Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: chrismuc on January 24, 2017, 08:54:55 pm
-
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
-
Thanks. Very helpful. For me scales tip in favor of gfx as opposed to the X1d. More flexibility, although the X1d is a more elegant design.
-
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.
This is great, Chris. I put my name on the list for the GFX, and this makes me feel even better about it.
Jim
-
Startup times are now in the realm of DSLRs, which is very nice! The grip seems like a must have for very long shooting sessions, like all mirrorless cameras. Not a problem on the usability front, but it means you have to spend more money on gear to get comparable battery performance without stopping frequently to change batteries.
-
Is it really impossible to adapt 3d party lenses to the X1D? Not yet, or actually impossible for some reason? Possible to adapt Hasselblad lenses but no others seem strange to me.
-
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 :-)
-
Thank you for that clarification, forgot about the shutter there. Yes the leaf shutter makes it difficult. But should be possible with some reverse enginering to use other leaf shutter lenses or some adapter with built in focal plane shutter could be conceived.
-
I would have added the Nikon D810 and the appropriate larger-sensor Canon cameras to this comparison.
-
I would have added the Nikon D810 and the appropriate larger-sensor Canon cameras to this comparison.
Since the reduced flange distance gives the luxury of space for adding an adapter for other lenses, could you actually have an adapter with it's own leaf shutter build into it so you could use non leaf shutter lenses? It would probably/maybe be cost prohibitive, but maybe technically possible?
-
Hi,
A leaf shutter would vignette as it has different exposure time between edge and centre and would be extremely large.
Best regards
Erik
Since the reduced flange distance gives the luxury of space for adding an adapter for other lenses, could you actually have an adapter with it's own leaf shutter build into it so you could use non leaf shutter lenses? It would probably/maybe be cost prohibitive, but maybe technically possible?
-
A leaf shutter would vignette as it has different exposure time between edge and centre and would be extremely large.
I once owned a camera with interchangeable shutterless lenses and an in-body behind-the-lens leaf shutter: the Argus C3. In addition to the things Erik mentioned, it was quite limited in its fastest speed. I presume that was because of its size.
By the way, the C3 would have been a terrible camera even with a FP shutter.
Jim
-
As much as the Hasselblad is a beauty in design form, what caught my eye immediately, was the lack of a tilting LCD. Something I prefer to have for both composition issues (works as a waist level finder) and age, as bending down to get up close is much easier with a tilting LCD. Hasselblad stated weather sealing, but it's a first for them and time will tell if they got it right. It's thiner by a lot but odds are it will get hotter faster, just like the Sony's due especially with video. The lack of the focal shutter was also an issue as I am not currently a user of Hasselblad and thus it meant no lens adapters would ever work, in a realistic manner.
Then after time I read the specs on the LCD and EVF resolution and decided to see what Fuji would do here as I love their EVF's and LCD's in this regard. I was glad I waited.
When Fuji announced EFC and ES, I was even more both surprised and happy as the ES on MF becomes much more important, at least from what I have found. And Fuji knows a bit about ES implementation.
Paul Caldwell
-
As much as the Hasselblad is a beauty in design form, what caught my eye immediately, was the lack of a tilting LCD. Something I prefer to have for both composition issues (works as a waist level finder) and age, as bending down to get up close is much easier with a tilting LCD. Hasselblad stated weather sealing, but it's a first for them and time will tell if they got it right. It's thiner by a lot but odds are it will get hotter faster, just like the Sony's due especially with video. The lack of the focal shutter was also an issue as I am not currently a user of Hasselblad and thus it meant no lens adapters would ever work, in a realistic manner.
Then after time I read the specs on the LCD and EVF resolution and decided to see what Fuji would do here as I love their EVF's and LCD's in this regard. I was glad I waited.
When Fuji announced EFC and ES, I was even more both surprised and happy as the ES on MF becomes much more important, at least from what I have found. And Fuji knows a bit about ES implementation.
Paul Caldwell
It's all about priorities, isn't it? For me, and I suspect many others, the most critical features are the form factor and the user interface. A smaller and lighter camera body and lenses, and what I will call a Eurocentric user interface, are of paramount importance. ES and EFCS? Important if the camera is otherwise susceptible to shutter shock. A tilting LCD? A swiveling EVF? A somewhat higher resolution EVF and LCD? Nice to have, but I would gladly sacrifice them for a camera that is easier to take with me and that has a user interface that is elegantly clean and uncluttered. Each of us that is interested in the X1D or the GFX (or both) will come at this analysis somewhat differently. Ideally, each of us will take the time to actually photograph with the two options. Looking at the X1D in a photo on the internet simply does not prepare you for the experience of physically holding one in your hands and photographing with it. I am yet to speak with anyone who wasn't blown away by just how small and light and beautifully designed it is in the flesh. I have yet to handle a GFX. Fuji has chosen not to distribute demo cameras before actual shipments start.
-
No doubt it's a beautiful body. But considering you only have have EVF and LCD and may want to check at 100% focus I will take the greater resolution over beauty and light weight.
It's all the same sensor so it really comes down to profiling, software, and reliability and cost.
Both products are amazing and I am sure both will do very well.
Paul Caldwell
-
I'm interested in the GFX but I wanna get my hands on one before buying. I also plan to wait some months after release and see what issues, if any, show up with real world use. I'll be in NYC in late March/early April and will aim for some hands-on time at B&H or Adorama while there. Purchase won't happen 'til mid summer at the earliest.
-Dave-
-
I'd like both, they cater to very different needs anyway.
The GFX seems more of a workhorse, the X1D more of a leisure camera.
-
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.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Excellent work! Imo the A7R-II is the winner here, though I'd stick with Nikon for now, and wait until Sony's mirrorless becomes more usable.
-
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.
Cheers,
Bernard
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.
-
Hi,
Fuji says 'G' format and some folks say small medium format.
Best regards
Erik
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.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
-
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
-
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-
-
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.
-
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
-
To me any meaningful comparisons should be between all cameras with the Sony 50MP sesnor-like X1D, Phase, Pentax 645Z, and Hassy 50.