wins.
9. Long exposures. The HB thumps the Fujis. Metered exposures up to an hour with no LENR required. Also fast infinity focus for Astro is awesome.
10. Colour. Hasselblad. No profiles because you don’t need them HNCS just makes beautiful files. I would like a B&W profile though. That would be awesome.
11. Workflow. HB for Lightroom shooter and Fuji for C1 shooters. HB and Phase have disliked each other for years. Never going to happen. HB does work with Adobe but their profiles are limited compared to Phocus which gives you a full colour managed workflow using HB tech. Generally I work in Lightroom and will only send special files to Phocus.
For mobile I have no idea. Phocus on iOS is great but their profiles fact there’s no Android version is a huge deduction for me. It’s just lazy plain and simply stupid. At least with Fuji I can use an app to fire the camera. I’ve tried travelling with just an iPad and hated the workarounds so I’ll be taking a MBP anyway.
For me, I’m still camp Hasselblad. The new zoom is a huge upgrade and if a 100-2xx arrives then it’s probably game over for me. As a travel and landscape photographer it ticks all my boxes. I do a lot of long exposures and I like to travel relatively light. I have no use for MF video. I prefer the ergonomics and setup of the X2Dii. The focus feels equivalent for my needs. I’ll still be using a Sony for wild life. I never adapt lenses.
For adapting the Fuji crushes the Hasselblad. Also you have more lens options. The X2Dii really only have the newer lenses available if you want all the functionality.
I suppose my main take is that the Fuji GFX100Sii makes the most sense. It’s really good at everything. The 100ii is a better camera at way more money, size and weight. You really have to love that EVF (and it can be adapted to tilt!!) to upgrade. The Fujis are wildly better for adapting lenses.
However if you have the lenses you need in the new Hasselblad lenses, and you shoot stills, it’s a way more engaging system. It’s got that X factor. The ergonomics are spectacular and the industrial design and build a re class leading. Nothing does better long exposures. For travel it’s brilliant. I’m not sure a landscape shooter can do better than the original X2D. I’d only upgrade if you shoot more generally, like travel or people.
Hopefully I’ll have some actual lens comparisons latter this week. It’s a busy one but I *needs to know*….
flash wrote:
I do have the three cameras in hand (X2Dii, GFX100ii and GFX100sii) as well as the X2D and GFX100S. I only received the 35-100 on Friday , minutes before I went away for the week end so I haven’t really shot with it yet. For me, the addition of this zoom is the biggest thing I wanted, for travel use. The other X2D upgrades are nice but the lens was it for me.
But to answer a few preliminary questions.
1. The EVF in the X2Dii remains unchanged so the GFX100ii still has the best EVF in any mirrorless camera. X2Dii 2nd, just. The new EVF in the GFX100Sii is a major upgrade on the original. The rear LCD on the X2D is bigger and on the mk 2 there’s a switch to disable the EVF sensor, finally, but I still prefer the three way LCD’s on the Fujis. It’s the best design for photographers.
2. I would not adapt lenses to the Hasselblad. Period. The Fuji is a vastly better option here.
3. The HB joystick is easier to operate but the Fuji has diagonal movements. A wash.
4. The HB with the 35-100 is ergonomically superior to the 45-100 on either GFX. They both feel front heavy. You also reach more for the buttons on the Fujis.
5 Hasselblad has the best menus available and Fuji possibly the worst. HB’s main failing is you can’t change the top back buttons and the dials. I would like to customise the dials for use in manual with AUTO ISO.
6. Focusing…. Has HB caught up? Well, so far (it’s VERY early days) yes and no. The X2Dii seems very much like the Fuji in single point. It also focuses in complete darkness. People detect seems about the same between them. Fuji is still noticeably better with animals. The HB does focus on the body too often in lower light. In good light it’s fine but so is the Fuji, so Fuji wins for animals. Arbitrary tracking feels about the same. Older lenses aren’t fully supported on the HB. This will be huge for some. Now I really want a XCD 80mm mk2.
7. Lenses. Fuji lenses are faster, cheaper, bigger and heavier than the nearest HB equivalent. They have aperture rings (yay!). There are more zooms and longer options. The 20-35 I feel, is slightly better than the ‘blad. I will try test the 45-100 vs 35-100 this week. Initial impressions is they’re equivalent but the blad is faster and smaller. There’s no longer zoom for the ‘blad, yet. The 35-70 is super nice to travel with and Fujis best small option although it’s slower.
Blad lenses are smaller and lighter, generally with better and more consistent ergonomics. You can pack a smaller kit with the Hasselblad than you can with the Fuji. A 28P or 75P on the X2Dii feels like a Sony in size and weight. The Fuji always feels substantial in hand even with the pancake. Blad lenses tend to have more character options whereas Fujis are more *clinical* (except the 55 and 110). Older XCD lenses are fully supported on the new body which really makes the range of lenses smaller.
8. Flash. Fuji works with everything but HB has leaf shutters. You can use ProFoto triggers and some Nikon stuff with TTL on the X system. For me HB wins easily ( I shoot manual flash mostly) but if you have a room full of Godox then Fuji wins.
9. Long exposures. The HB thumps the Fujis. Metered exposures up to an hour with no LENR required. Also fast infinity focus for Astro is awesome.
10. Colour. Hasselblad. No profiles because you don’t need them HNCS just makes beautiful files. I would like a B&W profile though. That would be awesome.
11. Workflow. HB for Lightroom shooter and Fuji for C1 shooters. HB and Phase have disliked each other for years. Never going to happen. HB does work with Adobe but their profiles are limited compared to Phocus which gives you a full colour managed workflow using HB tech. Generally I work in Lightroom and will only send special files to Phocus.
For mobile I have no idea. Phocus on iOS is great but their profiles fact there’s no Android version is a huge deduction for me. It’s just lazy plain and simply stupid. At least with Fuji I can use an app to fire the camera. I’ve tried travelling with just an iPad and hated the workarounds so I’ll be taking a MBP anyway.
For me, I’m still camp Hasselblad. The new zoom is a huge upgrade and if a 100-2xx arrives then it’s probably game over for me. As a travel and landscape photographer it ticks all my boxes. I do a lot of long exposures and I like to travel relatively light. I have no use for MF video. I prefer the ergonomics and setup of the X2Dii. The focus feels equivalent for my needs. I’ll still be using a Sony for wild life. I never adapt lenses.
For adapting the Fuji crushes the Hasselblad. Also you have more lens options. The X2Dii really only have the newer lenses available if you want all the functionality.
I suppose my main take is that the Fuji GFX100Sii makes the most sense. It’s really good at everything. The 100ii is a better camera at way more money, size and weight. You really have to love that EVF (and it can be adapted to tilt!!) to upgrade. The Fujis are wildly better for adapting lenses.
However if you have the lenses you need in the new Hasselblad lenses, and you shoot stills, it’s a way more engaging system. It’s got that X factor. The ergonomics are spectacular and the industrial design and build a re class leading. Nothing does better long exposures. For travel it’s brilliant. I’m not sure a landscape shooter can do better than the original X2D. I’d only upgrade if you shoot more generally, like travel or people.
Hopefully I’ll have some actual lens comparisons latter this week. It’s a busy one but I *needs to know*….
Gordon's summary above nails the pros/cons of each system. I'm only writing a response for my particular use case, which may differ (vastly) from some of you so take this with a huge grain of salt.
I own the GFX100SII and a GFX100RF.
If I had to do it again, I believe I would still choose these two cameras. Don't get me wrong, I feel the lure of the Hasselblad. As a former Leica shooter, I know the "X factor" Gordon refers to; there is something to be said about cameras with simple menus and premium build that inspire you to pick them up (the GFX100RF has been an improvement for Fuji from a tactile perspective, but I know it's not the same vs. the X2D).
But at the same time, my favourite portrait lens these days is the Mitakon 65, so the 100SII is the obvious choice with its in-camera shutter. The Mitakon is simply just glued on to that camera. On a related note, it's strange how I actually enjoy the GFX system much more when using this manual focus, non-GF, lens. It even looks like it belongs on the camera, more so than the GF lenses.
As for the GFX100RF, it's still the lightest medium format camera out there. Combined with the fixed 35mm (28mm) FOV, I do believe it is perfect as an every day/travel camera. I take it with me everywhere. Having handled an X2D previously, I know I wouldn't be doing that with the Hasselblad.
It's also not lost on me that I have the best of both worlds for the same price that a Hassy + lens would have cost me, back when I was making my decision. Of course, the original X2D also fell short in AF performance, which would have added insult to injury.
Finally, I enjoy using Capture One (switched from LR several years ago) and have no interest in working with another piece of software.
flash wrote:
7. Lenses. Fuji lenses are faster, cheaper, bigger and heavier than the nearest HB equivalent. They have aperture rings (yay!). There are more zooms and longer options. The 20-35 I feel, is slightly better than the ‘blad.
Gordon
Fantastic summary of the pros and cons between the two systems!
I live and die by the GF 20-35 as it is by far my most used lens. Interesting to hear that the blad version might not be quite as good (edit - I suspect the difference must not be that dramatic - but then there is the premium paid for the blad). I'm guessing the widest lens that Hasselblad has offered for their system that is considered very good to exceptional is the discontinued Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4? Perhaps they will re-release an updated version.
Prosophos wrote:
Gordon's summary above nails the pros/cons of each system. I'm only writing a response for my particular use case, which may differ (vastly) from some of you so take this with a huge grain of salt.
I own the GFX100SII and a GFX100RF.
If I had to do it again, I believe I would still choose these two cameras. Don't get me wrong, I feel the lure of the Hasselblad. As a former Leica shooter, I know the "X factor" Gordon refers to; there is something to be said about cameras with simple menus and premium build that inspire you to pick them up (the GFX100RF has been an improvement for Fuji from a tactile perspective, but I know it's not the same vs. the X2D).
But at the same time, my favourite portrait lens these days is the Mitakon 65, so the 100SII is the obvious choice with its in-camera shutter. The Mitakon is simply just glued on to that camera. On a related note, it's strange how I actually enjoy the GFX system much more when using this manual focus, non-GF, lens. It even looks like it belongs on the camera, more so than the GF lenses.
As for the GFX100RF, it's still the lightest medium format camera out there. Combined with the fixed 35mm (28mm) FOV, I do believe it is perfect as an every day/travel camera. I take it with me everywhere. Having handled an X2D previously, I know I wouldn't be doing that with the Hasselblad.
It's also not lost on me that I have the best of both worlds for the same price that a Hassy + lens would have cost me, back when I was making my decision. Of course, the original X2D also fell short in AF performance, which would have added insult to injury.
Finally, I enjoy using Capture One (switched from LR several years ago) and have no interest in working with another piece of software.
I do have the GFX RF. It’s sooo close. I love the design. I could live with the 28mm equivalent even. I despise the hood/filter set up. Which fool thought that it was a good idea to make it bigger and more complicated than it needs to be just to have a protection filter or CPL on there? Without those it’s not weather sealed. So I still usually throw a Q3 variant over the shoulder, or the X2D with a 55mm, which I can carry all day.
Also lack of IS is a big fail. Put on a normal filter thread they could have had OIS in the same size. Maybe V2?
I have a little stick on thumb grip on mine and with that it’s a dope camera. X factor in spades. Even my all black one is stunning.
I could see HB bringing out a full line of P lenses though. F4 lenses from 28 to 100mm would be incredibly compelling. I suspect based on reviews that a third zoom is coming first, which also suits me.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Fantastic summary of the pros and cons between the two systems!
I live and die by the GF 20-35 as it is by far my most used lens. Interesting to hear that the blad version might not be quite as good (edit - I suspect the difference must not be that dramatic - but then there is the premium paid for the blad). I'm guessing the widest lens that Hasselblad has offered for their system that is considered very good to exceptional is the discontinued Hasselblad XCD 21mm f/4? Perhaps they will re-release an updated version.
The GFX20-35 is the best wide zoom I’ve ever seen. I’d say it’s equivalent of the XCD21mm f4 anyway. I have printed A0 off the Hasselblad version and the prints are excellent. But the Fuji is better in the extreme corners at any aperture. Well the one I own at least.
flash wrote:
The GFX20-35 is the best wide zoom I’ve ever seen. I’d say it’s equivalent of the XCD21mm f4 anyway. I have printed A0 off the Hasselblad version and the prints are excellent. But the Fuji is better in the extreme corners at any aperture. Well the one I own at least.
Gordon
Thanks for the feedback. I was really surprised by the GF 20-35 when I tested it myself. My copy is sharpest at 20mm - tack sharp corner to corner. When I found that it was also better than my GF 30mm at 30mm, I sold that lens. It really is "prime" quality at any focal length within it's range (also speaking of my copy anyway).
Most people I know who chose Fuji also chose it for video, which is valid.
Beyond that, I invested when not all the V series primes came out, but once I saw that series I knew the direction Hassy was going and that has panned out well with a concise set of primes that play well together "so far".
Agree that Fuji is better for adapting glass. But if you are doing even modest handheld you can get away that electronic shutter if needed.
I do find for stills, living within the confines of leaf shutter lenses, the X2D and X2D II are a very enjoyable experience. I have some weird personal thoughts about this somewhat dedicated to stills and semi-limited system, oddly those are factors that made me choose it for stills.
But I find the system needing both longer primes and macro options with the modern designs. And that takes time. Similarly with Fuji, there's only a few lenses I actually enjoy in their lineup.
I do strongly think the next moves for Hassy are longer primes, hopefully V-Series, then the longer zoom probably a bit after. But it would be good for a 135mm refresh with the extender also getting some love. I could see a wider prime sneaking in there along the way too.
has also mentioned that the EVF finder in the GFX 100ii is the best available. As he now has the X2Dii, I would be curious to hear from him if he still believes it is superior to the EVF finder in the X2Dii.