Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: wallpaperviking on May 24, 2018, 03:59:07 am
-
Just saw this video on the Hasselblad site and at about the 1.20 mark, he states that he had his lab do a print and that it was able to resolve better than those from his film 8 x 10 camera....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=1BplS1MmZXk
Anybody shooting with either the X1D or GFX and care to comment?
I still think the prints I have seen from 8 x 10 negatives are the absolute ultimate to my eyes but would be interested to know what others thought.. :)
-
I still think the prints I have seen from 8 x 10 negatives are the absolute ultimate to my eyes but would be interested to know what others thought.. :)
I think this is a bit over-optimistic.
Even my H6D-100c may not be totally up to 8x10.
On the other hand I have quite a few 2m wide prints from stitches in the hundreds of megapixel shot with DSLRs mostly, and that is significantly ahead of 8x10. I would probably position 8x10 done perfectly at 150~200 megapixels?
Now, the reality is that, with the 100mp backs, it is incredibly easy to get consistently levels of resolution close to 8x10 perfectly executed (meaning shot at optimal aperture with movements and with the handful of modern lenses covering 8x10 with movement). So if you take the average of 8x10 images, the actual level of resolution is probably significantly lower than the few perfect frames.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Resolution of detail is only one ingredient that makes up the cake of image quality.
It's probably something that isn't wrong within certain perimeters.
-
i have a friend who frequently shoots 8x10 right now and he put my GFX right next to it for comparison....
there is no straight answer, if you are looking for one, i would say no, it does not out resolve 8x10 but things aren't that easy and there are a lot of variables, scanning probably being the most important one.....but a crappy processing job on the 8x10 film can throw things off as well....
a well shot, processed, scanned 8x10 still beats a 50mpix sensor....and it is pretty clear actually....
it definitely looks different anyway and going to 100 or 200 mpix wont really change that....
the crazy thing is that you can walk around with a X1D or GFX and keep shooting 4x5 quality in point and shoot size and ease....and that does not even consider the difference in price....
-
There isn't one answer to that. Factors include:
- 8x10 captured in a rigerously setup studio experiment, or 8x10 captured in the field under normal environmental conditions?
- 8x10 black and white or 8x10 color? Which emulsions?
- 8x10 scanned using 20 year old legacy technology like a flatbed or drum scanner, or an 8x10 scanned using a modern film scanner (https://dtdch.com/film-scanning-kit/)?
- "resolve" meaning being able to identify a subject (e.g. read a license plate or a test chart) or "resolve" meaning beautifully reproduce on a really large print?
As a point of reference we don't sell the GFX or X1D, but we do sell both a 50mp and 100mp camera and when someone comes to us shooting 8x10 film they almost always end up buying an IQ3 100mp Trichromatic rather than a 50mp model; there were various reasons people shot 8x10 film but one of the most common was that they wanted the absolute best image quality regardless of weight or cost. Today, I'd argue strongly, that is an IQ3 100mp Trichromatic with a tech camera and Rodenstock HR or XF with Blue Ring Schneider lenses. But, then, I'm hugely biased ;D.
-
Resolution of detail is only one ingredient that makes up the cake of image quality.
It's probably something that isn't wrong within certain perimeters.
I agree. It all depends upon what you are shooting and what you are looking at/for in the print. Who did the scanning and how? Who did the printing and with what materials? Color or black and white? So, no clear answer. However there is no question but that the photographer in the video, Stephen Shore, one of the most acclaimed color photographers of all time, looks much happier at age 70 walking around shooting with his X1D than the 8x10 he used to shoot with.
-
I agree with Bernard. i think the 100 mp chip is close to 8x10, it may be that 150mp equals 8x10. There are so many factors involved in comparing. Just my two cents to this discussion.
I am stitching images for the panoramic format using the Phase One XF IQ3 100 and getting files sizes approaching 5 GB un uprezzed. These files have incredible detail and colour smoothness almost film like. I used to shoot my panoramics with a Horseman 617 with Velvia 50 film with three lenses.
The larger file size has allowed me to broaden the market for my work. This week we just sold 3 wall mural size prints. It is a market where the client knows they are getting files sizes that can stand up to the enlargements. For me in the field it had opened up new possibilities for imagery with the flexibility to stitch to create the composition I want using 6 different lenses ranging from 35mm to 240mm. With the Horseman I was limited to 72, 110 and 180mm.
-
Just saw this video on the Hasselblad site and at about the 1.20 mark, he states that he had his lab do a print and that it was able to resolve better than those from his film 8 x 10 camera....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=1BplS1MmZXk
Anybody shooting with either the X1D or GFX and care to comment?
I still think the prints I have seen from 8 x 10 negatives are the absolute ultimate to my eyes but would be interested to know what others thought.. :)
Anyone who thinks that 8x10 is outclassed by a Hassy is a good target for DJI's sales drones :)
Edmund
-
i hope everybody watched this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T029CTSO0IE) much more interesting....
-
As an absolute matter, I'm sure the answer is no. An 8x10 sheet of film contains way more information than a 50 mp sensor. But as a practical matter, as others have pointed out, it's a much closer ball game. There's many factors that prevent the full potential of an 8x10 film sheet from fully expressing itself on a finished print. With the 8x10, there's so many variables that can affect the final outcome: the image lighting, the sharpness, camera shake, scanning, printing, lens choice, the printing process (optical printing has its own set of issues). With digital, it's a much straighter path from capture to output. The X1D lenses are amazingly sharp - much sharper than older generations of lenses that you're likely to find on film cameras.
Recently I took in the Stephen Shore exhibition at MOMA. They had a gallery filled with his 16x20 sized prints from his 8x10. There was nothing in these prints that couldn't have been duplicated with a 40 or 50 mp MF camera. On the other hand, I also saw Gursky's most recent show at Gagosian in NYC. I assume that he's shooting those 10 by 20 foot prints with an 8x10. Whatever he's using, he's wringing everything possible out of his image - from capture to printing. No way can a 50 mp camera match that.
-
Since we're on the topic of Stephen Shore, there's this video from Hasselblad where he claims that "the work from this camera (the X1D) is more highly resolved than my 8x10 camera." Hmmm.... Stephen Shore Talking About the X1D (https://www.hasselblad.com/news/stephen-shore-on-the-x1d/)
-
On the other hand, I also saw Gursky's most recent show at Gagosian in NYC. I assume that he's shooting those 10 by 20 foot prints with an 8x10. Whatever he's using, he's wringing everything possible out of his image - from capture to printing. No way can a 50 mp camera match that.
i think gursky shoots digital exclusively these days....he even blows shots from his iPhone up to gigantic....but his shots are heavily manipulated, stitched together, adjusted, altered....Rhein II (http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/gursky-the-rhine-ii-p78372) is not a straight photograph
-
Steven Shore is a living legend and the real deal.
I think his comment is more in comparison with his own work with large format. But for context, that was mostly in the 70's and 80's.
I've always felt that 60MP was similar to large format, being somewhere in between 4x5 and 10x8 for some things.
Either way, he has near large format in a tiny camera. What's not to love?
-
I agree. It all depends upon what you are shooting and what you are looking at/for in the print. Who did the scanning and how? Who did the printing and with what materials? Color or black and white? So, no clear answer. However there is no question but that the photographer in the video, Stephen Shore, one of the most acclaimed color photographers of all time, looks much happier at age 70 walking around shooting with his X1D than the 8x10 he used to shoot with.
And also, which film?
And yes, there are many factors, but due to the size of the negative, I always presume people are indicating resolution as the criteria. At that point, I have no doubt that a quality 8x10 film capture, scanned with a quality device, will ultimately be able to fulfill a higher resolution/scale than a 50mp digital capture device.
As to any other image qualifications, that is far murkier.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
If you want to bring in the variable of scanning, you have already blown the comparison.
Should you want to see the best from an 8x10 film, then you have got to see it printed wet, on WSG paper. Well glazed.
As others have pointed out, the advantage of size is tonality. Lenses can, I suppose, affect tonality to a degree, but it's the magic of printing and developing a wet print that makes it what it is.
The clinical truth lies in the comparison between the best of a wet process with the best of a digital process. Implicit in that, the fact that you simply have to ignore things like micro-management of burning in and holding back where digital become superior by dint of being a mechanical process rather than one of the abilities of hand and eye and sixth sense.
I'd suggest the two processes have become so different that comparison is pretty meaningless.
-
It is more of a question of what do you want your workflow to entail? Digital has solved the element of time vs PP and film has not. Film to me has a look that if exposed, scanned or printed correctly is unique unto itself. But digital also has a look not easily achieved with film, at the end of the day you can get there going down both roads. Kudos to those who still shoot film its a novel concept (and a never ending discussion) although tempting one that I will never revisit again.
PS Bless those who like me still make large prints!
-
The fact that this is even being discussed is indicative that a Handheld MF camera is competitive with 8x10. Probably one of the greatest benefits of the X1D are its lenses, which have been designed with 100MP sensors in mind and have already been tested as outstanding on a 50MP sensor. When I shot 8x10, I didn’t use the finest glass except, perhaps, for the Schneider 210XL, which was capable of MF resolution on 11x14 film. As such, I likely didn’t get the most out of the format. I still think that my 8x10 work resolved over 100MP. That said, I will be interested in the 100MP X1D when it is released, as I believe it will be good enough from an image quality standpoint and clearly superior in every other way.
-
Amazing responses, thanks so much! Always good to hear others thoughts and opinions :)
-
i hope everybody watched this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T029CTSO0IE) much more interesting....
thank you! nice one!
-
i hope everybody watched this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T029CTSO0IE) much more interesting....
I'm four days late to Stephen's party: when I checked in they'd all gone home though I don't think Stephen'd noticed; what did I miss?
;-)
Rob
-
I am a bit late to that party but, from several visits to museums with large prints from sheet film and MF cameras, I would estimate 8 x 10 to be around 100 mpix, and even a bit more for B&W. That is when I consider the resolution of fine details only. On other aspects, the mediums are visually different.
An aspect which I did not see in this thread is the compromise between depth of field and diffraction. To get adequate depth of field on 8 x 10, one has to close the aperture to f/32 or even more on most subjects. In turn, that implies that resolution is limited by diffraction to something around 100-150 mpix. The limit is not that much different for digital MF. There is no limit when taking pictures of flat subject or when everything is infinitely far, because we don't need depth of field then. But for 3-dimensional subjects and taking into account individual tastes as to what depth of field is desired, probably an upper limit on resolution is also to be expected and that limit is independent of the format.
-
There are those who will argue but....It’s a trick question but the real answer baring all the BS is it’s a different look at its best, time and capture is more expensive. With perfect light an 8x10 can be extraordinary but 100mp sensor is always approaching that level and better when bracketed without the extra effort.
-
It may depend on how you scan and process those 8"x10" images...
Best regards
Erik
Just saw this video on the Hasselblad site and at about the 1.20 mark, he states that he had his lab do a print and that it was able to resolve better than those from his film 8 x 10 camera....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=1BplS1MmZXk
Anybody shooting with either the X1D or GFX and care to comment?
I still think the prints I have seen from 8 x 10 negatives are the absolute ultimate to my eyes but would be interested to know what others thought.. :)
-
.... I would estimate 8 x 10 to be around 100 mpix, and even a bit more for B&W.....
I always regarded 35mm film to be the equivalent of 20MP. When the 5D2 came out we finally had a digital as good as film.
So based on that medium format film is about 45MP.
8x10 film would be about (250/36) x 200/24 x 20MP which is about 1157 MP.
But who cares. That is the film only and assumes that the lens is able to resolve that which is unlikely.
At the end of the day to produce an 8x10 print from an 8x10 negative you don't have to magnify at all. To produce an 8x10 print from even a medium format X1D at 44 x 33mm would be magnification of 250/44 x 200/33 or about 34 times. Again though, who cares. You can get a great 8x10 print from an iPhone. Make a print a metre wide an look at it.
-
8x10 film would be about (250/36) x 200/24 x 20MP which is about 1157 MP.
This calculation ignores that the tolerances in a typical LF camera are much larger than in a small format one, that a sheet of LF film is not as flat as it should be, that LF lenses are used at apertures where diffraction is a limitation, etc...
As I already said, when one visits exhibitions with LF, MF and digital prints the situation is different than what naive calculations show.
-
Hi,
There was a test organized by Tim Parkin, here: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
Some commentary: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison-comments/
I particularly noted that Hans Strand noted that MFD was preferable to 4"x5" and the probable cause of that was depth of field and diffraction.
Editor's commentary is also interesting: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/
My own experience is that digital images have better quality than film. I would think that film can sometimes resolve more high contrast detail. The quality of film images also depends on processing.
Almost any good lens I have ever tested performed best at f/5.6 or so, at least in the sweet spot of the lens. So, I would say that diffraction effects show up at f/8.
Imaging theory essentially says that diameter of the aperture decides the performance of a well designed lens.
Best regards
Erik
This calculation ignores that the tolerances in a typical LF camera are much larger than in a small format one, that a sheet of LF film is not as flat as it should be, that LF lenses are used at apertures where diffraction is a limitation, etc...
As I already said, when one visits exhibitions with LF, MF and digital prints the situation is different than what naive calculations show.
-
There was a test organized by Tim Parkin, here: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
This comparison dates back to 2011, 7 years ago. It says so right there in the url, actually.
Phase One 80 MP back was already available then. The test shows that back to be comparable to 8"x10" film. No equal, just comparable. But also not 10 times worse as in "8" x 10" film would be 1157 MP"
-
This calculation ignores that the tolerances in a typical LF camera are much larger than in a small format one, that a sheet of LF film is not as flat as it should be, that LF lenses are used at apertures where diffraction is a limitation, etc...
As I already said, when one visits exhibitions with LF, MF and digital prints the situation is different than what naive calculations show.
Naive?
I did say that I was referring to just the film.
Show me the real world examples of where a 100MP camera is 10 times better than a 10MP camera. There are diminishing returns yes, but even a little better is better if it matters, and often it does.
It also has a lot to do with the photographer.
-
What I find interesting about recent X1D threads is that many users really like the camera. Hassy have hit a home run. If the price of a good relationship with Sony was Lunar, maybe it was worth it :)
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
Good point!
I would think that the X1D has a couple of advantages over most competitors.
- The lenses are designed for the actual sensor size.
- Autofocus is based on contrast detection.
In all probability the lenses are a bit sharper than lenses designed for the full 645 format. My understanding is also that they are calculated for 100 MP sensor resolution.
Contrast detecting auto focus (CDAF) is as accurate as it gets, as it does analyse the actual image. In almost all cases PDAF is less accurate. But, both CDAF and PDAF can have issues with focus shift. With CDAF it is possible to focus at any aperture.
So the X1D has a great set of lenses and a very accurate focusing system. Leaf shutter and no mirror keeps vibrations low. So, it is quite probable that the X1D can deliver excellent image quality.
If a photographer used 8"x10" and hw now happens to be using the X1D does not say that the X1D matches 8"x10".
Back in 2006, when the 39 MP P45 arrived, quite a few photographers switched from 4"x5" to the P45. Some discussions here:
https://luminous-landscape.com/single-video/interview-charles-cramer/
https://luminous-landscape.com/single-video/california-llvj-16/
So, it may be a relevant assumption that something like 39 MP is good match for 4"x5" film scanned at 2000PPI, which semt to be what the folks in the videos compared with.
8"x10" has four times the area of 4"x5", so I don't think that X1D can match that. But taking other factors into account, like vibrations, film flatness, wind it may be much more practical.
It would be interesting to compare the X1D with the H6D50c. I would guess that the X1D would win. But, would you compare the X1D to the H6D100c it would win.
I guess that X2D is around the corner somewhere, with the new 100 MP sensor. Will the 100 MP X2d match the H6D100c?
Having well performing MFD at decent prices is very nice.
Best regards
Erik
What I find interesting about recent X1D threads is that many users really like the camera. Hassy have hit a home run. If the price of a good relationship with Sony was Lunar, maybe it was worth it :)
Edmund
-
I really dig the design of this camera, but it's not really workable for my commercial workflow. An X2d, though... I'd probably jump on it just to have.
-
I really dig the design of this camera, but it's not really workable for my commercial workflow. An X2d, though... I'd probably jump on it just to have.
That's what I meant: Hassy has made a product which people really like! This enthusiasm had been missing from MF for a long time.
I think the Hassy with its total lack of internal moving parts may be called the first true electronic still camera :)
Edmund
-
Hi Chris,
Once you have the X2D, you can compare it to 8"x10"? But, I guess that image quality is not what you shoot 8"x10"?
Best regards
Erik
I really dig the design of this camera, but it's not really workable for my commercial workflow. An X2d, though... I'd probably jump on it just to have.
-
Heh, if I get that thing in my hands, I'll definitely do a comparison with a still-life in the studio
-
Just like a Canon 5D3 or 5D4 was little different to a 5D2, I doubt that an X2D will be much different to an X1D.
It is a winner at a similar price to a high end 35mm. Why wouldn't you want one?
I don't even have any lenses that AF yet.
-
Just like a Canon 5D3 or 5D4 was little different to a 5D2, I doubt that an X2D will be much different to an X1D.
It is a winner at a similar price to a high end 35mm. Why wouldn't you want one?
I don't even have any lenses that AF yet.
if we assume that the not even announced X2D will have the new 100mpix sensor, it will be a completely different camera....
the 50mpix sensor is great but pretty old by now and everything about the new one is just way better, faster and more efficient and even if it does not come with PDAF it will make the X2D a very different camera....
will a 11x14 print look any different? will it be possible to tell which is which from a normal size print? maybe not, but the overall shooting experience will hopefully be very different.
i pasted this X1D hands onn experience video (https://youtu.be/zAMiR-3j8sw) in the other thread as well....I like that they show what it is like to shoot with it....and the first review (afaik) to show the pixel advantage of a 3x4 sensor compared to 35mm when printing 8x10, 11x14,....one of my main reasons to stick with the same sensor in the GFX....
the question is not necessarily if the X1D or GFX out resolve 8x10 but if any of the great masters that used to shoot 8x10 would rather take the X1D or GFX on the road given the option.....i know all people i used to know who shot 8x10 for work would take a digital capture over film as long as it was able to do T/S and they would have loved focus stacking....
8x10 is a way of shooting much more then an ultimate result these days...nothing wrong with it at all...but pixel peeping does not make much sense....
-
Hi,
I would think that the X1D will be a much better camera than the X1D. Why, because I guess that Hasselblad has a lot of feedback from users and I also think they have defined the camera's place in the marketplace better. Not least, I think they can employ more technology from DJI who is their main owner, according to this site.
Still, I don't I would buy the X2D, even if I could afford it. Having 100 MP would be nice, if I would print very large, like 40"x60". The only prints I have at that size are on canvas, and I don't think I would need 100 MP for that. My Sony A7rII covers my needs pretty well, I think.
But, if we need a larger format camera, I think that 44x33 mm with a 100 MP sensor makes a lot of sense. I also happen to think that you need 100 MP to make those new lenses for the GFX and the X1D justice.
Best regards
Erik
Just like a Canon 5D3 or 5D4 was little different to a 5D2, I doubt that an X2D will be much different to an X1D.
It is a winner at a similar price to a high end 35mm. Why wouldn't you want one?
I don't even have any lenses that AF yet.
-
Hi,
I would think that the X1D will be a much better camera than the X1D. Why, because I guess that Hasselblad has a lot of feedback from users and I also think they have defined the camera's place in the marketplace better. Not least, I think they can employ more technology from DJI who is their main owner, according to this site.
Still, I don't I would buy the X2D, even if I could afford it. Having 100 MP would be nice, if I would print very large, like 40"x60". The only prints I have at that size are on canvas, and I don't think I would need 100 MP for that. My Sony A7rII covers my needs pretty well, I think.
But, if we need a larger format camera, I think that 44x33 mm with a 100 MP sensor makes a lot of sense. I also happen to think that you need 100 MP to make those new lenses for the GFX and the X1D justice.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I think we can expect an "X1D MarkII" with 50MP but a better shooting experience.
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
May be. My impression is that it 100% clear that the next 44x33 mm sensor will be 100 MP and there will not be a new generation of the 50 MP 44x33 mm sensor. I think this is quite clear from some of Ming Thein's writing.
So, we will see major upgrade with the 100 MP sensor. It is quite possible that modifications with the new model would be passed down the line for an upgrade of the old model.
But, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I would guess that we may see an X2D50c model that has the old sensor and an X2D100c model with the new sensor.
I would also guess that the X2D will have some new ASIC/LSI stuff developed in cooperation with DJI. I am not sure a small company like Hasselblad would split engineering resources to make a multitude of models, although that strategy seems to be working for Leica.
As a side note, Ming Thein indicated that the 50 MP sensor was intended for DSLRs, not EVF systems. So, it is quite feasible that the 100 MP sensor will come with a better feature set for EVF. In case you missed it, Ming Thein is now employed as director of strategy by Hasselblad. So, he is probably one of those guys who know, but are not allowed to tell.
Anyway, it is nice that affordable MFD is here.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
I think we can expect an "X1D MarkII" with 50MP but a better shooting experience.
Edmund
-
i also doubt that there will be a X2D (50mpix)....fuji is rumored to come out with a smaller (more X1D like i guess) GFX50R (rangefinder?) which should be the last time we see this sensor being used. when fuji and hasselblad set out to do mirrorless DMF they knew they that price was key, so the older 50 pix sensor made a lot of sense....but now they know that these systems have been well received and it makes sense to push forward....the next round has to put more pressure on FF mirrorless in function and features to justify the higher price....its one thing to bring an older but still used sensor to the market at a much lower price then existing DMF, but now i am not sure how many people even consider those old high end systems anymore.....and everybody is already talking about the 100mpix systems as if they are already announced (shipping is still a year? away), nikon is coming out with a mirrorless system to go head to head with sony's A7 line....the next fuji and hasselblad models will not only have to have pretty amazing sensors (to keep an edge) but also really step up the overall handling and functionality of the bodies.....it wont be enough for the X2D or GFX100 to have better AF then a phase or H6....it will be compared to the A7RIII and D850....i think fuji will have an advantage because of their in house experience with the smaller systems....
either way: it is simply stupid how good the files out of the A7RIII or D850 actually are....it is really hard to find shortcomings and one really has to nitpick and we all know that sony definitely does not sleep....
-
To me, a cheap entry level model makes sense; one could even imagine a really cheap version of this camera with a 35mm sensor dropped in, or one with a sensor with a wide cine aspect ratio like the old Xpan :)
Edmund
-
Perhaps there should be a sentence at the end of each comment along the lines of one of the following:
1. I own and use this camera
2. I have used this camera
3. I have seen and held this camera
4. I know someone who has seen this camera
5. I never used, held, or even seen this camera and have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about.
(:-)
-
6. What is camera?
-
... nikon is coming out with a mirrorless system to go head to head with sony's A7 line....the next fuji and hasselblad models will not only have to have pretty amazing sensors (to keep an edge) but also really step up the overall handling and functionality of the bodies.....it wont be enough for the X2D or GFX100 to have better AF then a phase or H6....it will be compared to the A7RIII and D850....i think fuji will have an advantage because of their in house experience with the smaller systems....
I think this is a really good point. It’s hard to imagine MF giving speed of focusing comparable to Sony or Nikon or Canon. There’s just too much mass in the lenses for them to be as quick without the lenses becoming much larger to house more powerful motors (see the Leica SL). But one of the real compromises in usabilit6 for the X1D is the need to close the leaf shutter before it can open to take a shot. It requires a delay that is very hard to live with for some uses. I wonder if an electronic shutter mode would be possible in a MF sensor, and if that could provide an effective alternative for some use cases?
-
Perhaps there should be a sentence at the end of each comment along the lines of one of the following:
1. I own and use this camera
2. I have used this camera
3. I have seen and held this camera
4. I know someone who has seen this camera
5. I never used, held, or even seen this camera and have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about.
(:-)
Do you request the same of politicians or journalists?
Edmund
-
Hi,
It is not necessary to close the shutter before exposure. The exposure can be started by just resetting the sensor. That is the same method that is used for electronic first shutter curtain. As far as I know, Hasselblad uses this technology to achieve 1/2000s sync time.
With present technology, global simultaneous readout is not possible with normal CMOS. So it is possible to start an exposure with a global reset, but it is not possible to terminate it with a global readout.
Electronic First Curtain is possible with Focal Plane shutter. Exposure starts with open shutter the sensor is reset row for row, resulting in a sweeping reset. This acts as first curtain. The second curtain terminates exposure. The sweeping reset and the second curtain must be in sync.
So, exposure starts with shutter open and terminates with the second shutter fully closed.
The electronic shutter on the X1D and the GFX is a virtual electronic focal plane shutter. The first curtain is a sweeping reset. The second curtain is a sweeping readout of the sensor. But, full readout of the sensor takes around 300 ms. The sweep time of the electronic shutter is thus around 300 ms.
Global shutter is possible, if the charge in each pixel can be popped to a storage position, but that means giving up half of the sensor area for storage, meaning 41% increase in noise and a loss of 1EV in DR.
Best regards
Erik
I think this is a really good point. It’s hard to imagine MF giving speed of focusing comparable to Sony or Nikon or Canon. There’s just too much mass in the lenses for them to be as quick without the lenses becoming much larger to house more powerful motors (see the Leica SL). But one of the real compromises in usabilit6 for the X1D is the need to close the leaf shutter before it can open to take a shot. It requires a delay that is very hard to live with for some uses. I wonder if an electronic shutter mode would be possible in a MF sensor, and if that could provide an effective alternative for some use cases?
-
[In the interest of full disclosure, I’m in category 3: I’ve held and tried this camera, but only in a camera store. So my time with it and knowledge is very limited.]
So that is different from what I understood, and perhaps the need to close the shutter is a changeable setting. That would be good. My understanding was that electronic shutter was possible on the 50mp chips, but at a readout so slow that it’s not really useable in many (especially hand held) situations. Global shutter is a few years away, I expect. (We’re not seeing much of it yet even in motion cameras, where ther is a lot of interest in it for a variety of reasons.) But my thought was that responsiveness improvements in the ‘decisive moment’ were likely to be important—and possible—in the next generation, even in the face of physics that limit pure focus speed.
Hi,
It is not necessary to close the shutter before exposure. The exposure can be started by just resetting the sensor. That is the same method that is used for electronic first shutter curtain. As far as I know, Hasselblad uses this technology to achieve 1/2000s sync time.
With present technology, global simultaneous readout is not possible with normal CMOS. So it is possible to start an exposure with a global reset, but it is not possible to terminate it with a global readout.
Electronic First Curtain is possible with Focal Plane shutter. Exposure starts with open shutter the sensor is reset row for row, resulting in a sweeping reset. This acts as first curtain. The second curtain terminates exposure. The sweeping reset and the second curtain must be in sync.
So, exposure starts with shutter open and terminates with the second shutter fully closed.
The electronic shutter on the X1D and the GFX is a virtual electronic focal plane shutter. The first curtain is a sweeping reset. The second curtain is a sweeping readout of the sensor. But, full readout of the sensor takes around 300 ms. The sweep time of the electronic shutter is thus around 300 ms.
Global shutter is possible, if the charge in each pixel can be popped to a storage position, but that means giving up half of the sensor area for storage, meaning 41% increase in noise and a loss of 1EV in DR.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Just for your information, I was looking for having a demonstration of the X1D at the museum of photography in Stockholm (capital of Sweden), but they just had a stand with some mock ups and DJI drones. Later I was looking for Hasselblad at the Stockholm Photo Exhibition in Stockholm, the main photo gear exhibition in Sweden, but Hasselblad could not be found.
Fuji was there, and I could play with the GFX.
That said, I don't think it is possible to evaluate a camera system in a short demo. You need to work with the system for a few months to find weaknesses and strengths. user testing is just too much error prone and subject to bias.
Looking at test, like DPReview is actually pretty good. Professional testers do testing for living and they know a couple of things about testing. They also have invested a lot in test setups and testing experience.
Looking at DPReview tests tells far more about any camera than doubling with it for a few days or weeks.
Best regards
Erik
[In the interest of full disclosure, I’m in category 3: I’ve held and tried this camera, but only in a camera store. So my time with it and knowledge is very limited.]
So that is different from what I understood, and perhaps the need to close the shutter is a changeable setting. That would be good. My understanding was that electronic shutter was possible on the 50mp chips, but at a readout so slow that it’s not really useable in many (especially hand held) situations. Global shutter is a few years away, I expect. (We’re not seeing much of it yet even in motion cameras, where ther is a lot of interest in it for a variety of reasons.) But my thought was that responsiveness improvements in the ‘decisive moment’ were likely to be important—and possible—in the next generation, even in the face of physics that limit pure focus speed.
-
The X1D surely has less resolution but film, at least transparency film, has nowhere the dynamic range of the 50 or 100 mp sensor nor does it have the high iso capability. Then there is the hassle of loading film holders, the expense of film, developing, and scanning.
Practically speaking film is dead for all but the die hards
-
Hi Doug,
Based on my experience, I would agree with what you say.
But, if you have a time and a great drum scanner it may make some sense to use large format film.
This video tells a story: https://luminous-landscape.com/single-video/charlie-cramers-story/
Listen in at around 17:40 in the video...
Best regards
Erik
The X1D surely has less resolution but film, at least transparency film, has nowhere the dynamic range of the 50 or 100 mp sensor nor does it have the high iso capability. Then there is the hassle of loading film holders, the expense of film, developing, and scanning.
Practically speaking film is dead for all but the die hards
-
[In the interest of full disclosure, I’m in category 3: I’ve held and tried this camera, but only in a camera store. So my time with it and knowledge is very limited.]
So that is different from what I understood, and perhaps the need to close the shutter is a changeable setting. That would be good. My understanding was that electronic shutter was possible on the 50mp chips, but at a readout so slow that it’s not really useable in many (especially hand held) situations. Global shutter is a few years away, I expect. (We’re not seeing much of it yet even in motion cameras, where ther is a lot of interest in it for a variety of reasons.) But my thought was that responsiveness improvements in the ‘decisive moment’ were likely to be important—and possible—in the next generation, even in the face of physics that limit pure focus speed.
The limitations of the e-shutter on the X1D are pretty overblown and my impression from people actually using the X1D with third party lenses is that the limitations of eshutter on the X1D aren't really that big a deal in real world usage. Yes we're all aware of the readout speed, but it's an instance in my mind where tech specs don't necessarily match up with real-world results.
For example, if you head over to hasselbladdigitalforum.com, there's a thread with sample images with an X1D and a 350mm Hassy V lens handheld, demonstrating it's perfectly usable even at longer focal lengths with moving subjects. Even when e-shutter for the X1D was announced, Ming Thein posted samples with various Zeiss lenses handheld in a concert atmosphere, which is challenging light even for cameras without eshutter. There are numerous examples over at GetDPI, the X1D facebook group, etc of people using the X1D in eshutter mode in a variety of settings and shooting configurations, which demonstrates it is actually mostly usable, rather than mostly unusable.
In my limited testing with eshutter and the X1D I found it to be fine for my purposes too, although I personally prefer sticking with the native lenses (I have the 21, 30, 45, and 90 XCD).
-
The limitations of the e-shutter on the X1D are pretty overblown...
Except that you can't use strobe, right? Which pretty much precludes it from being useful in about 90% of professional situations. Point to the GFX. Also, back to Doug's point about DR. I've found neg films, color and b&w to have DR very comparable to digital. My a7r3 has become the polaroid for my studio film shoots. As for transparency... yeah, I definitely do not miss having 5 or 6 stops to work with.
CB
-
Except that you can't use strobe, right? Which pretty much precludes it from being useful in about 90% of professional situations. Point to the GFX. Also, back to Doug's point about DR. I've found neg films, color and b&w to have DR very comparable to digital. My a7r3 has become the polaroid for my studio film shoots. As for transparency... yeah, I definitely do not miss having 5 or 6 stops to work with.
CB
That is true I think, but for situations that don't require strobe it is a lot more usable than people make it to be.
For anyone that relies heavily on adapting third party lenses (and needs strobes), the GFX (or camera with a FPS) is a better option. I like that eshutter is there if I need it, but I don't really use it. I would think too for architectural work, the a7r3 is probably a better choice than the GFX or X1D because you probably get greater range of movements with the smaller sensor and can utilize pixel shift?
-Todd
-
The limitations of the e-shutter on the X1D are pretty overblown and my impression from people actually using the X1D with third party lenses is that the limitations of eshutter on the X1D aren't really that big a deal in real world usage. Yes we're all aware of the readout speed, but it's an instance in my mind where tech specs don't necessarily match up with real-world results.
For example, if you head over to hasselbladdigitalforum.com, there's a thread with sample images with an X1D and a 350mm Hassy V lens handheld, demonstrating it's perfectly usable even at longer focal lengths with moving subjects. Even when e-shutter for the X1D was announced, Ming Thein posted samples with various Zeiss lenses handheld in a concert atmosphere, which is challenging light even for cameras without eshutter. There are numerous examples over at GetDPI, the X1D facebook group, etc of people using the X1D in eshutter mode in a variety of settings and shooting configurations, which demonstrates it is actually mostly usable, rather than mostly unusable.
In my limited testing with eshutter and the X1D I found it to be fine for my purposes too, although I personally prefer sticking with the native lenses (I have the 21, 30, 45, and 90 XCD).
its not overblown since the issue definitely is there, that does not mean that a lot of people might only shoot situations where it is no problem at all....for others it might be the opposite....
i personally have had issue using the e shutter even with sonys and had problems there, i have tried it on my GFX and it does not make any sense for me to use it....
if anyone really wants to shoot with 3rd party lenses, the GFX probably makes more sense but it is good to have the option anyway....
a friend of mine was just asked to shoot a celebrity editorial for a high end european fashion magazine and they asked him to shoot film as well as polaroids.....he obviously shot digital as well....all the hip kids (who did not grow up shooting film) are shooting film now, i think its great, i can do it as well but i know why i prefer digital....
to me the discussion about shooting film ends when scanning gets involved....makes zero sense to me at that point.....i can totally understand an analog master print from negative....
a digital print from a scanned negative is a little bit like using all the new turntables which come with direct USB out to rip records....i get buying vinyl and the process of listening....but it just makes me wonder how many people just play the record once (what a pain to flip it over!) and from that moment on listen on their iPhones anyway......
once one takes all things involved with 4x5 or 8x10 capture, analog printing (or high end scanning) and the price into consideration, even the highest end digital capture device seems reasonable if the only concern is quality and detail....
if it is all about the process, then why does it matter if film out resolves digital?
-
That is true I think, but for situations that don't require strobe it is a lot more usable than people make it to be.
For anyone that relies heavily on adapting third party lenses (and needs strobes), the GFX (or camera with a FPS) is a better option. I like that eshutter is there if I need it, but I don't really use it. I would think too for architectural work, the a7r3 is probably a better choice than the GFX or X1D because you probably get greater range of movements with the smaller sensor and can utilize pixel shift?
-Todd
pixel shift is pretty insane, the quality is crazy....and i would assume that even right now it probably comes pretty close to what the GFX 100 or X2D100 will do (with single shot)....and i agree that if one does shoot mostly static situations (where pixel shift can be used) the A7RIII might be a better choice......
i am not sure about movements as i havent really looked into the options available.....i guess the issue is the trade off lens coverage and what the lens can resolve....
every 3rd party lens i have tried on my own GFX has looked pretty disappointing....some are better then others but so far i have always clearly preferred native fuji glass.....
i am not sure a lens that does not blow me away on the GFX will be so much better on the A7RIII with pixel shift?
again: it is awesome to have these options available and especially at such (comparably) low cost....
-
... I don't think it is possible to evaluate a camera system in a short demo. You need to work with the system for a few months to find weaknesses and strengths. user testing is just too much error prone and subject to bias.
Looking at test, like DPReview is actually pretty good. Professional testers do testing for living and they know a couple of things about testing. They also have invested a lot in test setups and testing experience.
Looking at DPReview tests tells far more about any camera than doubling with it for a few days or weeks.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to arrange that kind of long-term test of very many camera systems unless you have quite a lot of money to devote to it.
I’m looking at a lot of things right now because I’ve reached a point where it’s time to refresh quite a lot of my camera hardware. I’m seeing things in shots that just aren’t good enough on an optical level, and it’s time to upgrade bodies as well, so that opens a lot of options. The the kind of look you get at a showod in a store, is useful, but more because it lets you feel the weight and size of the camera. And confirm a few things you’ve read and brings up questions to research later.
-
Except that you can't use strobe, right? Which pretty much precludes it from being useful in about 90% of professional situations. Point to the GFX. Also, back to Doug's point about DR. I've found neg films, color and b&w to have DR very comparable to digital. My a7r3 has become the polaroid for my studio film shoots. As for transparency... yeah, I definitely do not miss having 5 or 6 stops to work with.
Well actually that is one of the main reasons people buy the X1D. It is fantastic with strobes. The leaf shutter system gives you up to 1/2000S shutter sync speed. (That assumes that you are professional enough to use the lenses made for it.) Compare that to the GFX (not the subject of this thread by the way) which only has a piddling 1/125S sync speed. So you have 4 stops better flash performance to use either less flash or more movement.
As for flash being 90% of professional situations, well certainly not for landscapes and I know many highly paid portrait and even wedding togs who have never used flash.
-
Hi,
Chris is in architecture photography as main profession, as far as I know. In that business shift lenses are needed. Chris is using a technical camera. So, a leaf shutter doesn't help him as the lenses he needs are not available for Hasselblad. Flash will not work with E-shutter.
Personally, I am mostly a landscape shooter. Shooting landscape I often resort to tilts. I would think E-shutter would work with tilts.
Best regards
Erik
Well actually that is one of the main reasons people buy the X1D. It is fantastic with strobes. The leaf shutter system gives you up to 1/2000S shutter sync speed. (That assumes that you are professional enough to use the lenses made for it.) Compare that to the GFX (not the subject of this thread by the way) which only has a piddling 1/125S sync speed. So you have 4 stops better flash performance to use either less flash or more movement.
As for flash being 90% of professional situations, well certainly not for landscapes and I know many highly paid portrait and even wedding togs who have never used flash.
-
It's interesting that this discussion has not touched on printing...are we talking about resolution on the screen? If you are printing analog, the 8x10 is going to outresolve the X1D for a long way, as well as any other digital camera. The reason being that the max resolution for printers tops out at 360-720dpi and is not continuous tone. At small to moderate sizes and contact prints, the smoothness and resolution of the film print is going to surpass that of the digital print, which forces you to discard information below the native print size. I am not saying an analog print has infinite resolution, but in my experience they are sharper than digital prints when working with large film and moderate paper sizes. When you start printing very large, you hold on to the good tonality, but you lose the fine detail to the break down of optical chain (misalignments, vibration, sagging paper in wall prints etc). Here digital has the advantage again for being able to lay down the detail accurately regardless of print size.
Which is better? I like Nabokov, you like Dostoevsky. They are both great Russian authors. Which is better, pizza or hamburger? The answer is yes.
-
Hi,
Getting back to the original question, I think that there are two answers:
- If the X1D is good enough, why shoot 8"x10"?!
- If the X1D is delivering the resolution/sharpness from 8"x10" clearly depends on how the 8"x10" images are exposed and processed.
Historically, many 4"x5" photographers switched to the P45 when it arrived back in 2006. According to some testing by Charlie Cramer, the P45 was very close to 4"x5" in things like resolution.
Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer all had the P45 backs and did a shootout comparing with other systems, including 4"x5" Velvia. The result was that the P45 was good enough to replace 4"x5". A similar analysis was done by Joseph Holmes. So, it seems that 39 MP was competitive with 4"x5".
8"x10" has four times the area compared to 4"x5" so we would need 4x39 mp to match, if the P45 was a good match for 4"x5" film.
But, there are some buts. Large format film is often used with small apertures to have enough DoF and once you stop down beyond say f/11, diffraction will take is tribute.
On the other hand, small medium format also needs to be stopped down for DoF and diffraction may be noticable at f/5.6. Large format often has tilts and swings, so the focal plane can be tilted. The X1D does not really have that option. So, if you don't have tilt, you may need to stop down far to much also on the X1D.
I would be pretty sure that excellent prints can be made at almost any size from a well executed 50 MP image. Much depends on the lenses and good lenses perform best at large to medium apertures.
Achieving optimal results on 8"x10" is probably not easy. On EVF systems vi can magnify LV to the pixel level. i would presume the X1D has that capability. A modern CMOS camera has live view, good histograms etc. So, there is reason that the images we make would be less than optimal.
But, I think the X1D deserves a 100 MP sensor...
Best regards
Erik
Just saw this video on the Hasselblad site and at about the 1.20 mark, he states that he had his lab do a print and that it was able to resolve better than those from his film 8 x 10 camera....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=1BplS1MmZXk
Anybody shooting with either the X1D or GFX and care to comment?
I still think the prints I have seen from 8 x 10 negatives are the absolute ultimate to my eyes but would be interested to know what others thought.. :)
-
its not overblown since the issue definitely is there, that does not mean that a lot of people might only shoot situations where it is no problem at all....for others it might be the opposite....
i personally have had issue using the e shutter even with sonys and had problems there, i have tried it on my GFX and it does not make any sense for me to use it....
if anyone really wants to shoot with 3rd party lenses, the GFX probably makes more sense but it is good to have the option anyway....
a friend of mine was just asked to shoot a celebrity editorial for a high end european fashion magazine and they asked him to shoot film as well as polaroids.....he obviously shot digital as well....all the hip kids (who did not grow up shooting film) are shooting film now, i think its great, i can do it as well but i know why i prefer digital....
to me the discussion about shooting film ends when scanning gets involved....makes zero sense to me at that point.....i can totally understand an analog master print from negative....
a digital print from a scanned negative is a little bit like using all the new turntables which come with direct USB out to rip records....i get buying vinyl and the process of listening....but it just makes me wonder how many people just play the record once (what a pain to flip it over!) and from that moment on listen on their iPhones anyway......
once one takes all things involved with 4x5 or 8x10 capture, analog printing (or high end scanning) and the price into consideration, even the highest end digital capture device seems reasonable if the only concern is quality and detail....
if it is all about the process, then why does it matter if film out resolves digital?
The e-shutter is an interesting development - if 1 stop of DR were sacrificed for a global shutter, with the short flange distances possible with mirrorless, one could make an MF camera *today* that could use any existing lens without a shutter in a lot of lighting conditions, including possibly strobe. I think a lot of people would be happy with fast strobe without the constraints of a leaf shutter.
Speaking less theoretically, I think a lot of pros don't benefit from the current eshutter, but a visit to the hasselblad forum shows many X1D buyers are using it quite happily, handheld.
Edmund
Edmund
-
The e-shutter is an interesting development - if 1 stop of DR were sacrificed for a global shutter, with the short flange distances possible with mirrorless, one could make an MF camera *today* that could use any existing lens without a shutter in a lot of lighting conditions, including possibly strobe. I think a lot of people would be happy with fast strobe without the constraints of a leaf shutter.
Speaking less theoretically, I think a lot of pros don't benefit from the current eshutter, but a visit to the hasselblad forum shows many X1D buyers are using it quite happily, handheld.
Edmund
the e shutter is a funny thing.....i used it all the time with my sony...until i found a couple of strangely shaped heads in one shoot.....a few shots out of maybe 1000.....but that is the point, i have no clue how many times that happened and i just did not notice it because i did not hold a ruler up to a shape (or head) and this was with the sony....
i guess as long as nobody notices or complains or as long as the slightly incorrect rendition of a shape falls under artistic license, there is no problem.....
Edmund
-
Chris is in architecture photography as main profession, as far as I know. In that business shift lenses are needed. Chris is using a technical camera. So, a leaf shutter doesn't help him as the lenses he needs are not available for Hasselblad. Flash will not work with E-shutter.
Fair enough. Architecture is pretty specialised though. Certainly not 90% of professional uses.
With a technical camera I would not recommend any "camera" be attached.
I had a 4x5 camera using film and thought that it would be great to use my Canon DSLR with it. It was complete fail. It becomes a case of a lot more than resolution. The physics just don't work.
My first attempt at attaching a Canon DSLR to an adaptor plate and then mounting it on the back of the 4x5 camera showed that the camera sensor was now 75mm behind where it was before, so my minimum focal length was now much longer at around 120mm and my effective sensor size was much smaller. Wide angle was non existent. (Obviously mirrorless would be not so bad.)
That was one of the reasons to get a medium format system so that I could use the back only and have the sensor at the same plane as the film was located.
Using rough maths, this is what happens.
You have say a 200mm focal length lens with film that is say 100mm wide to produce an image. You replace the film back with a medium format back that is only 50mm wide. You have lost all of your wide angle so you need a much wider lens of say 100mm focal length. That may work OK because you still have at least 100mm between the sensor plane and the lens centre. However it is still not very wide.
I tried various things with a Cambo Wide DS which would require a huge investment of lenses before deciding to sell the large format gear and go tilt shift lenses.
I coveted an HTS attachment for the Hasselblad but think now that the Canon TSE on the X1D is a system I can carry in my backpack rather than a car.
If you need additional lights then battery powered LED should work.
-
You're right - maybe eshutter isn't quite mature yet- and still maybe it needs to be improved rather than abandoned, just like sensor stabilisation.
Sensor stabilisation doesn't work for sports. Eshutter has movement issues for now, and pixel shift works best on a tripod. But maybe all three are useful to some ... eg. architecture shooters, and will go mainstream at some point, even in medium format.
Some architecture shooters don't use strobes :)
Edmund
-
Hi,
I use the HCam Master TSII as a tilt and shift device with my Sony A7rII.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/A7Flex/20160207-CF047065.jpg)
For shifts, I have the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII which I would use with the Metabones mark IV FE mount adapter. The Canon 16-35/4L offers a lot of shift from 20 mm and up.
For tilts I often use the Contax 28-85/3.3-4 or the Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 both lenses are pretty good and allow 10 degree tilt but very little shift. The main advantage is the manual aperture.
Don't know if that device is available for the X1D.
Best regards
Erik
Fair enough. Architecture is pretty specialised though. Certainly not 90% of professional uses.
With a technical camera I would not recommend any "camera" be attached.
I had a 4x5 camera using film and thought that it would be great to use my Canon DSLR with it. It was complete fail. It becomes a case of a lot more than resolution. The physics just don't work.
My first attempt at attaching a Canon DSLR to an adaptor plate and then mounting it on the back of the 4x5 camera showed that the camera sensor was now 75mm behind where it was before, so my minimum focal length was now much longer at around 120mm and my effective sensor size was much smaller. Wide angle was non existent. (Obviously mirrorless would be not so bad.)
That was one of the reasons to get a medium format system so that I could use the back only and have the sensor at the same plane as the film was located.
Using rough maths, this is what happens.
You have say a 200mm focal length lens with film that is say 100mm wide to produce an image. You replace the film back with a medium format back that is only 50mm wide. You have lost all of your wide angle so you need a much wider lens of say 100mm focal length. That may work OK because you still have at least 100mm between the sensor plane and the lens centre. However it is still not very wide.
I tried various things with a Cambo Wide DS which would require a huge investment of lenses before deciding to sell the large format gear and go tilt shift lenses.
I coveted an HTS attachment for the Hasselblad but think now that the Canon TSE on the X1D is a system I can carry in my backpack rather than a car.
If you need additional lights then battery powered LED should work.
-
Erik,
It doesn't help - everybody here is going to ignore you because you aren't "professional" and so you can't possibly know what you are talking about, and also the examples you give are 35mm and so how can they be relevant to MF?
Back when I was younger, I did a furniture catalog shoot once for a designer in Venice Italy, and used my 24 TSE for the shots of the larger items. It was hell, 3 days, lots of pieces, with exposure times of several seconds together with strobes, balancing inside lights against outdoor, setups which took an hour at a time etc. but the results were pleasant looking and after that I knew that having a shift/tilt lens even if it is inconvenient and not sharp is a world different from not having one. If I were a pro and owned a Hassy, a shift/tilt adapter for something, anything reasonably wide, eg. a legacy MF or large-format lens, would sound lovely.
Edmund
Hi,
I use the HCam Master TSII as a tilt and shift device with my Sony A7rII.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/A7Flex/20160207-CF047065.jpg)
For shifts, I have the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LII which I would use with the Metabones mark IV FE mount adapter. The Canon 16-35/4L offers a lot of shift from 20 mm and up.
For tilts I often use the Contax 28-85/3.3-4 or the Contax 35-135/3.3-4.5 both lenses are pretty good and allow 10 degree tilt but very little shift. The main advantage is the manual aperture.
Don't know if that device is available for the X1D.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi Edmund,
I try to give some feedback.
Just to say, I still own some Hasselblad stuff and a P45+. My plan was to use it on a technical camera. As a stop gap measure I bought a Flexbody, which worked quite well when shooting under studio like conditions but was totally unusable in the field.
There are professional guys here, like Chris Barret. He uses Sony A7r# on Arca Swiss and uses old Hasselblad CF lenses but also some of the Canon I use (as far as I know). So, I don't think professionals are ignorant, but I do think they have some different considerations than non professionals.
Just to say, Chris Barret also shoots 8"x10" on film, but I think he does it for pleasure. Chris indicated that he may buy a 100 MP X1D, once it arrives. Not because it solves some needs, but for the pleasure.
I think that amateurs and professionals have in common that they both want to make good pictures. So, they often use equipment that is adequate for the task at hand.
I my case, I was shooting pretty much with the P45+ and my old Hasselblad V system. But, once the Sony A7rII arrived it delivered as good or better image quality as the P45+. It did deliver that image quality in a convenient way, with live view and real time histograms and zebras. So, I essentially knew that I nailed the images I wanted to shoot. I think that is as important to amateurs as to pros.
Personally, I find it very exciting that we now have MFD systems, like X1D and GFX delivering MFD quality at a reasonable price. Also, I actually think that systems like the X1D and the Fuji GFX deliver better quality than say Hasselblad or Phase One in the small medium format. Why? Because they are optimized for the sensor size.
Just consider this, a Hasselblad 40/4 CFi FLE lens is actually optimized for 56x56 mm film. If you shoot it on a 44x33 mm camera it will still illuminate that 56x56 area. You are better absorbing/shielding that light if you shoot on smaller formats. Light bouncing around in the lens barrel will not improve you images.
So, I think that a system designed around the 44x33 mm sensor makes a lot of sense. I don't feel I need to invest in such a system, as I would not print very large. My max print size is more like 30"x40" and at that size I would say that 36x24 mm digital can deliver adequate print quality, when properly handled.
So, would someone give me 15k$US to spend, I would rather buy a 200-400 zoom from Canon with a built in extender than an X1D with 2-3 lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Erik,
It doesn't help - everybody here is going to ignore you because you aren't "professional" and so you can't possibly know what you are talking about, and also the examples you give are 35mm and so how can they be relevant to MF?
Back when I was younger, I did a furniture catalog shoot once for a designer in Venice Italy, and used my 24 TSE for the shots of the larger items. It was hell, 3 days, lots of pieces, with exposure times of several seconds together with strobes, balancing inside lights against outdoor, setups which took an hour at a time etc. but the results were pleasant looking and after that I knew that having a shift/tilt lens even if it is inconvenient and not sharp is a world different from not having one. If I were a pro and owned a Hassy, a shift/tilt adapter for something, anything reasonably wide, eg. a legacy MF or large-format lens, would sound lovely.
Edmund
-
Hi Edmund,
I try to give some feedback.
Just to say, I still own some Hasselblad stuff and a P45+. My plan was to use it on a technical camera. As a stop gap measure I bought a Flexbody, which worked quite well when shooting under studio like conditions but was totally unusable in the field.
There are professional guys here, like Chris Barret. He uses Sony A7r# on Arca Swiss and uses old Hasselblad CF lenses but also some of the Canon I use (as far as I know). So, I don't think professionals are ignorant, but I do think they have some different considerations than non professionals.
Just to say, Chris Barret also shoots 8"x10" on film, but I think he does it for pleasure. Chris indicated that he may buy a 100 MP X1D, once it arrives. Not because it solves some needs, but for the pleasure.
I think that amateurs and professionals have in common that they both want to make good pictures. So, they often use equipment that is adequate for the task at hand.
I my case, I was shooting pretty much with the P45+ and my old Hasselblad V system. But, once the Sony A7rII arrived it delivered as good or better image quality as the P45+. It did deliver that image quality in a convenient way, with live view and real time histograms and zebras. So, I essentially knew that I nailed the images I wanted to shoot. I think that is as important to amateurs as to pros.
Personally, I find it very exciting that we now have MFD systems, like X1D and GFX delivering MFD quality at a reasonable price. Also, I actually think that systems like the X1D and the Fuji GFX deliver better quality than say Hasselblad or Phase One in the small medium format. Why? Because they are optimized for the sensor size.
Just consider this, a Hasselblad 40/4 CFi FLE lens is actually optimized for 56x56 mm film. If you shoot it on a 44x33 mm camera it will still illuminate that 56x56 area. You are better absorbing/shielding that light if you shoot on smaller formats. Light bouncing around in the lens barrel will not improve you images.
So, I think that a system designed around the 44x33 mm sensor makes a lot of sense. I don't feel I need to invest in such a system, as I would not print very large. My max print size is more like 30"x40" and at that size I would say that 36x24 mm digital can deliver adequate print quality, when properly handled.
So, would someone give me 15k$US to spend, I would rather buy a 200-400 zoom from Canon with a built in extender than an X1D with 2-3 lenses.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
I've noted that the images posted on http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com are quite nice.
But of course you are right and there are fewer and fewer use cases where a very flexible universal 35mm system like A7R2 is not preferable to have in the bag to a fairly limited heavier MF system.
-
Hi Erik,
I've noted that the images posted on http://www.hasselbladdigitalforum.com are quite nice.
But of course you are right and there are fewer and fewer use cases where a very flexible universal 35mm system like A7R2 is not preferable to have in the bag to a fairly limited heavier MF system.
That is amusing. I actually own a A7R2 and some lenses (including the very nice 35mm f/1.4, 100mm STM and 24-70 f/2.8 zoom). I also own a much more limited and heavier MF system in the form of an antique H4D-50.
-
That is amusing. I actually own a A7R2 and some lenses (including the very nice 35mm f/1.4, 100mm STM and 24-70 f/2.8 zoom). I also own a much more limited and heavier MF system in the form of an antique H4D-50.
Tell us more ...
Edmund
-
I also own a much more limited and heavier MF system in the form of an antique H4D-50.
I just sold my H4D system and bought an X1D for cash from it. I am currently using the H series lenses with the adaptor but the next step is using the Canon 24TSE for landscape. I think the X1D is smaller and lighter than my Canon 5Ds.
-
Hi Bob,
Hopefully, you will share your experience!
Best regards
Erik
I just sold my H4D system and bought an X1D for cash from it. I am currently using the H series lenses with the adaptor but the next step is using the Canon 24TSE for landscape. I think the X1D is smaller and lighter than my Canon 5Ds.
-
Tell us more ...
In a nutshell, I prefer the ergonomics and viewfinder of the large camera. I also prefer its colours and the rendering of its lenses, although I will admit that the "G-master" series of Sony lenses is extremely good. I prefer the weight of the A7RII, enjoy its extraordinary capacities at night (stabilisation on fast lenses and high iso), and also use it as a 4K camcorder. Ergonomics of the A7 series is a disgrace.