Dropping My X1D Order, Affirming My GFX Order

[hogloff]

Bottom line is buy whatever camera system that suits you. Why do you have to announce this to the whole world. I personally don't give a rat's azz what system any of you choose, let alone argue over those choices.

[Christopher]

Just curios. Why then read it and comment ?


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[hogloff]

Just curios. Why then read it and comment ?


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Entertainment

[voidshatter]

Bottom line is buy whatever camera system that suits you. Why do you have to announce this to the whole world. I personally don't give a rat's azz what system any of you choose, let alone argue over those choices.

Some need to justify their course of action; some need to validate their choice with the opinions of the others; some need to seek agreement from the others; etc.

But much of the time, it's about fighting for second hand re-sales value of the gear in hand (passively, not actively).

[Stephen Scharf]

Some need to justify their course of action; some need to validate their choice with the opinions of the others; some need to seek agreement from the others; etc.

But much of the time, it's about fighting for second hand re-sales value of the gear in hand (passively, not actively).

Michael (and Hubell) are simply explaining they have different requirements for the type of photography they do. The key thing here is that, while each user has different sets of requirements, both are valid. The customer gets to decide what valid for them; that's why both offerings create value for their respective users.

Personally, I think it's great...think about where we are now as opposed to a year ago, when we didn't have either of these offerings in the MF market segment. We're starting to have a wonderful embarrassment of riches, similar to what we have in the mirrorless and conventional DSLR markets.

[Telecaster]

Personally I enjoy reading about what motivates someone to choose this piece of equipment over that one. It often makes me think (shudder!) about I'm doing or have plans to do. I also find it amusing when other people interpret such a choice as a challenge to, or even attack on, their own choice. Even if that is the intent of a post (not the case here IMO), if you have confidence in your own ability to make smart choices then whatever anyone else says or does is ultimately not that important.

-Dave-

[BernardLanguillier]

Not sure why the OP considers either system anyway. Knowing his focus on true APO designs, the odds are that his current F mount lenses are simply the best there is.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Michael Erlewine]

Not sure why the OP considers either system anyway. Knowing his focus on true APO designs, the odds are that his current F mount lenses are simply the best there is.

Cheers,
Bernard

If we are talking lenses, I agree with you, but with the GFX, perhaps I can mount the Otus series of lenses. Does anyone know, given the GFX mount, how close to being exact the Nikon F-Mount will be. I don't understand what happens when we have an adapter for the GFX for Nikon. And then, given Nikon's delay, I am interested what 16-bit files, etc. are going to look like, especially with Nikon lenses. And, of course, I am just interested in new technology that comes near to being what I work with. I still have my Nikon D1X, just for fun. I have had many cameras, including technical cameras, plus A7s, A7R, A7R II, Pentax K3, Pentax K1, Panasonic GH4, Sigma Merrill and of course all the higher-end Nikons going back. So far, the best camera (for me folks) is the Nikon D810. And, as my wife will tell you, I am a hopeless gearhead when it comes to photography.

Lloyd Chambers just posted a fascinating blog on the X1D and the D810 at low ISOs... and somewhat similar lenses. Interesting.

[siddhaarta]

Already making adapters

Adapters

[EricWHiss]

Not sure why the OP considers either system anyway. Knowing his focus on true APO designs, the odds are that his current F mount lenses are simply the best there is.

Cheers,
Bernard

I was wondering why also - What will either new camera do that he can not do already?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The sensor in the X1D is a 14 bit device and Hasselblad delivers 14 bit files in a 16 bit container.

This is quite obvious if you check an X1D image using RawDigger. It has spikes for each fourth channel, but there is some 'cruft' between the spikes that originates from some internal processing.

I also enclose a screen dump from the Phase One IQ-250. Talking about 16-bit is quite a bit of false marketing in both cases. Or you can just see it as alternative facts in new speak.

Obviously, the X1D does have more pixels that cover a larger area, so the X1D will have small advantage over the Nikon D810. !60 ISO on the X1D would correspond to 100 ISO on the Nikon, simply due to sensor size. The X1D would also deliver a bit more sharpness at least in prints large enough.

Best regards
Erik

If we are talking lenses, I agree with you, but with the GFX, perhaps I can mount the Otus series of lenses. Does anyone know, given the GFX mount, how close to being exact the Nikon F-Mount will be. I don't understand what happens when we have an adapter for the GFX for Nikon. And then, given Nikon's delay, I am interested what 16-bit files, etc. are going to look like, especially with Nikon lenses. And, of course, I am just interested in new technology that comes near to being what I work with. I still have my Nikon D1X, just for fun. I have had many cameras, including technical cameras, plus A7s, A7R, A7R II, Pentax K3, Pentax K1, Panasonic GH4, Sigma Merrill and of course all the higher-end Nikons going back. So far, the best camera (for me folks) is the Nikon D810. And, as my wife will tell you, I am a hopeless gearhead when it comes to photography.

Lloyd Chambers just posted a fascinating blog on the X1D and the D810 at low ISOs... and somewhat similar lenses. Interesting.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

The IQ3100 MP sensor delivers 16 bit output, which can be seen in the screen dump below. The image is courtesy Digital Transitions. AFAIK I know the 100 MP Sony sensor is the first one supporting more than 14 bits real worth data. I would guess the Hasselblad 100 MP back also delivers 16 bits data.

Note that the data below doesn't show any combing.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

The sensor in the X1D is a 14 bit device and Hasselblad delivers 14 bit files in a 16 bit container.

This is quite obvious if you check an X1D image using RawDigger. It has spikes for each fourth channel, but there is some 'cruft' between the spikes that originates from some internal processing.

I also enclose a screen dump from the Phase One IQ-250. Talking about 16-bit is quite a bit of false marketing in both cases.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

On the other hand, the screen dumps from raw digger represent a single grey patch from the Digital Trasnitions test shot, one is the ColorChecker white patch and the other is the black patch.

In both cases, the single tone is represented by a gaussian (or rather a Poisson distribution) spreading over a wide range of values, as the data is imprecise the precision of it's representation is not important.

The only case where 14-bit vs. 16-bit matters is the very dark end of dynamic range. If we have very clean readout and very little noise from photon statistics that acts as a dither quantisation errors may be possible to observe.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

The IQ3100 MP sensor delivers 16 bit output, which can be seen in the screen dump below. The image is courtesy Digital Transitions. AFAIK I know the 100 MP Sony sensor is the first one supporting more than 14 bits real worth data. I would guess the Hasselblad 100 MP back also delivers 16 bits data.

Note that the data below doesn't show any combing.

Best regards
Erik

[hubell]

I see the X1D more like a 'reduced to the max' concept camera like a Leica M, so people buying and loving it won't discuss what the cam is lacking.

If you compare the features of the X1D and GFX and assumed that the image quality (of cam and lenses) is basically equivalent

the Hassi X1D would the choice if the preference is:
- small body
- light body
- central shutter lenses
- short flash exp. time due to central shutter
- (mainly) menu based user interface

the Fuji GFX would the choice if features are needed like:

- shortest shutter lag

- short EVF lag
-

Have you actually tested the X1D and the GFX to assess comparative "shutter lag" and "EVF lag" when shooting raw? Has anyone who isn't a Hasselblad or Fuji Ambassador?

[vampire]

I have actually. I have my X1D, I had the GFX for 15 minutes to play with at B&H the other day. I did not have a card with me to save the Fuji files onto. One thing to keep in mind is that Hasselblad will be releasing new firmware in the next couple weeks to add functionality to the X1D to bring it closer in line with the Fuji specs. The two cameras are also aimed at two different segments of the medium format market, in my opinion. Fuji has made a medium format camera, that is mirrorless. While Hasselblad has made a mirrorless camera that is medium format, if that makes sense to people. Hasselblad has the H line of cameras, so they wanted to make the smallest, lightest, most compact camera possible. Fuji had no medium format camera before, so they made a larger camera with much larger lenses, they are BIG, but light. So it's kind of hard to compare them as apples to apples. Fuji also has way more past experience with mirrorless cameras, so they have a head start with some of the functionality. I really couldn't tell the difference between the two EVF's. I didn't have them side by side, but I think they are about the same. The benefit of the Fuji is that you can upgrade it easily in the future. Right now the biggest difference that I saw was the blackout time between frames. The Fuji was quicker to come back, and when shooting a sequence the hasselblad stays dark because of the leaf shutter, while the Fuji doesn't, but the Fuji has this weird slow motion looking thing going on. The leaf shutter is clearly a trade off, but for a lot of photographers, especially current Hasselblad users, they will prefer that. It's not an action camera, so most people aren't buying it to shoot sequences.

[hubell]

I have actually. I have my X1D, I had the GFX for 15 minutes to play with at B&H the other day. I did not have a card with me to save the Fuji files onto. ...Right now the biggest difference that I saw was the blackout time between frames. The Fuji was quicker to come back, and when shooting a sequence the hasselblad stays dark because of the leaf shutter, while the Fuji doesn't, but the Fuji has this weird slow motion looking thing going on. The leaf shutter is clearly a trade off, but for a lot of photographers, especially current Hasselblad users, they will prefer that. It's not an action camera, so most people aren't buying it to shoot sequences.

Are you sure that the demo GFX was configured to shoot raw files and not just JPEG? My understanding was that the raw mode is locked out for now.

[vampire]

Oh, I have no clue. That would be interesting if that was the case. Sorry I don't have the answer for that.

[voidshatter]

I have actually. I have my X1D, I had the GFX for 15 minutes to play with at B&H the other day. I did not have a card with me to save the Fuji files onto. One thing to keep in mind is that Hasselblad will be releasing new firmware in the next couple weeks to add functionality to the X1D to bring it closer in line with the Fuji specs. The two cameras are also aimed at two different segments of the medium format market, in my opinion. Fuji has made a medium format camera, that is mirrorless. While Hasselblad has made a mirrorless camera that is medium format, if that makes sense to people. Hasselblad has the H line of cameras, so they wanted to make the smallest, lightest, most compact camera possible. Fuji had no medium format camera before, so they made a larger camera with much larger lenses, they are BIG, but light. So it's kind of hard to compare them as apples to apples. Fuji also has way more past experience with mirrorless cameras, so they have a head start with some of the functionality. I really couldn't tell the difference between the two EVF's. I didn't have them side by side, but I think they are about the same. The benefit of the Fuji is that you can upgrade it easily in the future. Right now the biggest difference that I saw was the blackout time between frames. The Fuji was quicker to come back, and when shooting a sequence the hasselblad stays dark because of the leaf shutter, while the Fuji doesn't, but the Fuji has this weird slow motion looking thing going on. The leaf shutter is clearly a trade off, but for a lot of photographers, especially current Hasselblad users, they will prefer that. It's not an action camera, so most people aren't buying it to shoot sequences.

Thanks for this objective comment.

It's most interesting that Fuji makes lenses for Hasselblad. Now they are competitors in the mini-MF mirrorless area 

[hubell]

Oh, I have no clue. That would be interesting if that was the case. Sorry I don't have the answer for that.

Thanks. It will be interesting to see how the GFX performs once it is released into the hands of photographers who can shoot raw files and process them in LR/ACR. We are still in the honeymoon period where EVERYTHING looks perfect.

[Michael Erlewine]

Looking forward to my Fuji GFX to see if it will measure up. Here is a video from a portrait photographer who has a GFX. It is not technical enough for me, but reveals a little bit more of what I am interested in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhfaS0lZHNQ

Also trying to figure out which wired remote will work with the GFX, which appears to be: Fujifilm RR-90 Remote Camera Release. This is already available and fits other Fuji cameras. I ordered a copy, so I can test the GFX properly.