gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?

[pschefz]

So, would this mean that with the constant increase in megapixels, we are not going to get a true global shutter anytime soon?
Eduardo

the sensor in both GFX and X1D is not really latest tech, but you are right, we are not really close to a true global shutter and especially not with those dimensions.....sony cant do it for their cinema cameras or FF....right now....

fuji included the e shutter option right from the start, did not really make a big deal about it, its very limited application was pointed out in every early review....
hasselblad adding it later (obviously because of the 3rd party lens options) and announcing it as a great new functionality is strange to me.....i guess it was the only option to get other lenses to work with the X1D and it obviously is better to have then not to have but there has been a lot of misinformation about this out there.....
but i guess an announcement of "now with e shutter, all lenses can be used with adapters for shutter speeds equivalent up to 1/4 sec" does not sound too exciting....

[Paul2660]

I guess I don't understand the issue of fastest shutter of 1/4 second.  I use the e shutter at speeds of  1/4 to 1/500 of a second even faster.  Net, the shutter for me records the correct speed.  I understand it's reading as a scan across the face of the sensor like a scanning back, however it's just not that limiting unless you are wanting to hand hold it.  But to describe it like it's always going to record 1/4 of second results is to me not a good description.   Yes large object crossing the sensor can and will give you a rolling shutter look, but so far for landscape work, it's just not an issue for me, besides the need for a tripod. 

If that was the case, then in my work I would see a ton of movement in leaves and similar subject matter, and at a true 1/4 of a second, you would, however at 1/250, the results look just the same as if I was using the focal shutter at 1/250th.  This is on a tripod, not hand held. 

The ES on the GFX is not as important as the ES is on the IQ3100, as it makes a huge difference with longer glass.  The results of shots taken from 100mm and up to 300mm are much better with no vibration issues, which the P1 XF has plenty of. 

Works very well on a tech camera also.

Paul Caldwell

[pschefz]

I guess I don't understand the issue of fastest shutter of 1/4 second.  I use the e shutter at speeds of  1/4 to 1/500 of a second even faster.  Net, the shutter for me records the correct speed.  I understand it's reading as a scan across the face of the sensor like a scanning back, however it's just not that limiting unless you are wanting to hand hold it.  But to describe it like it's always going to record 1/4 of second results is to me not a good description.   Yes large object crossing the sensor can and will give you a rolling shutter look, but so far for landscape work, it's just not an issue for me, besides the need for a tripod. 

If that was the case, then in my work I would see a ton of movement in leaves and similar subject matter, and at a true 1/4 of a second, you would, however at 1/250, the results look just the same as if I was using the focal shutter at 1/250th.  This is on a tripod, not hand held. 

The ES on the GFX is not as important as the ES is on the IQ3100, as it makes a huge difference with longer glass.  The results of shots taken from 100mm and up to 300mm are much better with no vibration issues, which the P1 XF has plenty of. 

Works very well on a tech camera also.

Paul Caldwell

the sensor because of its read out time cant handle anything moving faster then 1/4 sec.....regardless of shutter speed used.....you will get a proper exposure and depending on what and how it moves there will be more or less of a smearing effect.....but to get a "perfect" image, the camera and the object/subject will have to be still enough for (about) 1/4 sec.....
the effect will be different then a "normal" motion blur but a "rolling shutter" effect.....
for landscape, architecture and obviously still life this can be completely fine....nobody might notice that some leafs might appear bent when checked at 50%.....
for anything handheld or with anything remotely alive in the image, there will be an obvious effect....regardless of actual shutter speed....
you can easily test it by setting up your camera and having someone move across the frame.....

if your shutter speed usually stays in the 1/8 to 1 sec range the ES is completely fine.....i never shoot in that range and i almost never shoot on tripod, so i have even come across the effect on my sony when using the silent e shutter.....

[Paul2660]

I fully agree, yes anything moving across the entire frame will have rolling shutter effects. 

However at least on the P1, Fuji and now D850 ES implementation, for landscape unless you have wind enough to move a tree trunk, the are no issues, leaves appear fine, not bent.  I have tested this many times, taking a focal shot, then ES shot side by side, identical conditions.  For landscape work at least for the work I do, so far the ES is fine.  With really high winds, I will switch back to Focal.

I agree 100%, you are not going to hand hold it, you can see the effects just by looking at the LiveView. 

The perfect solution will be global, but that's years off at least for larger MP implementations. 

Not a 100% workable solution but for for many landscape requirements very workable.   Not for large objects moving across the frame for sure.

Paul Caldwell

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Global shutter is a different technology.

Best regards
Erik

So, would this mean that with the constant increase in megapixels, we are not going to get a true global shutter anytime soon?
Eduardo

[pschefz]

I fully agree, yes anything moving across the entire frame will have rolling shutter effects. 

However at least on the P1, Fuji and now D850 ES implementation, for landscape unless you have wind enough to move a tree trunk, the are no issues, leaves appear fine, not bent.  I have tested this many times, taking a focal shot, then ES shot side by side, identical conditions.  For landscape work at least for the work I do, so far the ES is fine.  With really high winds, I will switch back to Focal.

I agree 100%, you are not going to hand hold it, you can see the effects just by looking at the LiveView. 

The perfect solution will be global, but that's years off at least for larger MP implementations. 

Not a 100% workable solution but for for many landscape requirements very workable.   Not for large objects moving across the frame for sure.

Paul Caldwell

don't know about the 850 but the A7RII (and probably A7RIII as well) are ok to use with ES....but i have had funny stuff going on as well....oddly shaped heads....with those smaller sensors (with much faster read out time) the effect is usually not really noticeable.....but even there, side by side, shapes will appear different....
i am sure the next gen sensors for the XD and GFX will be much better in that regard as well......
still a long way from global shutter though....

[siddhaarta]

This analogy with 1/4 sec shutter speed is not very helpful, as this would mean that e-shutter is not usable handhold.

And this is not the case at all !

I use it all the time with my XCD 90mm without issues (non-moving objects). The results with 1/4 sec shutter speed would be unusable.

[pschefz]

This analogy with 1/4 sec shutter speed is not very helpful, as this would mean that e-shutter is not usable handhold.

And this is not the case at all !

I use it all the time with my XCD 90mm without issues (non-moving objects). The results with 1/4 sec shutter speed would be unusable.

ok....i give up....
i don't know why you would use the eshutter if you don't have to, especially for shorter exposures.....
i am not making this stuff up, the read out time of the sensor is what it is.....
i guess a good test would be to take a normal scene without moving objects (which is hard because everything moves, leaves move, houses don't) and take the same shot handheld and on tripod......compare....most likely there will be distortions....this is not long exposure smear.....this might be a bent line or something like it....

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Paul,

Are you talking about the GFX or the IQ3100MP?

The reason I am asking that the GFX also has EFCS. Do you see a practical advantage of using ES over EFCS on the GFX?

I would agree that ES is usable in many conditions, but it is known to have issues with non-continuous lighting and of course the rolling shutter effect.

Best regards
Erik

 

I guess I don't understand the issue of fastest shutter of 1/4 second.  I use the e shutter at speeds of  1/4 to 1/500 of a second even faster.  Net, the shutter for me records the correct speed.  I understand it's reading as a scan across the face of the sensor like a scanning back, however it's just not that limiting unless you are wanting to hand hold it.  But to describe it like it's always going to record 1/4 of second results is to me not a good description.   Yes large object crossing the sensor can and will give you a rolling shutter look, but so far for landscape work, it's just not an issue for me, besides the need for a tripod. 

If that was the case, then in my work I would see a ton of movement in leaves and similar subject matter, and at a true 1/4 of a second, you would, however at 1/250, the results look just the same as if I was using the focal shutter at 1/250th.  This is on a tripod, not hand held. 

The ES on the GFX is not as important as the ES is on the IQ3100, as it makes a huge difference with longer glass.  The results of shots taken from 100mm and up to 300mm are much better with no vibration issues, which the P1 XF has plenty of. 

Works very well on a tech camera also.

Paul Caldwell

[Lust4Life]

An update - I've had the GFX now for about 7 weeks.  Shooting landscapes and panoramas.
Moved from Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to the GFX (brief dance with the Sony aR7II which I did not like).

I am delighted with the GFX.
The 23mm lens is outstanding and I just recently got the 110mm.

Frankly, the X1D looks cool!  I lust for the look of it BUT I feel the GFX retro look is fine and the features, far more user customized buttons, AND image quality is excellent, at least for my landscape work. 

At this point, there is no way to justify the thousands more for the X1Dn let alone the H5/6, in my mind.

Test it out and you will understand.

Forget all of the back and forth discussions and go take shots with it.
I think you'll be as pleased as I am.

Jack

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Jack,

Thanks for sharing! Happy to hear you are pleased with the GFX.

Best regards
Erik

An update - I've had the GFX now for about 7 weeks.  Shooting landscapes and panoramas.
Moved from Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to the GFX (brief dance with the Sony aR7II which I did not like).

I am delighted with the GFX.
The 23mm lens is outstanding and I just recently got the 110mm.

Frankly, the X1D looks cool!  I lust for the look of it BUT I feel the GFX retro look is fine and the features, far more user customized buttons, AND image quality is excellent, at least for my landscape work. 

At this point, there is no way to justify the thousands more for the X1Dn let alone the H5/6, in my mind.

Test it out and you will understand.

Forget all of the back and forth discussions and go take shots with it.
I think you'll be as pleased as I am.

Jack

[henrikfoto]

An update - I've had the GFX now for about 7 weeks.  Shooting landscapes and panoramas.
Moved from Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to the GFX (brief dance with the Sony aR7II which I did not like).

I am delighted with the GFX.
The 23mm lens is outstanding and I just recently got the 110mm.

Frankly, the X1D looks cool!  I lust for the look of it BUT I feel the GFX retro look is fine and the features, far more user customized buttons, AND image quality is excellent, at least for my landscape work. 

At this point, there is no way to justify the thousands more for the X1Dn let alone the H5/6, in my mind.

Test it out and you will understand.

Forget all of the back and forth discussions and go take shots with it.
I think you'll be as pleased as I am.

Jack

Thank you, Jack!
Glad to hear you like the gfx!
I am a long time Phase one fan, and I like the  Phase one backs a lot.
But as you say, it is increasingly difficult to justify these prices when you can get this good
cameras and lenses for a few % of the price.

Have you tried any old lenses on the camera with adapters?

Henrik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If you plan on shooting 44x33mm it is better to having lenses designed for that format. Designing for a larger format gives up a bit of quality.

I am no expert on optics, but it seems that there are some scaling laws for format sizes. A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.

Consider this, let's say you have a  63 mm lens for 44x33 mm. That is a standard lens and can be designed as a typical standard lens with 6-7 elements. The Fuji GFX lens goes beyond that design effort, but a good normal lens can be built using the traditional double Gauss + field flattener design.

Now, on a 54x44 sensor it will act as a wide angle lens. In addition, it will need to take the mirror box into account. So, inevitably the 63 mm lens for for the larger sensor will become an inverted telephoto design. Such a design breaks symmetry. Symmetry is often used to reduce aberrations, the front element causes an aberration and the rear element inverts it. So symmetrical designs are simple and perform well.

That said, the lenses for the X1D and the GFX are far more elaborate than lenses used to be, that is probably because they are designed for 100 MP and beyond.

So, it is smaller, better and probably cheaper, as long as you are shooting 44x33 mm.

Best regards
Erik

Thank you, Jack!
Glad to hear you like the gfx!
I am a long time Phase one fan, and I like the  Phase one backs a lot.
But as you say, it is increasingly difficult to justify these prices when you can get this good
cameras and lenses for a few % of the price.

Have you tried any old lenses on the camera with adapters?

Henrik

[henrikfoto]

Hi,

If you plan on shooting 44x33mm it is better to having lenses designed for that format. Designing for a larger format gives up a bit of quality.

I am no expert on optics, but it seems that there are some scaling laws for format sizes. A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.

Consider this, let's say you have a  63 mm lens for 44x33 mm. That is a standard lens and can be designed as a typical standard lens with 6-7 elements. The Fuji GFX lens goes beyond that design effort, but a good normal lens can be built using the traditional double Gauss + field flattener design.

Now, on a 54x44 sensor it will act as a wide angle lens. In addition, it will need to take the mirror box into account. So, inevitably the 63 mm lens for for the larger sensor will become an inverted telephoto design. Such a design breaks symmetry. Symmetry is often used to reduce aberrations, the front element causes an aberration and the rear element inverts it. So symmetrical designs are simple and perform well.

That said, the lenses for the X1D and the GFX are far more elaborate than lenses used to be, that is probably because they are designed for 100 MP and beyond.

So, it is smaller, better and probably cheaper, as long as you are shooting 44x33 mm.

Best regards
Erik

That is very interesting. Is is too advanced for me, but seems only partially right.
If you mount a sony on a large format camera with a LF-lens, you get the feeling this optics is sharper and better than the normal small lenses. That is hard to explain when the optics are made for at least
FF medium format.. I am just thinking..

[kers]

That is very interesting. Is is too advanced for me, but seems only partially right.
If you mount a sony on a large format camera with a LF-lens, you get the feeling this optics is sharper and better than the normal small lenses. That is hard to explain when the optics are made for at least
FF medium format.. I am just thinking..

I think it has to do with this:
erik said:
 A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.
Clearly at a pricetag that comes with MF lenses the effort made is usually a bit higher...

In the light of this it is interesting to see that Fuji seems produce such good lenses at a relatively low pricetag. Take the 23mm as an example.

[madlantern]

I think it has to do with this:
erik said:
 A lens covering a smaller format will be sharper (have higher MTF) than a lens designed for a larger format, assuming the same design effort.
Clearly at a pricetag that comes with MF lenses the effort made is usually a bit higher...

In the light of this it is interesting to see that Fuji seems produce such good lenses at a relatively low pricetag. Take the 23mm as an example.

Also, MF lenses seem to be optimized for sharpness whereas the top 35mm primes are optimized for large apertures (e..g otus )

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would not suggest that any older generation MF lens would be a fair match for the Otus at 44x33 mm. If you design a lens that is sharp at large apertures it will outshine lenses that are doing well at smaller apertures.

On the other hand, all lenses run into the diffraction limit when stopped down beyond their optimum aperture. The Otus peaks around f/4, that actually means it is twice as sharp as a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8.

My actual experience is limited to bunch of Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad, 40/4CF, 50/4CF, 60/3.5CF, 80/2.8 CFE, 100/3.5 CF, 120/4CF, 120/4 CFi, 150/4 CB, 150/4CF and 180/4 CFi.

Of those I would regard the Planar 100/3.5CF, the Sonnars 150/4 and the Sonnar 180/4CFi to be very good. Compared to the other lenses I feel that my zoom lenses used on the Sony A7rII are superior. I have used the Hasselblad lenses with P45+ back, mostly.

The best performers would give very good performance over 36x48 mm at 80MP, the weaker performers would be quite OK, but not great.

I did not do a lot of comparisons between Sony A7rII and the P45+, but some cases:

• Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+ vs Sony 90/2.8G on the A7rII, Sony wins easily
• Planar 100/3.5 on the P45+ vs Canon 24-105/4L on the A7rII, about even
• Distagon 40/4 on the P45+ vs Canon 16-35/4L on the A7rII. The Sony plays in a different league, higher one.

Jim Kasson has tested a lot of lenses on his GFX. What he has found was that the Fuji GFX lenses were essentially Otus class. That said, the Otuses performed very well on the GFX, but they would not cover the whole field.

Jim has found that his HC lenses were not up to the class. Regarding the Zeiss lenses he found that the 250/4 Superachromat was a good performer, but it was not very practical. So, he sold all his HC and V-lenses.

I would suggest that both Hasselblad and Fuji make great lenses for their 44x33 mm camera systems. I would be 100% sure that the new GFX lenses widely outperform older lenses designed for 6x6, especially if axial chroma is taken into account. Some exceptions may exist, however.

Best regards
Erik

Also, MF lenses seem to be optimized for sharpness whereas the top 35mm primes are optimized for large apertures (e..g otus )

[pschefz]

i was really excited about using old glass on the GFX, did it a lot with the A7RII.....leica m, voigtlander, some nikon, canon as well as some funky russian glass...
first thing i tried on the GFX were pentax 6x7 lenses because that was available....to make a long story short, nothing i have tried comes close to the GF lenses...not even close.....i have thought about using the 35mm glass in a similar way i use them on the sony, for a certain look, flares, super shallow dof....most of the lenses don't really cover the 33x44 sensor, which is ok, but again, it just questions the whole point....
the pentax lenses just don't resolve enough detail...again, maybe for an effect, but in a way they aren't bad enough to really show much of an effect.....
i also find manual focus to be easier on the sony? not sure why? maybe peaking works better? the voigtlander 40 1.4 is probably one of my favorite lenses on the A7RII....i just don't get the same out of it on the GFX....probably has to do with the size (camera big, lens tiny)....
i was looking into contact glass and adapters when i stopped myself.....i know these lenses aren't as good as the fuji ones, but yet with an adapter they are not really cheap......going the AF adapter route makes it even less of a deal.....the fuji lenses really are pretty amazingly cheap for how good they are, so it makes cheaper solutions not really worth it IMO...

[henrikfoto]

I am sure a lot of the dream of old and superior lenses are just unrealistic. I am sure the new Fuji-lenses are very good and would save us a lot of problems.  But still.. too many old and legendary lenses are too good to sell.

[pschefz]

a very good friend of mine was switching from canon, first he was obviously looking at sony but when the GFX came out, he remembered all his old MF glass (pentax and hasselblad) and asked me what i thought about going GFX and only using his old glass for the time being.....i told him that IMO he would get better files with A7RII and a few sony lenses then GFX with his old glass......and he could still use his old glass on the sony and probably get similar files (not the same crop of course)....but obviously he would be getting way more camera with the sony since the little margin of IQ goes away if one does not use the fuji glass.....