Seems there is a bit of sub-niche in the travel camera. Personally, I use the X2D as the major handheld camera in town, also for trips where I want maximum quality. The X2D can be handful to take all day (say Europe day wandering) but is great for the "photo stroll" for a couple of hours.For longer days and when a smaller form factor is needed, M10 does nicely.
rsolti13 wrote:
I have had Leica M for several years as my main travel equipment and just recently caught the bug to MF - buying an X2DII and a few lenses. For landscapes, obviously can’t be beat. Size is of course bigger than Leica M, but compared to my Sony stuff it’s actually comparable. What’s not comparable is how amazing the IBIS is. I frequently take my X2DII out at night or low light environments, shooting over 1 sec handheld and its razor sharp from the IBIS. It has opened up so much creativity I haven’t had in any other system before. I have done 2.5 seconds handheld that is extremely sharp, never been able to do half that on any system before
flash wrote:
Yes. The files are much much better. You will see it and they are like camera crack.
The *real* question is if you actually need that in the field? Most don’t. But there’s nothing wrong with wanting it anyway.
There’s no IQ difference between the X2D and X2D2 so your plan is a good one. The newer camera is much better in every other way as a travel rig. But IQ is the same. IBIS on the X2D is still incredible. Just a bit more incredible on the mk2.
My X cameras are my main travel system. But I sell large prints as part of my living. My biggest seller is from a shot with a Sony A7R3. so there’s that. But I can’t imagine a better travel system for me. I only use my A1ii’s for wildlife. To me the X2D is the generalist and the A1ii is the specialist. But I’m weird….
These >1s exposure shots are amazing. And I appreciate that the X2D II’s IBIS is remarkable (although I must confess to being slightly sceptical about it being 10 stops); some of what Gordon has explained here and in other, very helpful posts makes quite a compelling case.
So the idea of a MF travel system has, I have to admit, got me interested. I am quite prepared to believe that the combination of IBIS and colour consistency (perhaps more than the IQ per se) would yield things that I can’t achieve with my Leica M and Sony A7R IV. Do I need that additional IQ and low light capability? Of course not, I’m a mere enthusiastic amateur. But there’s nothing wrong with wanting to try something that would, I’m sure, be a pleasure to use.
What fascinates me, though, is that quite a few of you seem to feel that something the size of the X2D is perfectly fine as a main travel camera. (I say that because of the size, not the weight; I’m perfectly happy to hike miles with my A1 + 2.8/300 + TC, which weighs well over 2kg, so appreciably more than the X2D II + 35-100.) The only thing that makes me hesitate is the thought that I have really enjoyed using Leica M as a small travel system. I look enough of a dork already, without having a whacking great camera to compound the situation (then again, who cares?). So my question is:
Do those of you who have used Leica M (or similarly sized mirrorless) also now feel comfortable using an X2D in the same sort of way, too?
(I appreciate that this is entirely subjective and is a matter of personal preference. I’d simply be interested to hear experiences from those of you who have done both.)
The tool which is more fatiguing to carry, all day, due to its mass/weight, may actually be steadier in the hands, at the moment of the shot, due to its ergonomics and motion-damping mass. This assumes reasonable mass/weight, of course, as the fatigue of carrying the tool and its associated support gear could produce tremors that cannot be damped.
Oh, wait, this is not Duty Equipment Advice dot com! I should not type before consuming sufficient COVFEFE. Sorry!
Seriously, now. It is good to see IBIS reach this level of effectiveness. I am grateful for the informative posts.
I would, of course, want to make a pilgrimage to a sufficiently-stocked camera store, in order to try handle a medium-format system, before buying. Ergonomics matter. And, I am now old enough to need every bit of assistance, in holding steady, if I do not wish to be burdened with a tripod.
It is exceedingly rare to see a photo here or otherwise that NEEDED to be taken on medium format. Of course, if you enjoy using the gear, use it...but you can get away with far less and achieve very similar results if you move past pixel peeping on your high resolution monitors.
The X2D/X2DII lenses have their own quirks like very limited shutter speeds compared to other cameras, which can be a nuisance mid-day in bright light.
The X2D line gives you incredible IBIS, but how often are you handholding 1 second long shots?
It seems like not attracting attention is a big part of the consideration. HB will not help you with that. Or Fujifilm, or Leica, or any camera that looks like a film camera. Leicas are freaking people magnet, way worse than any 70-200 lens I have ever used in public. On the other hand, you meet some nice opinionated people everywhere You already have everything you need, but if you want to try medium format - why not?
RoamingScott wrote:
It is exceedingly rare to see a photo here or otherwise that NEEDED to be taken on medium format. Of course, if you enjoy using the gear, use it...but you can get away with far less and achieve very similar results if you move past pixel peeping on your high resolution monitors.
The X2D/X2DII lenses have their own quirks like very limited shutter speeds compared to other cameras, which can be a nuisance mid-day in bright light.
The X2D line gives you incredible IBIS, but how often are you handholding 1 second long shots?
About the handholding, I use it quite a bit more than I personally anticipated.
About needing medium format, you are obviously right, but similarly, I previously used an APS-C camera as travel camera, how many pictures really needed to be taken full frame?
SlowDriver wrote:
About needing medium format, you are obviously right, but similarly, I previously used an APS-C camera as travel camera, how many pictures really needed to be taken full frame?
And here's the rub. It's all about find a camera that gets out of your way and gets you the shots you want. Format has f-all to do with that, generally.
RoamingScott wrote:
And here's the rub. It's all about find a camera that gets out of your way and gets you the shots you want. Format has f-all to do with that, generally.
Latouf wrote:
Having researched a bit, I started X2Dii with a 38mm. .
The X2D is a great camera. But I'd never take it on a long trip. After a couple of hours, I start thinking about the camera's weight, not the subject I'm trying to capture. For me, a comfortable camera weight with two lenses is up to 1 kg. Maximum 1.1 kg. Even though I have an athletic build, it's simply a matter of personal comfort, not physical fatigue. The M11 + 50mm/1.5, weighing 900 grams, is my ideal kit. Sometimes I add a 15mm (150 grams) if I'm going for a few days. But it all depends on your photography style - for landscapes, I'll take the X2D with a 35-100 and a tripod.
Those first couple are gorgeous. Hopefully also sharp at full size, but they look great here.
rsolti13 wrote:
I have had Leica M for several years as my main travel equipment and just recently caught the bug to MF - buying an X2DII and a few lenses. For landscapes, obviously can’t be beat. Size is of course bigger than Leica M, but compared to my Sony stuff it’s actually comparable. What’s not comparable is how amazing the IBIS is. I frequently take my X2DII out at night or low light environments, shooting over 1 sec handheld and its razor sharp from the IBIS. It has opened up so much creativity I haven’t had in any other system before. I have done 2.5 seconds handheld that is extremely sharp, never been able to do half that on any system before
RoamingScott wrote:
It is exceedingly rare to see a photo here or otherwise that NEEDED to be taken on medium format. Of course, if you enjoy using the gear, use it...but you can get away with far less and achieve very similar results if you move past pixel peeping on your high resolution monitors.
The X2D/X2DII lenses have their own quirks like very limited shutter speeds compared to other cameras, which can be a nuisance mid-day in bright light.
The X2D line gives you incredible IBIS, but how often are you handholding 1 second long shots?
I’ve never shot for one second hand held, but I use the IBIS regularly. A good example might be shooting my daughters inside the hotel room at varying distances and stopping down to keep both relatively in focus. Shooting at night I might regularly use slow shutter speeds, but never ventured into ultra slow shutter speeds.
The experience is totally different than when I carry an ‘M’ camera, which for me these days is mostly when I want to shoot film. It was mentioned above that most of what you see on these forums really doesn't benefit from 100Mpixels and I agree, but the files from the X2D(ii) are really nice to work with and are useful in many ways. For example, that hotel photo of my daughters. That was a split second window of opportunity. I didn’t have time to move, or frame the shot. The image is printed large from a bit more than 1/3 of the frame and I can count eyelashes and it looks sharp from less a foot. Not always what you want, but at least it is an option.
This thread is about ten weeks old. Has it reshaped anyone’s approach to MF/FF, or Fuji/HB?
Andrew CD wrote:
These >1s exposure shots are amazing. And I appreciate that the X2D II’s IBIS is remarkable (although I must confess to being slightly sceptical about it being 10 stops); some of what Gordon has explained here and in other, very helpful posts makes quite a compelling case.
So the idea of a MF travel system has, I have to admit, got me interested. I am quite prepared to believe that the combination of IBIS and colour consistency (perhaps more than the IQ per se) would yield things that I can’t achieve with my Leica M and Sony A7R IV. Do I need that additional IQ and low light capability? Of course not, I’m a mere enthusiastic amateur. But there’s nothing wrong with wanting to try something that would, I’m sure, be a pleasure to use.
What fascinates me, though, is that quite a few of you seem to feel that something the size of the X2D is perfectly fine as a main travel camera. (I say that because of the size, not the weight; I’m perfectly happy to hike miles with my A1 + 2.8/300 + TC, which weighs well over 2kg, so appreciably more than the X2D II + 35-100.) The only thing that makes me hesitate is the thought that I have really enjoyed using Leica M as a small travel system. I look enough of a dork already, without having a whacking great camera to compound the situation (then again, who cares?). So my question is:
Do those of you who have used Leica M (or similarly sized mirrorless) also now feel comfortable using an X2D in the same sort of way, too?
(I appreciate that this is entirely subjective and is a matter of personal preference. I’d simply be interested to hear experiences from those of you who have done both.)...Show more →
I have noticed exactly zero difference in being noticed based on the camera system I carry. M, Q, SL, Sony Canon or the Hasselblads. I travel a lot to non white countries so the tubby old white guy stands out anyway.And yeah, I’ve also found an M is a very noticeable camera. You can easily shrink a Hasselblad to the size of an M. Your hand is basically the dominant thing when you hold up a camera rather than the black box it’s holding. Unless of course you really use a lot of whilte lenses. They really get noticed. Personally I think it’s more *my* perception I stand out more with a bigger camera rather than those around me.
For me, I don’t even try to blend in. I’ll smile and chat. And wait. Eventually they just let you go as really the thing they see initially is a potential threat (of some type). If I hang around a bit mostly after a few minutes I just get ignored. The camera has nothing to do with it. But at the same time sometimes I just like using an M or Q3 or SL My first trip with a modern Hasselblad was to Cuba in 2016 with an X1D and I’ve loved the system ever since. I’ve been to over 20 countries and 4 continents with my Hasselblads and never had an issue.
flash wrote:
I have noticed exactly zero difference in being noticed based on the camera system I carry. M, Q, SL, Sony Canon or the Hasselblads. I travel a lot to non white countries so the tubby old white guy stands out anyway.And yeah, I’ve also found an M is a very noticeable camera. You can easily shrink a Hasselblad to the size of an M. Your hand is basically the dominant thing when you hold up a camera rather than the black box it’s holding. Unless of course you really use a lot of whilte lenses. They really get noticed. Personally I think it’s more *my* perception I stand out more with a bigger camera rather than those around me.
For me, I don’t even try to blend in. I’ll smile and chat. And wait. Eventually they just let you go as really the thing they see initially is a potential threat (of some type). If I hang around a bit mostly after a few minutes I just get ignored. The camera has nothing to do with it. But at the same time sometimes I just like using an M or Q3 or SL My first trip with a modern Hasselblad was to Cuba in 2016 with an X1D and I’ve loved the system ever since. I’ve been to over 20 countries and 4 continents with my Hasselblads and never had an issue.
This is exactly right. It’s not the gear you are shooting with that people notice, it’s how the photographer approaches his photography. Trying to be sneaky and grabbing a shot will quickly get subjects on edge. Having your subject know you are there and getting comfortable with you is the approach I take. Never once did my gear get noticed once the people are comfortable with you.
There are many big differences in how people perform the vague niche of 'travel photography'. The human interactions really matter to street portraits and people photography, of course, if authenticity is the goal.
Do people perceive you as: #1 a photographer, or as #2 a person in their presence who happens to carry a camera? The bigger the camera and lens, the more they see you as #1. They see the effort you unconsciously expend to carry and hold the device; and they see and internally react to the size of it. The 'more of the camera, the less of you' is what registers in their minds. Like how they see those guys hanging around tourist sights to take pictures of visitors for money, toting 70-200s.
You can try a simple exercise: hold your camera and lens while looking at a mirror, as if to take a shot of your reflected self. Use your open other eye to see how much of your face is showing while doing this - because this is what the subject sees.
If you are using a large lens with an 86mm filter, you may look like a cross between a soldier holding a weapon and a surveillance officer, and neither is good news. Even more so if the lens obscures most of the camera body in this pose. They then see a giant telescope.
There are many reasons the greats use small cameras. As G/AI says:
'Iconic street photographers historically favored compact, quick-handling rangefinders—most notably Leica M-series—and small, fast-focusing compacts, allowing them to remain discreet and fast. Key choices included Leica M6/M3 and Ricoh GR series, prioritizing 35mm/50mm lenses for candids..'
My various portrait prime lenses (28-100mm) use 49, 55 or 58mm filters. Subjects are not intimidated by the 'weapon', they still can maintain good visual contact, and therefore the just-begun instant relationship with you. The shot is the culmination of the encounter - what I call the 'instant love affair' we have just experienced.
I'm not trying to dissuade anyone here -use what suits your needs and what you enjoy using, what works for you. Here are a couple of snips from the first video I came across looking at the 35-100mm, to support my above - YT: 'Six Months with the Hasselblad X2D II & 35-100E'.
Positioning and reaction time is more important. Your appearance will definitely matter in some countries and not at all in others. Social skill and fluidity can compensate for this, but won't offset completely in some places. Across the board though, people get bored and lose interest pretty quickly if you become a tree.
Latouf wrote:
I'm very intringued by MF. I've been shooting FF for quite some time and use that in a lot instances. I shoot Sony for sports and action. When on vacation however, I have always found My A1 and lenses to be big and attracting too much attention. I've had a RX1Rii for quite a few years and upgraded to the mark iii at launch. This is now my travel and EDC camera. I complement it with a RX100VII for longer shot.
I've had the chance to handle and use a bit of the GFX100RF and found it very interesting. I know it is only F4 and non IBS, but this doesn't bother me. I really like the Fuji Look and REALLY the aspect ratio capacity for framing (just wished Sony did a bit better on this aspect with a 61MP, they could). I like AF cameras and do not really use manual focus. Having experienced the cropping function on my RX, I'm stoke with the RF version using a 100MP sensor.
Having researched a bit, I started X2Dii with a 38mm. Now, I know this is the same category, but the size didn't seem that bad. Functions seem pretty good. It offers various aspect ratio as well. It shoots HDR, which I really do like (I do a lot of bracketing). This feature would appeal to me and would reduce my editing time (I think).
Anyone has experience with these 2 cameras as travel items? Is the x2dii really much bigger in person?
Seems like price is MUCH pricier for the HB as you get a more polyvalent camera with more tech, internal storage, IBIS and HDR. I also very much appreciate the HB menu system.
I know Fuji does the regular GFX series, but I've found it pretty bland looking when compared to the RF or the HB (you have to have some style, sometimes ). I've tried to find a local retailer for HB, but this doesn't seem to exist... Where I'm from.
If you find the Sony to big- The Hassy is going to fall into the same category- It will just have a bigger sensor.
You will be trading one thing for another and will eventually be in the same place. Not saying don't do it but you are just upgrading the sensor and all of your other problems/complaints will eventually re-surface.
All while spending boat loads more money-
Try a Leica M - I know you said you don't like manual focus but I didn't either- Until I tried a Leica M and haven't looked back about 4 years ago.
I am only a few days into an X2Dii adventure, but I have a few observations already, none however, relative to the Fuji fixed lens MF.
The size and weight of the X2Dii + 38v is within a few grams of the Sony a1 + 35GM (this was known prior to purchase). Personally, I have zero problem with that weight and carry that plus usually a bag with a 1-2 heavier lenses anywhere I travel. The RX1Riii is the lightest FF option by far, so if weight is a big deal for you, then even a FF mirrorless camera plus prime will be heavy. The fact that Hassie made a “medium format” system that can weigh as much as a FF is pretty miraculous. For instance, there were no FF combos that were similar to APS-C systems until the a7c series.
Second, the IBIS is pretty nice. I have only tried a few images, but 1/2 sec with a small hand tremor is totally doable, with only reasonably careful technique. For comparison - and to Scott’s point - I can shoot 1/2 sec with my a1, as long as I am using good technique…so in my non-scientific test, the Hassie is at least one stop easier/better.
The camera feels nice in hand, as Bob mentioned. However, I think it feels pretty comparable to my a1. Granted, I am so used to shooting the Sony that anything else feels different. The Hassie feel is miles better than my a7iii but is mostly just slightly different than the a1…not massively better and certainly no worse.
The menus and general usability of the Hassie are leagues better, but this is important mostly for people constantly needing to change settings. I am generally shooting one type of subject for a given day, so the only thing I change frequently is aperture, and that is easy to do on any camera.
HNCS: in very limited tests, the Hassie color system seems to provide very accurate color and nuanced, realistic tonality, even in extremes of light and dark in the same scene. This is for sure an initial starting position for an edit that is closer to what the eye saw. Is it a game changer? Too early for me to tell. What I can say is that it’s WB guess is confused when the colors in the scene are predominantly blues and greens. Interestingly, in scenes with essentially only shades of red and orange, the color is essentially spot on. Red themed scenes are challenging for Sony and Canon cameras. They probably struggle as much as the Hassie on blue-green themed scenes. The Hassie got WB and tonality perfectly on more typically balanced color scenes.
Ideal travel camera? That depends on what variables matter to you, but I certainly intend on using this combo, +/- the 25V when I travel.
You already have everything you need, but if you want to try medium format - why not?
