flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #17 · Hasselblad X2Dii vs GFX 100ii | |
olegkin wrote:
If I were starting from scratch today, I’d probably go with the X2D.2 for the leaf shutter, since I photograph people with strobes outdoors all the time, and they’ve fixed most of the shortcomings from the previous version. But I’m already invested in the GFX system, and a leaf shutter alone isn’t enough for me to switch. I manage just fine without it.
I also like to have an aperture ring, and iso and ss on dials because I shoot manual exposure 100% of time. GFX is simply the best ergonomics for this. From what I saw X2D can replicate it with some lenses but with ISO on lens, and aperture and ss on dials, kind of like Z8.
The size of the GFX100S.2 is comparable to the X2D.2. The GFX is thicker, which I don’t really care about, but the X2D is tiny bit taller, and in theory that actually matters for fitting into compact bags. There are plenty of smaller lenses for GFX: GF30, GF45, GF50, GF63, and GF35-70 are all great for travel light and compact.
And you know, after a few years, people will be talking about the patina on the X2D’s metal body, while the GFX will still look like a brick wrapped in plastic - no scratches, no damage.
Everybody is talking how great are HB colors, but I don't really see it. Pretty much every example I saw from x2d look over-saturated and over-processed to my eye, definitely not "natural". Natural is mostly dull, especially in shadows. But X2D has a built-in David LaChapelle add-on it seems. I prefer to get to that look in post-processing! And then there was a video from Manny Ortiz(?) where HB colors where completely off as he was shooting, or did I imagine it?...Show more →
At no point with any lens does the GFX100Sii feel smaller than the X2D. The bag thing is minimal but in the hand the Hasselblad always feels more agile.
---------------------------------------------
cbass wrote:
For landscape use when you are looking for corner to corner coverage and performance, then you can't beat the native GFX lenses. However, for portraits even with some soft vignetting a lot adapted lenses even from a smaller 35mm format work just fine especially if you end up often cropping to 4x5.
I have not found this to be true. The original zoom, 21, 30, 65, 90 120 and 135 were all the equal or more of their GFX counterparts. The new zoom, 25, 28, 75, 90 are as well. What the HB was always lacking was a set of zooms that could mean less weight and lens swapping in the field. That is now changing as well. The 35-100 and GFX 45-100 are essentially the same in IQ.
---------------------------------------------
olegkin wrote:
I gave up on continuous autofocus with the GFX a long time ago, and I have a feeling that unless they dramatically redesign their lenses, continuous AF won’t improve much. But the ability to shoot portraits just by composing and letting the camera find the eyes is one of the best ideas in mirrorless cameras. I wonder how good AF-C with eye detection is in the new Hasselblad. A significant improvement in this area could make me switch.
A sports camera it ain’t, but the GFX100ii, GFX100Sii, and XD2 follow moderately moving people quite well. The new HB has some significant issues with animals at the moment. But for general people shooting it’s actually reliable and doesn’t get in the way at all. The Fujis are a big step from the first gen as well. With both systems it’s quite lens dependant. The new zoom is the best performer for HB and a few of the GFX lenses (like the 80mm) have some quirks. Generally the zooms are better followed by a few select primes in each system.
Gordon
|
I set camera once when I unpacked it and that's it. I only go into menu to format a card and to switch evf to shoot with strobes on gfx and I use camera almost every day...