feature comparison X1D, GFX, A7RII, SL, XT2

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The camera is the same and the back is probably using the same mechanical components. So, you put a small sensor into a large body/back that doesn't make the camera smaller.

The Phase One and Hasselblad lenses are not optimised for the 44x33 mm sensor, as they need to cover the larger 54x40 mm sensor area. Some Hasselblad lenses were optimised for 49x37 mm sensor area, I don't know if that is still the case.

Best regards
Erik

The exact same sensor appears in the Phase XF/IQ250 and the HB H6D-50c, which are the exact same size as the 100mp versions. That's what's surprising.

[razrblck]

The Phase One and Hasselblad lenses are not optimised for the 44x33 mm sensor, as they need to cover the larger 54x40 mm sensor area. Some Hasselblad lenses were optimised for 49x37 mm sensor area, I don't know if that is still the case.

Hasselblad hasn't released HCD lenses in a while, I don't think they will start again after releasing the 100MP back. Maybe the XCD lenses are only optimized for 44x33? Would make sense considering their size.

Actually HC lenses should cover the full 645 film area just like most Mamiya/PhaseOne lenses.

[torger]

The Hassy has obviously less features than many others. I'd expect its strong points to be lenses, color out of the default raw converter, and possibly ergonomics. Of this only the lenses aspect would be measurable, and only in part.

I think the importance of color out of the default raw converter is an under-estimated aspect. Although I'd love to see photographers make their own profiles as a standard procedure when getting a new camera, 99% doesn't do it so what people evaluate is he look of the images out of the default workflow, or "worse" Adobe's third-party profiles out of Adobe Lightroom if that's the preferred software to use.

Phase One is not in this comparison, but I'd say that for them Capture One is almost more important than the performance of their hardware.

[chrismuc]

Every digital camera (mirrorless or slr; 4/3, aps-c, 135 format) of any brand since several years offers ultrasonic sensor cleaning which is super convenient IMO, especially the more important, the larger the sensor. I was wondering all the time why for example Leica did not add this feature to their recent cameras (M 240, M10, SL, S 007), very cool that Fuji for the first time achieved to introduce this function for the Sony 44x33 mm sensor in their GFX model.
All these features (focal plane shutter, ultra sonic sensor cleaning, appropriate sensor heat dissipation, two-axis tiltable screen) of course add depth and some weight to the camera body, but that really pays off in daily use, I would assume.

[Bo_Dez]

The X1D has no shutter and currently no option to sync the central shutter in a lens (for example Hasselblad V) apart their own H lenses.

If Hasselblad - like Fuji - would succeed to enable a full electronic shutter, at least this would be possible.
But the Fuji with it's focal plane shutter and sev. options using the electronic front curtain of full electronic shutter is of course much more flexible in this respect.

Btw., today I received an email from Steel Chen ('Fringer'): He started to work on the Fuji GFX mount protocol (he already did reverse engineering of the Fuji X protocol), which is the basis to create a Canon EF - Fuji GFX mount adapter (priority 1: auto aperture, priority 2: auto focus).
Such adapter would not only allow to use the Canon TSE 17, 24, 45 and 90 lenses but also other lenses with Canon EF mount that cover the 44x33mm image circle like for example Sigma 35f1.4 Art, 50f1.4 Art, Zeiss Otus 85f1.4, Zeiss ZE 135f2 Apo.
Sounds promising to me :-)

Very interesting, thankyou!

[Bo_Dez]

When compiling the features of the two new 44x33mm cameras Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X1D from manufacturers data and tests, reviews and forum informations, I ended up adding also the two 36x24mm cams Leica SL and Sony A7RII and the APS cam Fuji XT2 for comparison.

I gave a - kind of subjective - colour rating for each feature green/ yellow/ orange.

Regarding user interface, my personal preference is the Fuji set-up with most functions selectable by mechanical elements on the camera and least need to dig into the menu, so the colour scheme is accordingly. Also with most cameras, different approaches for functions are offered (like AF selection by joystick or touch screen; function selection via menu, by quick menu or by customised button ...), so here only one option is mentioned.

Some data/ rating is preliminary, esp. for the Hasselblad because there is least information and tests available yet, so the list shall be updated.

I show the EVF and TFT resolution in pixel triplets like a monitor description, I think that is more useful than the total amount of single colour pixels.

I own and use the XT1 and A7RII, so for example the very long start-up time of the Sony is my own experience.

Please feel free to comment and to correct if entries are wrong.

Chris

This chart is really very useful! Thankyou!

[Hywel]

I think the importance of color out of the default raw converter is an under-estimated aspect. Although I'd love to see photographers make their own profiles as a standard procedure when getting a new camera, 99% doesn't do it so what people evaluate is he look of the images out of the default workflow, or "worse" Adobe's third-party profiles out of Adobe Lightroom if that's the preferred software to use.

Absolutely. Hasselblad's skin tones right out of Phocus are the best I have ever encountered (i.e. more to my taste).

The skin tones and general "look and feel" I get from A7RII shots in Aperture (which I use for people shots because I need Portraiture skin smoothing and Aperture's skin smoothing and healing brushes) and Capture One (which I prefer for landscape colour rendition) have taken a lot of work to get to what I consider an acceptable point... and they are still not a patch on how good the colours look shot on my H3D31-II using Phocus.

It would be a huge concern for me with any new system and something I now know I should extensively test myself with the workflow I'd actually use for a particular camera.

There are lots of things I like about the A7RII, and even more that I like ergonomically about the GH4 in fact.

But when I'm shooting a hundreds of photos a day, intending to sell 80%+ of them, the ease of getting the right skin tones out of the default workflow without "special pleading" should not be underestimated. I definitely process Hasselblad sets MUCH faster than A7RII sets. Over a year the difference in Hywel work hours is proving to be significant. Hence I'll definitely be in the market for a replacement Hasselblad if mine gives up the ghost.

And I don't use the GH4 for people photoset shoots at all, because it is so hard to get good skin tones out of my chosen raw processors for that camera.

Cheers, Hywel

[Telecaster]

Fuji says 'G' format and some folks say small medium format.

"Medium format" has been a fuzzy kind of thing all along. 6x9cm, 6x7cm, 6x6cm, 6x4.5cm (all somewhat fuzzy values themselves) and now 44x33mm are all medium formats. Why? Because we say they are. 

-Dave-

[BobShaw]

We are surprised by the size of the X1D and GFX because we call them medium format... which they aren't.
Considering the small difference of sensor size compared to FX, and looking at an a7rII, their size is in fact not surprising at all.

Not the biggest MFD and certainly smaller than 120 film, but if they are 44 x 33 then they are 68% bigger than 24 x 36.

[mcbroomf]

Here's a link to the full specs for the GFX
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/gfx/fujifilm_gfx_50s/pdf/index/gfx_catalogue_01.pdf

[algrove]

To me any meaningful comparisons should be between all cameras with the Sony 50MP sesnor-like X1D, Phase, Pentax 645Z, and Hassy 50.