I'm looking for some advice on adding a digital Medium Format to my current setup. I actively shoot a Leica M10M and Nikon ZF, but lately have been wanting to do landscape. I've had in the past the Fuji GFX 50r and 100s and I found in general the images on the 50r more naturally pleasing more "organic" I've had this experience with other high pixel pitch cameras like Leica SL2-S and Nikon ZF where there's just something about the images I find more appealing. I'm also really more concerned about the experience of making images than I am with just the final result (i enjoy making images with the Leica more so than the Nikon for example).
With that said I've been trying to work through the process and make a decision.
Lenses
Lenses make or break a system for me and from what I can read/see of the available images the Fuji lenses seem like best in class particularly a lens like the 55mm f1.7. From what I can tell there just isn't an equivalent Hasselblad lens (the 55v seems like the worst of the newer V line). The Fuji 20-35 seems like quite good though it certainly seems like the Hasselblad XCD 30mm is equally as good. I think at the longer end Fuji has more options but both the 90 and 135 from Hasselblad seem good. I've had the 110mm f2 before and I know how good that lens is. Seems like Fuji wins on value and quality - Am I missing something here?
Shooting Experience
I've had the earlier generation of Fuji GFX and previously the X-Pro and XT series and the experience is mostly fine. The menus aren't great but aren't as bad as my Nikon ZF. I do enjoy a physical aperture ring I don't love setting it on camera. I don't need perfect eye focus or sticky AF-C as that doesn't really fit my intended use case. Weight matters but it's not as much about total weight as it is about balance etc. I didn't love using the GFX 100s and the 110mm because it felt top heavy on top of being heavy overall. I've found that if I don't like carrying the system around I'm just much less likely to take it out over say the M10M. I feel like I know what to expect with GFX and it's fine but it feels like Hasselblad probably wins here. Both the X1/2D and the 907x seem like they prioritize user experience.
Image Quality
Here's where I don't really know. I think it's a wash honestly. People love to talk about Hasselblad SOOC colors and I believe there's definitely something to color science and that the images start out with better colors from Hasselblad then Fuji but if I'm going to be moving those images into Lightroom and changing color values does that really matter? I think for me the main question is 50mp vs 100mp. Am I crazy for finding the 50mp images more pleasing? Do I go maybe 100mp and use something like glimmerglass to take off the digital edge?
With all that said here's what I'm considering:
Fuji - I've done the 50r and 100s so I'm looking at either the 50sii or the 100sii. My concern is it will likely end feeling like a been here done that before experience and I'll quickly go back to shooting something lighter and more engaging
Hasselblad - x1d ii, x2d or 907x 100c - all of these feel like new territory and will probably feel like a more engaging experience. I'm drawn to some of the older xcd lenses but I understand there's a weight penalty and some features that won't be available that are part of the new V series lenses. I see a lot of people switching out for the new V lenses but nobody really complaining about IQ loss either.
If you made it through my wall of text I'd love to hear your perspective even if you haven't used either of the systems.
If you're shooting landscape stopped down, lens quality wide open is largely irrelevant. Every modern lens is pretty much perfect at f/8. AF and leaf shutters are also irrelevant for landscape.
The sensors used by Fuji and Hasselblad are identical, so if you are processing RAW files there really is no difference besides the starting point for color.
Fuji has a longer zoom available than Hasselblad so that may be a reason to go that direction. Other than lens range, personal preference and budget are really the only differences in a landscape context.
One thing to be wary of with medium format for landscape is system size. It's smaller than it used to be, but medium format is still larger and heavier than full frame. If you're going to be carrying the equipment up a mountain or something like that, I'd calculate out the size and weight of the kit (plus larger tripods, filters, etc) before committing.
oscartb wrote:
The sensors used by Fuji and Hasselblad are identical, so if you are processing RAW files there really is no difference besides the starting point for color.
This is kinda asinine for a few reasons but the most important distinctions between Fuji's and Hassy's sensors are 1) HNCS is real and very important if you're bothering to shoot Hassy and 2) white balance metering is VERY different between Fuji and Hassy cameras, with Hassys having the more accurate by a margin in my experience shooting 5 different cameras between these two systems now.
My unpopular opinion is that you could get a Z7ii and share lenses with your Zf and still get landscapes that would be on par with medium format in both digital presentation and in print up to sizes you're likely uncomfortable with. The sensor in the Z7ii is a top 2 full frame landscape sensor of all time IMO.
Z7ii + Z 24-120 is about $5000 less than an X2D + 35-100 and you still get 40% more effective focal range.
I also wouldn't get an X2D over the X2D II having shot both, the quality of life bonuses on the II are things that should have always been there and annoying to lose.
My only experience with medium format is the use of the X2D and X2D2. Others, who have Fuji and Hasselblad will provide a better comparison, but here is why I chose to go with Hasselblad and a few other things.
First, the color science argument only applies when you first import files into Phocus Mobile, or Phocus Desktop and then export to Lightroom.
Second, the reason that people move to the newer ‘V’ lenses is smaller size/weight, ergonomics design and for many, the ability to use continuous autofocus. Also, the 20-35mm and 35-100mm duplicate the zoom range many are use to in FF. The longer zoom is very fast and has quite good optics. I can’t compare it to Fujifilm. I’ve seen others comment that the Fuji 20-35 equivalent zoom is a bit better optically, but the HB zoom works for me.
Two important aspects for me are the better than Leica menu system and the amazing IBIS. When you occasionally connect Phocus Mobile to the X2D2 IBIS system, the internal IBIS calculations factor in the spin of the earth and further refines stablization..or at least that is the claim. In real life, the newer ‘V’ lenses and f/2.5 maximum aperture, combined with the large sensor make this combination great for hand held low light performance.
For my hands, the X2D(2) is the most comfortable camera in hand that I have used and the X2D2 is the more responsive camera when compared to the X2D. Also, the addition of a joystick is a welcome improvement with the introduction of the X2D2.
The major downside of the HB is the cost of lenses. Every time you purchase a lens, you purchase a shutter. The plus here is that it is relatively quiet and a joy to use with flash.
The last argument for medium format vs FF is the ability to crop. I have a 24”x36” print on the wall from 1/3 of the original image. The image is completely sharp when viewing from about one foot, which, of course, is not the usual viewing distance. I didn’t just forget about framing the shot, but rather it was a split second opportunity with a fixed 38v lens. So, it was press the shutter now, or no shot. If you are shooting landscape from a tripod and you nail the shot every time then this advantage is, obviously, irrelevant.
oscartb wrote:
If you're shooting landscape stopped down, lens quality wide open is largely irrelevant. Every modern lens is pretty much perfect at f/8. AF and leaf shutters are also irrelevant for landscape.
The sensors used by Fuji and Hasselblad are identical, so if you are processing RAW files there really is no difference besides the starting point for color.
Fuji has a longer zoom available than Hasselblad so that may be a reason to go that direction. Other than lens range, personal preference and budget are really the only differences in a landscape context.
One thing to be wary of with medium format for landscape is system size. It's smaller than it used to be, but medium format is still larger and heavier than full frame. If you're going to be carrying the equipment up a mountain or something like that, I'd calculate out the size and weight of the kit (plus larger tripods, filters, etc) before committing. ...Show more →
There'd be hikes eventually by generally not a ton, but that was part of the appeal of something like the 907x where the weight is definitely less. I'm generally lean towards primes over zooms if/when it makes sense. For something with a lot of length I'd probably rent rather than buy. I generally like a wide angle and then something in the 40-58mm range for my shooting style.
RoamingScott wrote:
This is kinda asinine for a few reasons but the most important distinctions between Fuji's and Hassy's sensors are 1) HNCS is real and very important if you're bothering to shoot Hassy and 2) white balance metering is VERY different between Fuji and Hassy cameras, with Hassys having the more accurate by a margin in my experience shooting 5 different cameras between these two systems now.
My unpopular opinion is that you could get a Z7ii and share lenses with your Zf and still get landscapes that would be on par with medium format in both digital presentation and in print up to sizes you're likely uncomfortable with. The sensor in the Z7ii is a top 2 full frame landscape sensor of all time IMO.
Z7ii + Z 24-120 is about $5000 less than an X2D + 35-100 and you still get 40% more effective focal range.
I also wouldn't get an X2D over the X2D II having shot both, the quality of life bonuses on the II are things that should have always been there and annoying to lose....Show more →
Appreciate the thought and I definitely considering just sticking full frame since especially for the web the difference between MF and FF is subtle. I think mainly I just want to add something else to the "toolbelt" and while the added resolution of the Z7 would be nice I don't think it would be different enough from say the ZF for it feel like a more unique experience. Maybe I'm wish casting a bit about what shooting a Hassy would be like though. Would be interested to hear more about your X2D to X2DII experiences. I feel like I've read comments in both directions but my take was for an everyday camera the X2DII was a big jump forward but for something slower and more considered the X2D holds up well.
bwcolor wrote:
My only experience with medium format is the use of the X2D and X2D2. Others, who have Fuji and Hasselblad will provide a better comparison, but here is why I chose to go with Hasselblad and a few other things.
First, the color science argument only applies when you first import files into Phocus Mobile, or Phocus Desktop and then export to Lightroom.
Second, the reason that people move to the newer ‘V’ lenses is smaller size/weight, ergonomics design and for many, the ability to use continuous autofocus. Also, the 20-35mm and 35-100mm duplicate the zoom range many are use to in FF. The longer zoom is very fast and has quite good optics. I can’t compare it to Fujifilm. I’ve seen others comment that the Fuji 20-35 equivalent zoom is a bit better optically, but the HB zoom works for me.
Two important aspects for me are the better than Leica menu system and the amazing IBIS. When you occasionally connect Phocus Mobile to the X2D2 IBIS system, the internal IBIS calculations factor in the spin of the earth and further refines stablization..or at least that is the claim. In real life, the newer ‘V’ lenses and f/2.5 maximum aperture, combined with the large sensor make this combination great for hand held low light performance.
For my hands, the X2D(2) is the most comfortable camera in hand that I have used and the X2D2 is the more responsive camera when compared to the X2D. Also, the addition of a joystick is a welcome improvement with the introduction of the X2D2.
The major downside of the HB is the cost of lenses. Every time you purchase a lens, you purchase a shutter. The plus here is that it is relatively quiet and a joy to use with flash.
The last argument for medium format vs FF is the ability to crop. I have a 24”x36” print on the wall from 1/3 of the original image. The image is completely sharp when viewing from about one foot, which, of course, is not the usual viewing distance. I didn’t just forget about framing the shot, but rather it was a split second opportunity with a fixed 38v lens. So, it was press the shutter now, or no shot. If you are shooting landscape from a tripod and you nail the shot every time then this advantage is, obviously, irrelevant. ...Show more →
Re: the new V lenses is the performance difference really just a matter of not as good wide open and sort of equal at F8? Thinking the XCD 30 vs 38v (which would be my perferred V lens). It's really impossible to see differences in uploads to the web and I'm not really a pixel peeper by nature sort of "I know what I like when I see it."
The comfort part of the X2D is a big thing for me. Like weight matters but how it feels is more important than total weight if that makes sense. Also 100% agree on the cropping huge advantage to have that kind of room to work with.
selahsean wrote:
Re: the new V lenses is the performance difference really just a matter of not as good wide open and sort of equal at F8? Thinking the XCD 30 vs 38v (which would be my perferred V lens). It's really impossible to see differences in uploads to the web and I'm not really a pixel peeper by nature sort of "I know what I like when I see it."
The comfort part of the X2D is a big thing for me. Like weight matters but how it feels is more important than total weight if that makes sense. Also 100% agree on the cropping huge advantage to have that kind of room to work with....Show more →
I travelled in Asia for three weeks and used only the 38v. It is a relatively small, fast lens. I’ve travelled with the 38v and 30v and the 30v is definitely much larger/heavier, but some believe that it is the optically superior lens. For my use, the subtle differences in optics is irrelevant. It isn’t like comparing a kit lens to a Leica APO. BTW.. I suspect the ‘v lineup is APO, or very close to full APO.
selahsean wrote:
Would be interested to hear more about your X2D to X2DII experiences. I feel like I've read comments in both directions but my take was for an everyday camera the X2DII was a big jump forward but for something slower and more considered the X2D holds up well.
I guess that depends on how "strict" of a kit the Hassy would be for you. Personally, I was getting annoyed at the X2D in all the ways it was falling short outside of strict landscape or static work. The II fixed lots of those gripes...adding Auto ISO in Manual, fixing the way the LCD was blocked when shooting lower angles, adding a version of matrix metering, adding the joystick, adding AF-C, and furthering increasing the usefulness of the IBIS for handholding, far surpassing full frame and GFX IBIS systems.
I feel that I got a lot more bang for my buck with the X2DII, basically.
If all you want is a tripod medium format camera, you're best off getting a GFX 100S. You're not beholden to Hassy lens prices, have a deeper access of used glass, and have the option of adapting glass. The X2D, even now at its bargain bin used prices, is still a tough value prop as the foundation of a limited use kit. The 100S is a VERY light and small body for what it is.
RoamingScott wrote:
I guess that depends on how "strict" of a kit the Hassy would be for you. Personally, I was getting annoyed at the X2D in all the ways it was falling short outside of strict landscape or static work. The II fixed lots of those gripes...adding Auto ISO in Manual, fixing the way the LCD was blocked when shooting lower angles, adding a version of matrix metering, adding the joystick, adding AF-C, and furthering increasing the usefulness of the IBIS for handholding, far surpassing full frame and GFX IBIS systems.
I feel that I got a lot more bang for my buck with the X2DII, basically.
If all you want is a tripod medium format camera, you're best off getting a GFX 100S. You're not beholden to Hassy lens prices, have a deeper access of used glass, and have the option of adapting glass. The X2D, even now at its bargain bin used prices, is still a tough value prop as the foundation of a limited use kit. The 100S is a VERY light and small body for what it is....Show more →
Yeah this is a very head/heart kind of argument and why I appreciate forums like this. The value proposition is very clearly pointing to Fuji but as someone who shoots Leica value has never clearly been a primary concern in my photography. The things you mention about the X2D do seem like they would drive me a bit nuts (I do love Auto ISO in Manual...I know that's heresy to some), the LCD screen thing would definitely be annoying as I do favor portrait orientation for my photos (which is part of why I don't really think the 907x makes a lot of sense) and I shoot off the LCD a lot.
If you shoot off the LCD and shoot in portrait mode for even 25% of your shooting, the X2D line is likely not for you. The fact that the screen still doesn’t tilt in portrait is infuriating and I barely even need it. That’s where the GFX shines.
selahsean wrote:
Yeah this is a very head/heart kind of argument and why I appreciate forums like this. The value proposition is very clearly pointing to Fuji but as someone who shoots Leica value has never clearly been a primary concern in my photography. The things you mention about the X2D do seem like they would drive me a bit nuts (I do love Auto ISO in Manual...I know that's heresy to some), the LCD screen thing would definitely be annoying as I do favor portrait orientation for my photos (which is part of why I don't really think the 907x makes a lot of sense) and I shoot off the LCD a lot....Show more →
In film days I shot MF Hassy and Pentax because I couldn't stand working with 35mm negatives. And there was so much of a difference between 35mm and MF.
Now with digital full frame 60MP sensors are hard to beat. The Digital MF's have a slight advantage.
The reason a lot of people go digital MF is the process. I went with the Hasselblad 907X & CFV 100C because it's such a different process from Digital SLR/Mirrorless.
You said "a more engaging experience." I think you know you're leaning towards Hassy for this.
Now it's just up to you for what experience you're after.
RoamingScott wrote:
If you shoot off the LCD and shoot in portrait mode for even 25% of your shooting, the X2D line is likely not for you. The fact that the screen still doesn’t tilt in portrait is infuriating and I barely even need it. That’s where the GFX shines.
I second this criticism, but I must add that the X2D2’s Large HDR screen is really amazing. The tilt is better than the X2D, but not in line with many FF cameras.
RoamingScott wrote:
If you shoot off the LCD and shoot in portrait mode for even 25% of your shooting, the X2D line is likely not for you. The fact that the screen still doesn’t tilt in portrait is infuriating and I barely even need it. That’s where the GFX shines.
Oof...I was slightly afraid of that and was a large reason I had the 907x off my list...
fotografur wrote:
In film days I shot MF Hassy and Pentax because I couldn't stand working with 35mm negatives. And there was so much of a difference between 35mm and MF.
Now with digital full frame 60MP sensors are hard to beat. The Digital MF's have a slight advantage.
The reason a lot of people go digital MF is the process. I went with the Hasselblad 907X & CFV 100C because it's such a different process from Digital SLR/Mirrorless.
You said "a more engaging experience." I think you know you're leaning towards Hassy for this.
Now it's just up to you for what experience you're after....Show more →
Yep exactly I want something different than the current tools offer. I really appreciate everyone taking the time to respond definitely helps me process.
I recently used the Hasselblad X2D2 !00C with the 20-35mm zoom lens for a trip to northern Arizona. I visited The Wave, Upper and Lower Antelope Canyons, Cardiac Canyon, and Lake Powell. The camera and lens were a joy to use for these landscapes and quickly adjusting settings was readily accomplished. This set-up was easy to carry for the hike to The Wave as well as the climbing associated with traversing Cardiac Canyon. I was impressed with the high ISO performance and image stabilization utilized in the low light areas of the slot canyons. I am very pleased with the images and it was pleasure to use. The ability to adjust formats and use XPan was welcome. I rented the equipment from Lensrentals so I cannot comment on any additional experiences.
I have and use both systems. Currently I have a GFX100S, GFX100Sii and a GFX100ii plus every X camera and lens ever made. Since this is about landscapes I’ll keep it to landscapes.
1. The sensors. I agree the 50MP sensor is lovely but you also lose a lot. Cropping, especially to XPan and 2:1 is less of an issue. The Af is CAf and very pedestrian. HNCS is real but you can’t set the EVF to monochrome for composition, if you like that kind of thing. The Fuji WB isn’t as good as HB’s. On the 100MP sensor1:1 is still 80MP and XPan is nearly 50MP.
2. The bodies. For landscapes, except the rear screen I vastly prefer the Hasselblads. The Fujis tri flip screens are excellent for landscapes . The X1D doesn’t have a flip screen and the X2D is a PITA as the screen is partially blocked. The X2D2 fixed this but no vertical flip. Accessing functions on the Hasselblads is vastly easier as the menus are so simple. The Hasselblads stomps on the Fuji for long exposure implementation. HNCS means there’s no need (or provision for) long exposure noise reduction. The count down timer is better implemented. You can use a remote on the X1D, X1Dii and X2Dii. You use the app for the X2D (currently iOS only but a basic version has been released for android and remote functionality will likely come later??. Of tripod shooting is vastly better on the X2D as it’s IBIS is the best there is. The GFX100ii has the best EVF in a current camera. The GFXii and X2D(ii) are comparable with the edge to the Hasselblad. The Hasselblad has a much better rear screen. The X2D2 fixed and X2D2 have a go to infinity function which can be super useful.
3. Lenses. It’s a wash. Some of the Fuji lenses are spectacular and you have more long lens options but they’re almost always bigger/heavier. In GFX the only lens needed is the 20-35. It’s as good/better than the primes in this range and the best wide zoom I’ve ever used. The Hasselblad version is great it the primes are better. Only V lenses have aperture on lens capability. The V lenses have the best manual focus override of any system except the Olympus and Panasonic lenses that share the focus clutch. For landscapes I would consider some of the older XCD lenses as AF speed isn’t an issue. Although the XCD38V and 55V are the weakest of the new lenses they're not weak. They do need to be stopped down to get the corners going. The 25V and 90V are excellent at all apertures. The P lenses, new and old are all sharp from wide open and make an excellent tiny kit. The 21 and 30 are slightly better at wide apertures than the zoom. The 21 even makes a decent but slow wide astro lens. The 30 and 65 are very sharp. The new and old 90’s are very close so get the old one except for the lack of an aperture ring. The 135 is sensational even with the TC. You can’t buy the TC separately though. The 120 macro focus really slowly but is the sharpest of all the XCD glass. For optics your kit is 21, 30, 65, 90, 120 and 135. I still prefer the zooms as stopped down it’s negligible difference. I think the GFX 55 and 80 are just too big to lug around all day. Same with the 110. But generally you can choose any lens you’re prepared to carry.
4. The zooms are generally all excellent. The little GFX35-70 is tiny and the weakest but still very good a stop down. The GFX 20-35 is class leading (basically a bag of primes) and fully usable wide open. The 45-100 is fab at any aperture. Fujis currently make a 100-200 which has no direct Hasselblad equivalent. I’d choose the excellent 35-100HB over the GFX 45-100. Optically similar but the HB is lighter, faster and has more flexibility. The Older HB35-75 is optically spectacular but a bit shorter and heavier than the new one. But it could be your one and only lens for landscapes on the HB . I used to carry a 21, 35-75 and 135 as my kit. Now it the 20-35, 35-100 and 135 (with TC). Sometimes I swap out the 135 and TC for a GFX100Si and the 100-200.
flash wrote:
I have and use both systems. Currently I have a GFX100S, GFX100Sii and a GFX100ii plus every X camera and lens ever made. Since this is about landscapes I’ll keep it to landscapes.
1. The sensors. I agree the 50MP sensor is lovely but you also lose a lot. Cropping, especially to XPan and 2:1 is less of an issue. The Af is CAf and very pedestrian. HNCS is real but you can’t set the EVF to monochrome for composition, if you like that kind of thing. The Fuji WB isn’t as good as HB’s. On the 100MP sensor1:1 is still 80MP and XPan is nearly 50MP.
2. The bodies. For landscapes, except the rear screen I vastly prefer the Hasselblads. The Fujis tri flip screens are excellent for landscapes . The X1D doesn’t have a flip screen and the X2D is a PITA as the screen is partially blocked. The X2D2 fixed this but no vertical flip. Accessing functions on the Hasselblads is vastly easier as the menus are so simple. The Hasselblads stomps on the Fuji for long exposure implementation. HNCS means there’s no need (or provision for) long exposure noise reduction. The count down timer is better implemented. You can use a remote on the X1D, X1Dii and X2Dii. You use the app for the X2D (currently iOS only but a basic version has been released for android and remote functionality will likely come later??. Of tripod shooting is vastly better on the X2D as it’s IBIS is the best there is. The GFX100ii has the best EVF in a current camera. The GFXii and X2D(ii) are comparable with the edge to the Hasselblad. The Hasselblad has a much better rear screen. The X2D2 fixed and X2D2 have a go to infinity function which can be super useful.
3. Lenses. It’s a wash. Some of the Fuji lenses are spectacular and you have more long lens options but they’re almost always bigger/heavier. In GFX the only lens needed is the 20-35. It’s as good/better than the primes in this range and the best wide zoom I’ve ever used. The Hasselblad version is great it the primes are better. Only V lenses have aperture on lens capability. The V lenses have the best manual focus override of any system except the Olympus and Panasonic lenses that share the focus clutch. For landscapes I would consider some of the older XCD lenses as AF speed isn’t an issue. Although the XCD38V and 55V are the weakest of the new lenses they're not weak. They do need to be stopped down to get the corners going. The 25V and 90V are excellent at all apertures. The P lenses, new and old are all sharp from wide open and make an excellent tiny kit. The 21 and 30 are slightly better at wide apertures than the zoom. The 21 even makes a decent but slow wide astro lens. The 30 and 65 are very sharp. The new and old 90’s are very close so get the old one except for the lack of an aperture ring. The 135 is sensational even with the TC. You can’t buy the TC separately though. The 120 macro focus really slowly but is the sharpest of all the XCD glass. For optics your kit is 21, 30, 65, 90, 120 and 135. I still prefer the zooms as stopped down it’s negligible difference. I think the GFX 55 and 80 are just too big to lug around all day. Same with the 110. But generally you can choose any lens you’re prepared to carry.
4. The zooms are generally all excellent. The little GFX35-70 is tiny and the weakest but still very good a stop down. The GFX 20-35 is class leading (basically a bag of primes) and fully usable wide open. The 45-100 is fab at any aperture. Fujis currently make a 100-200 which has no direct Hasselblad equivalent. I’d choose the excellent 35-100HB over the GFX 45-100. Optically similar but the HB is lighter, faster and has more flexibility. The Older HB35-75 is optically spectacular but a bit shorter and heavier than the new one. But it could be your one and only lens for landscapes on the HB . I used to carry a 21, 35-75 and 135 as my kit. Now it the 20-35, 35-100 and 135 (with TC). Sometimes I swap out the 135 and TC for a GFX100Si and the 100-200.
