Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on February 07, 2017, 06:45:53 pm
-
Today I pulled the plug after seven months of waiting for the X1D. I cancelled my order. It was not just the delay, but after much investigating, monitoring posts, hearing from the few actual users, and so on, it is clear to me that the X1D does not lend itself to my particular approach to photography, which is nature, still-life, and stacked images. The less-than-state-of-the-art LCD screen (LiveView), and particularly the fact that there is no toggle-joystick to quickly locate a focus point, and the fact that I frequently use a photo-loupe to check focus, makes it inconvenient to try and use touching the screen. The color looks good on the X1D, but I have confidence that raw files from competitive MF mirrorless cameras are probably workable. Luckily, I ordered the Fuji GFX within hours of its availability, so now I am waiting again, but for a different camera. LOL. If, in the intervening time, Nikon should produce a 54 Mpx update on the Nikon D810, I might just go with that. Also, as regards the GFX, the fact that there are now tests suggesting the Otus lenses work well on the GFX is meaningful to me, since I have them. And the 3-way tilt-able back-screen is very useful to me as a close-up photographer, often to be seen crawling around on all fours with a tripod. Tilting the screen or being able to look directly down on it is a feature I could use.
I am aware that others will have different reasons for getting (or not-getting) the X1D; it looks like a very nice camera. And while, initially, I loved the minimalism of the X1D, through this long waiting-process, I have realized I am more a gearhead than I thought. I need all the technical advantages of a camera that is more than minimal. If the X1D is a Porsche, then I guess I drive an SUV, which in fact I do. It has been a fun ride, nevertheless.
-
I did the same thing a few weeks ago for many of the same reasons. I also felt that there may be better long-term support for the Fuji. Real judgement call on my part as I love the size/design of the X1D.
-
Today I pulled the plug after seven months of waiting for the X1D. I cancelled my order. It was not just the delay, but after much investigating, monitoring posts, hearing from the few actual users, and so on, it is clear to me that the X1D does not lend itself to my particular approach to photography, which is nature, still-life, and stacked images. The less-than-state-of-the-art LCD screen (LiveView), and particularly the fact that there is no toggle-joystick to quickly locate a focus point, and the fact that I frequently use a photo-loupe to check focus, makes it inconvenient to try and use touching the screen. The color looks good on the X1D, but I have confidence that raw files from competitive MF mirrorless cameras are probably workable. Luckily, I ordered the Fuji GFX within hours of its availability, so now I am waiting again, but for a different camera. LOL. If, in the intervening time, Nikon should produce a 54 Mpx update on the Nikon D810, I might just go with that. Also, as regards the GFX, the fact that there are now tests suggesting the Otus lenses work well on the GFX is meaningful to me, since I have them. And the 3-way tilt-able back-screen is very useful to me as a close-up photographer, often to be seen crawling around on all fours with a tripod. Tilting the screen or being able to look directly down on it is a feature I could use.
I am aware that others will have different reasons for getting (or not-getting) the X1D; it looks like a very nice camera. And while, initially, I loved the minimalism of the X1D, through this long waiting-process, I have realized I am more a gearhead than I thought. I need all the technical advantages of a camera that is more than minimal. If the X1D is a Porsche, then I guess I drive an SUV, which in fact I do. It has been a fun ride, nevertheless.
I think the analysis that you went through about the relative merits of the X1D and GFX worked well for you, as you were able to clarify and confirm what was most important for you and the way you work. I do think that one's views about the X1D and the GFX are (and should be) much influenced by what you are coming from and what you are looking for. The only things they have in common are the sensor and the lack of a mirror. Your baseline is a Nikon D810, and you want/need a camera that offers essentially the same functionality and form factor but with a larger sensor. The lack of a joystick on the X1D is a deal breaker for you. For others, the alternative to the X1D is not a DSLR. It's a Hasselblad H6D100 or a Phase XF IQ100. Neither of these cameras has a joystick, and that's the type of camera I am used to using and that meets my needs in terms of functionality. For me, the attraction of an X1D or a GFX is, pure and simple, the form factor. Small and light body and lenses, with a clean, uncluttered interface. Moving around and about with a a camera like the D810 and Otus lenses is the last thing I want. Having actually used the X1D for a little over a week, I can tell you that it meets my objectives perfectly. Of course, none of that would matter if I didn't care for the "look" of the files. The X1D files that I have shot in real world conditions of the type that I shoot in exhibit a very natural and, IMO, beautiful color palette that is easy to produce….the files don’t require a huge amount of post processing to get them to look beautiful. This is true even when the X1D files are processed in LR/ACR, as opposed to the native Phocus software from Hasselblad. My understanding is that Hasselblad has worked very hard directly with Adobe to achieve high quality conversions of Hasselblad files in LR/ACR, and it shows. As for the lack of a joystick, it would be nice to have one. The X1D has the same basic functionality as a joystick by using the front and rear dials, but there is no question that a joystick is more convenient. I can live without it as it is not one of my priorities.
-
It is amazing how much we all are becoming more difficult these days. I need a joystick, I need a focal shutter, I need video, I need ... you name it.
I still remember the time we had a lens and a film and that was enough to make great pictures.
I tried the X1D today. The files are great, the colours are beautiful, its performance at low light is great and perfectly useable till 3200 iso. And it cuts my weight in half on location.
What else do I need now?
I am sure they will make me something even better for Xmas of 2022.
-
It is amazing how much we all are becoming more difficult these days. I need a joystick, I need a focal shutter, I need video, I need ... you name it.
I still remember the time we had a lens and a film and that was enough to make great pictures.
I tried the X1D today. The files are great, the colours are beautiful, its performance at low light is great and perfectly useable till 3200 iso. And it cuts my weight in half on location.
What else do I need now?
I am sure they will make me something even better for Xmas of 2022.
Not sure if it is being more difficult. Certainly for some there are features which are very important or at least important enough to consider an alternative if it’s available. We don’t all shoot the same thing or the same way. Pretty much all of these cameras can deliver beautiful color, good ISO performance. After all they all have the same sensor inside.
-
I tried the X1D today. The files are great, the colours are beautiful, its performance at low light is great and perfectly useable till 3200 iso. And it cuts my weight in half on location.
What else do I need now?
I understand your point of view, but to me, this small MF mirrorless trend is just getting started. There are a lot of things to consider, questions that I have, things to worry about, like:
How can Fuji make highly-corrected lenses at the price they are charging?
It seems that the X1D lenses are sharp but perhaps they have secondary color-correction problems.
I need a wired remote, if possible. Only the GFX offers that? Otherwise I have to wear my iPhone around my neck or some small device to act as a remote.
It turns out that the X1D lenses, with leaf-shutter, are very loud. How does that affect me?
The X1D lacks a joystick-controller for positioning the cursor in LiveView. I do a lot of short-stacking, which means positioning the cursor and magnifying for proper focus? When I take a shot and go to the next point, does anything else change? If so, endless headache, etc.
There will be an Nikon F-Mount adapter for the GFX. How will non-Fuji lenses perform? Are there any “Gotchas” there?
When we speak of a system that costs $14K and more with greater than two lenses, how do we choose, when there are like zero GFX cameras and only a handful of the X1D cameras in the field?
I could go on and on, and I have been following all of this for seven months. I have learned more from Lloyd Chamber’s new MF section than anywhere else. He actually has an X1D and is putting it through its paces. I need all of the chapters and verse and it is worth the subscription price.
So, someone like myself, with a very particular approach to photography, and not that much money to throw around, I need to determine if the system will do the job I need done.
-
Pretty much all of these cameras can deliver beautiful color, good ISO performance. After all they all have the same sensor inside.
In theory, that's true, but I would not spend serious money on a camera system without being sure that I can produce files with it in my chosen software that, to me, have beautiful color and tonal balalnce. My concern is that Fuji's (or Adobe's) idea of beautiful color from the GFX may not be the same as mine. I would make sure that I have a 30-day right to return a GFX or an X1D, if I find it does not meet my needs. Alternatively, I would rent an X1D and a GFX from lensrentals.com. Smart investment.
-
I’m not telling people that they should go with the GFX. I cancelled my X1D because I like the feature set of the Fuji better for the work I do. It’s true we have become very spoiled in terms the features that are available to us but to ignore them once there out doesn’t make sense to me. As I have stated before, I also feel more confident that Fuji is in a better position to support this new platform going forward. Don’t know if I’m right on wrong on this belief as only time will tell.
-
Please drop an email to Hasselblad requesting integrated step focusing it's been on the request list and the more people that ask the faster they might complete the firmware update including it.
Send email to
[email protected]
-
Hi,
There are needs and wants. If you need something and it is missing the camera is a no go. A camera internal shutter is such a thing if you want to use non Hasselblad lenses on the X1D.
If you are allergic to magenta green out of focus images and shoot large apertures, you need an apochromatic lens, like the Otus. The OP has a bunch of APO lenses. Are Hasselblads lenses fully apochromatic? Probably not. We don't know yet, but true apochromats are rare.
If you shoot macro, with a Stackshoot you need a macro lens and an electric cable release to let the Stackshot controller govern exposures.
If you shoot tilts you need some kind of tilt adapter. Here the X1D could use the HTS system.
The HTS system would also be usable with shifts, except that shifts are usually used with wide angles, the HTS extends focal length by 1.5.
Best regards
Erik
It is amazing how much we all are becoming more difficult these days. I need a joystick, I need a focal shutter, I need video, I need ... you name it.
I still remember the time we had a lens and a film and that was enough to make great pictures.
I tried the X1D today. The files are great, the colours are beautiful, its performance at low light is great and perfectly useable till 3200 iso. And it cuts my weight in half on location.
What else do I need now?
I am sure they will make me something even better for Xmas of 2022.
-
It is amazing how much we all are becoming more difficult these days. I need a joystick, I need a focal shutter, I need video, I need ... you name it.
I still remember the time we had a lens and a film and that was enough to make great pictures.
I tried the X1D today. The files are great, the colours are beautiful, its performance at low light is great and perfectly useable till 3200 iso. And it cuts my weight in half on location.
What else do I need now?
I am sure they will make me something even better for Xmas of 2022.
It's not that we need or want too much. It's when there're better options available at the same time, especially for a better price, why not?
Talking about low light performance, the X1D does great at ISO 3200 with a lens of merely f/3.2 doesn't mean it performs as good as a Sony A7R-II at ISO 200 with the help of an f/1.4 lens and IBIS. Any seasoned gearhead can tell that the latter performs considerably better under low-light situations. Weight (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116189.0) has also been discussed.
As for the joystick, Phase One's touch-screen accepts double-tap to zoom-in at any spot - doesn't the X1D implement this?
By the time of Xmas 2022 I'm sure even the mobile phones or whatever device that is not a dedicated camera can most likely outperform many of today's cameras.
-
I think we all have very different needs, so our decision not to buy something in the end pretty much only applies to ourselves, does it not?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If you are allergic to magenta green out of focus images and shoot large apertures, you need an apochromatic lens, like the Otus. The OP has a bunch of APO lenses. Are Hasselblads lenses fully apochromatic? Probably not. We don't know yet, but true apochromats are rare.
Lloyd Chambers reports (on his MF subscription page) consistent front focus and “Considerable secondary color (magenta/green blurs) is seen in the out-of-focus...” areas.
So, although the 90mm X1D lens may be very sharp, it seems that it is not highly corrected, for those who want this. I sold my copies, but the Zeiss Makro-Planers (50mm and 100mm) were very sharp, but poorly corrected for fringing, etc., so that I found I never used them.
Because of their price, the announced GFX lenses probably are not that well-corrected, but we shall see. With the GFX, there is the possibility that with a Nikon F-Mount adapter, the use of lenses like the Otus series may give a good result, unless those lenses overly degrade due to non-standard mounting.
Indeed, I can't imagine trying to please anyone but myself when buying equipment. :)
-
X1D is a nice camera, maybe a bit of ahead of its day, maybe a bit undeveloped. It's not for me. it doesn't really feel like a camera and the lenses aren't going to be what I like and need, they certainly aren't now.
What it seems ideal for, to me, is as a recording device. If that is the kind of photography you like then I think it will be a good choice.
-
... Pretty much all of these cameras can deliver beautiful color, good ISO performance. After all they all have the same sensor inside.
Is is like choosing a camera in the film days...
The film is the same for everybody; But only the camera system differs.
-
X1D is a nice camera, maybe a bit of ahead of its day, maybe a bit undeveloped. It's not for me. it doesn't really feel like a camera and the lenses aren't going to be what I like and need, they certainly aren't now.
What it seems ideal for, to me, is as a recording device. If that is the kind of photography you like then I think it will be a good choice.
I agree that it doesn't feel like a camera. Thankfully. It handles better than any camera I have ever used. Everything else feels and handles like a brick by comparison. And BTW, EVERY camera is a recording device. That's its function. So, I am not sure what you mean.
-
I think we all have very different needs, so our decision not to buy something in the end pretty much only applies to ourselves, does it not?
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, that's why I am buying and testing both the X1D and the GFX. I will use both in the field shooting what I typically shoot and then process the files the way I like to process them in the software I like to use.
-
Indeed, I can't imagine trying to please anyone but myself when buying equipment. :)
I completely agree, but you have been listening to everyone else while resisting the idea of actually testing this stuff yourself in the field. It's fine to ask questions and listen to the feedback, but that should be the starting point, not the ending point.
-
As for the joystick, Phase One's touch-screen accepts double-tap to zoom-in at any spot - doesn't the X1D implement this?
A double-tap gives you a 100% view.
-
A double-tap gives you a 100% view.
This should be the case on all digital touch screens now. Apple still owns the patent on using you fingers in a pinching movement to zoom in and out.
Insofar as my gripes about the system, I have the same two I have with all mirrorless cameras, the EVF lag and its poor performance in high contrast or low light situations. This is a camera made for handheld use, and to have a lag in the view finder is unacceptable. High contrast scenes make highlights and shadows in the VF too bright and too dark with little mid tones, and possibly way too much noise in lower light situations.
I will continue with my OVFs for now, although I would love the lower weight.
-
I agree that it doesn't feel like a camera. Thankfully. It handles better than any camera I have ever used. Everything else feels and handles like a brick by comparison. And BTW, EVERY camera is a recording device. That's its function. So, I am not sure what you mean.
Like I said it's probably ahead of its time. Personally I will be happy with a Hasselblad V and a Leica M6.
Every camera is a recording device but some are more, but it's maybe more to do with lenses. If you don't know what that means then it doesn't matter. ;)
-
Hi,
OVF means mostly SLR technique and that means a shutter release lag. With OVF the shutter release lag can be very short, say 20 ms, but the viewfinder image may also have a significant lag.
The odds may be that you won't shoot birds in flight or fast, unpredictable action like say ice hockey with an MF DSLR.
One thing I have sort of noticed that folks who use EVF regularly sort of prefer it. It can be set up as What You See is What You Get. For me personally the magnified live is the essential parameter. OVF has some problems in bright conditions, but a good rubber eyecup helps a lot and I prefer to work with an eyecup on DSLRs, too. In the dark an OVF can be magnificent.
EVFs can drop the mirror box and can therefore offer a short flange distance, that makes the camera compatible with view cameras like the Cambo Actus or in my case the pocket size tilt and shift adapter called HCam Master TS II.
This is not saying that EVF is preferable to OVF, but EVF is an enabling technology in many senses.
Best regards
Erik
This should be the case on all digital touch screens now. Apple still owns the patent on using you fingers in a pinching movement to zoom in and out.
Insofar as my gripes about the system, I have the same two I have with all mirrorless cameras, the EVF lag and its poor performance in high contrast or low light situations. This is a camera made for handheld use, and to have a lag in the view finder is unacceptable. High contrast scenes make highlights and shadows in the VF too bright and too dark with little mid tones, and possibly way too much noise in lower light situations.
I will continue with my OVFs for now, although I would love the lower weight.
-
Hi Eric
Don't you mean EVF's drop the mirror box? This allows the shorter flange distance?
Paul Caldwell
-
Like I said it's probably ahead of its time. Personally I will be happy with a Hasselblad V and a Leica M6.
Every camera is a recording device but some are more, but it's maybe more to do with lenses. If you don't know what that means then it doesn't matter. ;)
All cameras are recording devices. You may prefer the way one camera "records" ("creamy" and "dreamy" bokeh) to the way another records ("clinical"), but they are still recording devices. All painters feel that way. Many photographers want to believe it is otherwise.
-
I think this is a great thread. I have decided not to buy several cameras this year.
I've also decided not to by some strobe gear and a car.
I'm going out to dinner tonight but I've decided not to buy the fish because it just isn't meaty enough and doesn't really suit my meal needs.
-
I think this is a great thread. I have decided not to buy several cameras this year.
I've also decided not to by some strobe gear and a car.
I'm going out to dinner tonight but I've decided not to buy the fish because it just isn't meaty enough and doesn't really suit my meal needs.
So you'd rather discuss why people shouldn't discuss cameras on a camera discussion board?
-
I think this is a great thread. I have decided not to buy several cameras this year.
I've also decided not to by some strobe gear and a car.
I'm going out to dinner tonight but I've decided not to buy the fish because it just isn't meaty enough and doesn't really suit my meal needs.
I don't know if its a great thread or not but it is as useful as a thread titled "Keeping My X1D Order" or "I just placed an X1D order".
OP is providing his reasoning and thought process, for canceling his order. Some might find that useful.
-
I could go on and on, and I have been following all of this for seven months. I have learned more from Lloyd Chamber’s new MF section than anywhere else. He actually has an X1D and is putting it through its paces. I need all of the chapters and verse and it is worth the subscription price.
I've been reading Lloyd Chamber's reviewing of the X1D with interest as well. Image quality is outstanding on the whole, but he describes issues with various aspects of using the camera, e.g. the lack of a 4-way controller (or joystick, as you mention, Michael) as notable hassles for him. One of the ones that surprised me the most was is that, apparently, you can't view an image in Playback mode through the EVF. This is a feature that is really nice on EVFs that allows you review an image for critical focus, especially when zooming in and scrolling through the image. He also mentions exposure variation at different apertures and observations using fill flash. Perhaps some of these can be addressed with firmware upgrades.
Well worth a subscription, IMHO, for reading, and for reference comparing to other MF camera systems.
-
Finally some progress and new MF gear and already people are complaining.
It must be the low price.
Edmund
I've been reading Lloyd Chamber's reviewing of the X1D with interest as well. Image quality is outstanding on the whole, but he describes issues with various aspects of using the camera, e.g. the lack of a 4-way controller (or joystick, as you mention, Michael) as notable hassles for him. One of the ones that surprised me the most was is that, apparently, you can't view an image in Playback mode through the EVF. This is a feature that is really nice on EVFs that allows you review an image for critical focus, especially when zooming in and scrolling through the image. He also mentions exposure variation at different apertures and observations using fill flash. Perhaps some of these can be addressed with firmware upgrades.
Well worth a subscription, IMHO, for reading, and for reference comparing to other MF camera systems.
-
Finally some progress and new MF gear and already people are complaining.
It must be the low price.
Edmund
Lloyd loves the image quality, micro-contrast, dynamic range and color from what he's written, and the lenses. He does have some issues with how he needs to work effectively with the camera; his needs are as valid as anyone else's.
-
Lloyd loves the image quality, micro-contrast, dynamic range and color from what he's written, and the lenses. He does have some issues with how he needs to work effectively with the camera; his needs are as valid as anyone else's.
I'm not criticizing Lloyd, just it's obvious that the H and M have 20 years of bugfixes, so the newcomers should be allowed a couple of firmware upgrades to fix their minor ergonomic issues.
I got a Fuji X100, stored it because it was hopeless to use without thinking, 6 years later with two firmware upgrades it's the camera which Leica should be making.
Edmund
-
Thanks Paul!
Erik
Hi Eric
Don't you mean EVF's drop the mirror box? This allows the shorter flange distance?
Paul Caldwell
-
Lloyd loves the image quality, micro-contrast, dynamic range and color from what he's written, and the lenses. He does have some issues with how he needs to work effectively with the camera; his needs are as valid as anyone else's.
I agree with Lloyd that the image quality from the X1D files is exceptional. I have no problem accepting that he has issues with the X1D not matching his needs as to the way he likes to work. However, I have not had any difficulties working the way I like to work shooting what I like to shoot. I frequently like to shoot multiple files at different focus points to blend together in Helicon Focus. I will move around the focus points to where I want to focus and then use back button AF to focus in those spots. Is it as easy as it would be with a joystick? No, but it was still pretty quick and easy.
-
I agree with Lloyd that the image quality from the X1D files is exceptional. I have no problem accepting that he has issues with the X1D not matching his needs as to the way he likes to work. However, I have not had any difficulties working the way I like to work shooting what I like to shoot. I frequently like to shoot multiple files at different focus points to blend together in Helicon Focus. I will move around the focus points to where I want to focus and then use back button AF to focus in those spots. Is it as easy as it would be with a joystick? No, but it was still pretty quick and easy.
That is good to hear it is working for so well for you. If look at Lloyd's photo of a rushing stream taken with a 5 minute exposure in near darkness, the image quality and results are quite impressive. I saw your thread and photos about how compact the system is with three lenses in your backpack. Very nicely compact. Looks like it will be very easy to use in the field and transport around, which is always a good thing. Personally, I think it's great we have such nice entries in the MF market that are mirror-less.
-
I'm not criticizing Lloyd, just it's obvious that the H and M have 20 years of bugfixes, so the newcomers should be allowed a couple of firmware upgrades to fix their minor ergonomic issues.
I got a Fuji X100, stored it because it was hopeless to use without thinking, 6 years later with two firmware upgrades it's the camera which Leica should be making.
Edmund
Agreed. Let's hope that they can address these. Hubell had some great recommendations in the Hasselblad Digital Forum.
-
Lloyd has been putting up more data in his initial review. His image of a oak tree showing the dynamic range capability of the X1D is...impressive, to say the least.
-
.One thing I have sort of noticed that folks who use EVF regularly sort of prefer it. It can be set up as What You See is What You Get.
Horrible for halfway challenging flash work though. Have to go into settings and turn it off unless you enjoy viewing your subject as a silhouette while you take pictures.
-
All cameras are recording devices. You may prefer the way one camera "records" ("creamy" and "dreamy" bokeh) to the way another records ("clinical"), but they are still recording devices. All painters feel that way. Many photographers want to believe it is otherwise.
If a camera simply records what the eye sees, then it's a recording device.
If a camera has certain characteristics that can be appropriated to creative endeavour then it becomes something more.
-
The X1D is beautiful to look at (and probably hold), but like the Pentax K1 (which I returned), it is not ready IMO for the kind of work I do. I hope the Fuji GFX will be more like what I need. Otherwise, I look to the NIkon D820 for the immediate future.
P.S. I also returned the Sony A7r and A7rII for similar reasons. Just color me particular.
-
That is good to hear it is working for so well for you. If look at Lloyd's photo of a rushing stream taken with a 5 minute exposure in near darkness, the image quality and results are quite impressive. I saw your thread and photos about how compact the system is with three lenses in your backpack. Very nicely compact. Looks like it will be very easy to use in the field and transport around, which is always a good thing. Personally, I think it's great we have such nice entries in the MF market that are mirror-less.
Lloyd says the long exposure is better than D810's, which is hard to believe, and if true, better than excellent!
-
The X1D is beautiful to look at (and probably hold), but like the Pentax K1 (which I returned), it is not ready IMO for the kind of work I do. I hope the Fuji GFX will be more like what I need. Otherwise, I look to the NIkon D820 for the immediate future.
P.S. I also returned the Sony A7r and A7rII for similar reasons. Just color me particular.
My guess, looking at the control features and layout, etc. is that the GFX is going to work for you if you can obtain the color profile you're looking for. From the videos I've seen of it in use, it looks to be designed to be a real workhorse.
-
Lloyd says the long exposure is better than D810's, which is hard to believe, and if true, better than excellent!
I believe it from what I've seen; his evaluation is definitely worth a subscription, IMHO, especially as he will very likely start comparing it to the GFX when it debuts for sale, and hopefully other MF or FF systems. His still life of the flowers he put up was pretty darned stunning.
-
I cancelled my order on Thursday. Pulling away from Hassie for all the obvious reasons.
Good concept terribly executed compounded with now being owned by the Chinese firm that makes drones.
A firm that several of my buddies that are serious about drones tell me is among the worst to do business with!
I'm outta Hasselblad is all I have to say after just short of 50 years.
-
I cancelled my order on Thursday. Pulling away from Hassie for all the obvious reasons.
Good concept terribly executed compounded with now being owned by the Chinese firm that makes drones.
A firm that several of my buddies that are serious about drones tell me is among the worst to do business with!
I'm outta Hasselblad is all I have to say after just short of 50 years.
I love your post, it is such a great parody of Trump like statements devoid of any sense. ;)
Well done!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I love your post, it is such a great parody of Trump like statements devoid of any sense. ;)
Well done!
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard, Your criticism is one of the very few posts that I have seen you make that indicate you did not read what was written. I am surprised you
can not extract that:
1. The company is obviously in financial stress if you count the number of times it has changed ownership.
2. They can not keep top management on board - count them.
3. They are controlled now by one of the worst manufacturers of drones as it relates to customer support and one that is historically releasing product that is not throughly tested - let the customer figure out our bugs is their mantra.
4. Can't roll out a well conceived product through the manufacturing cycle into the market place with ANY professionalism or transparency.
5. etc., etc., etc.............
Come on Bernard, you can do better than that, can't you?
As such, I'll not invest in gear that easily exceeds $10K of my cash with a firm that can't run it's own business in a manner other than how to be a text book example of how NOT to run one.
Remember, there are alternatives that are run better!
Good day to you. We will disagree completely, and I'll let you enjoy this Chinese firms level of Customer Support.
-
private equity tend to turn over their properties - and Hassy have value more as an imaging resource and a silo of aerial ohoto clients than a producer of cameras ... but what you say may be true
Dji are very innovative.
i think Hassy has ok support here in Europe. Us is not their zone.
X1D is too novel, a concept more than a camera.
and all you say is a bit true.
Bernard, Your criticism is one of the very few posts that I have seen you make that indicate you did not read what was written. I am surprised you
can not extract that:
1. The company is obviously in financial stress if you count the number of times it has changed ownership.
2. They can not keep top management on board - count them.
3. They are controlled now by one of the worst manufacturers of drones as it relates to customer support and one that is historically releasing product that is not throughly tested - let the customer figure out our bugs is their mantra.
4. Can't roll out a well conceived product through the manufacturing cycle into the market place with ANY professionalism or transparency.
5. etc., etc., etc.............
Come on Bernard, you can do better than that, can't you?
As such, I'll not invest in gear that easily exceeds $10K of my cash with a firm that can't run it's own business in a manner other than how to be a text book example of how NOT to run one.
Remember, there are alternatives that are run better!
Good day to you. We will disagree completely, and I'll let you enjoy this Chinese firms level of Customer Support.
-
X1D is too novel, a concept more than a camera.
There is truth to this statement IMO.
The X1D is a concept that sets a standard, one that it too is trying to meet. It may well be fleshed out in firmware, with some of the major problems being fixable. I see it (for me) as a travel camera, if I only traveled. There is a lot of vetting that needs doing. When I start adding up what I need for the work I like to do, it becomes difficult to justify the X1D. Let's see: I need an easy (preferably wired) remote, a flash system that works, to be able to play-back in the EVF, etc. and etc. Unfortunately, I end up with the GFX in my future, which really is not the concept the X1D IS, but more like the next version of what I already am using (d810). So, it is bitter-sweet for me. A couple of years and this will be all sorted out.
-
There is truth to this statement IMO.
The X1D is a concept that sets a standard, one that it too is trying to meet. It may well be fleshed out in firmware, with some of the major problems being fixable. I see it (for me) as a travel camera, if I only traveled. There is a lot of vetting that needs doing. When I start adding up what I need for the work I like to do, it becomes difficult to justify the X1D. Let's see: I need an easy (preferably wired) remote, a flash system that works, to be able to play-back in the EVF, etc. and etc. Unfortunately, I end up with the GFX in my future, which really is not the concept the X1D IS, but more like the next version of what I already am using (d810). So, it is bitter-sweet for me. A couple of years and this will be all sorted out.
To be completely frank, if you can't make a great photograph with the X1D, that's your problem, not the camera's. For decades, beautiful work has been done with film Hasselblads, Mamiya 7s, Pentax 67s, Phase and Hasselblad digital backs and on and on. Remarkably, none of them have playback of the image in an EVF. I have been using the X1D for two weeks now, and compared to my other cameras that I have used in recent years, an H2 with a Phase IQ180, a Sony A7RII, and a Mamiya 7, there is NOTHING about the X1D that holds me back.Yes, it is a concept, a brilliant concept: a small, lightweight, medium format digital camera with terrific lenses and a clean interface that is fully capable of taking phenomenal photographs with beautiful color and tone. It works very well in practice. And, it has none of the crap that Japanese cameras are filled with and that get in my way. No doubt in the not too distant future, Hasselblad will add features to the X1D in firmware. For me, these are nice to haves, but the idea that I can't make a great photograph without them in the meantime is ridiculous. If my photographs aren't compelling, that's on me, not the camera.
BTW, where did you get the idea that there isn't a flash system that works with the X1D? What flash did you try?
-
BTW, where did you get the idea that there isn't a flash system that works with the X1D? What flash did you try?
Lloyd Chambers points out a lot of flash problems in detail, which I am not going to repeat here. I don't have an X1D to try, so am going on those reports that do.
I find these kind of either/or exchanges difficult to understand and mostly not worthwhile. It is clear to me that a number of us have clearly in mind what we need for our particular work with a camera, NOT that it (or we) can't take a good picture. Etc.
As the OP, I have appreciated the different views on the X1D, the GFX, etc. I certainly am not saying that the X1D is not this or that, but only whether it will do what I need done... and so on.
-
Lloyd Chambers points out a lot of flash problems in detail, which I am not going to repeat here. I don't have an X1D to try, so am going on those reports that do.
I find these kind of either/or exchanges difficult to understand and mostly not worthwhile. It is clear to me that a number of us have clearly in mind what we need for our particular work with a camera, NOT that it (or we) can't take a good picture. Etc.
As the OP, I have appreciated the different views on the X1D, the GFX, etc. I certainly am not saying that the X1D is not this or that, but only whether it will do what I need done... and so on.
Lloyd Chambers tried out one flash with the X1D, a Nikon SB-300. His complaint was that he could not downward adjust the flash output so as to use it for subtle fill flash outdoors, and he therefore concluded that fill flash is not available with the X1D. That is true with the SB-300, as it is a minimalist design that requires the flash exposure compensation level to be set through the camera menu and the X1D does not yet offer that. However, other Nikon flashes like the SB-700 permit the flash exposure compensation to be set on the flash itself.
Look, I understand that everyone has their own needs and wants, and for many the GFX or something else altogether is a better choice than the X1D. What I object to is the assertion that the X1D is a concept that is not yet operational. That is simply inaccurate.
-
To be completely frank, if you can't make a great photograph with the X1D, that's your problem, not the camera's. For decades, beautiful work has been done with film Hasselblads, Mamiya 7s, Pentax 67s, Phase and Hasselblad digital backs and on and on.
Are you aware that Hasselblad used to make its way to the space with NASA? Why has Nikon taken its place? There must be something wrong with NASA's recent photography skills, right? Hell they cannot make great photos with Hasselblad in the space any more, despite the fact that they used to make beautiful work with Hasselblad in the space before!
-
You can make great photos with almost any camera but I don't think that's the point of the post. I for one am happy that people are having great experiences with the X1D as I'm sure it's a fine camera. It's just not one that I'm choosing to buy.
-
To be completely frank, if you cant make a great photograph with the Kodak Brownie, that's ...
-
Come on Bernard, you can do better than that, can't you?
Apologies, I really thought your post had to be read at the second degree.
What I see in Hasselblad is:
- an ambitious company that has the best MF line-up in the industry wth cameras and lenses delivering very high levels of image quality and a great look,
- two ambitious ranges of products that are finally shipping after important delays and whose actual users are very positive overall
- a company that does have some challenges but that is in a much better positin than it was 5 years ago, one year ago or even 3 months ago
- an important investor, itself a growing company, not perfect but ambitious and financially healthy and belonging to the image making industry instead of being an investement fund only interested in financial returns
Yes, there are problems, but it takes a very negative mindset not to see the potential, ambition and very positive overall trend. I tend to like companies taking risks to move forward.
Finally, if your comment really is to be read at the first degree, what is it with that cheap shot at the Chinese. That really is Trump like in the worst meaning of the expressin.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You can make great photos with almost any camera but I don't think that's the point of the post. I for one am happy that people are having great experiences with the X1D as I'm sure it's a fine camera. It's just not one that I'm choosing to buy.
The point of the post that I responded to was that the X1D is a great concept, but that's it, implying that it is utterly lacking in operability. That's BS. Of course, if you need play back through the EVF, well, what can I say.
-
Fair enough!
-
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:
- FPS
- 1/4000s shortest exp. time, 1/16000s w/ ES
- EFCS
- ES
- 3 f/s
- shortest shutter lag
- remote cable release
- silent shutter noise
- optional battery grip
- (mainly) dial/ button/ lever user interface
- short start-up time
- high EVF resolution
- highest EVF magnification
- high EVF refresh rate
- short EVF lag
- play mode in EVF
- optional tiltable EVF
- large number of focus points
- larger AF area
- face/eye detection
- higher AF speed
- AF point selection w/ joystick
- high resolution TFT screen
- tiltable TFT screen
- super wide angle AF lens
- fast portrait AF tele lens
- AF macro lens
- AF zoom lens
- option to adapt 3rd party lenses
-
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:
- FPS
- 1/4000s shortest exp. time, 1/16000s w/ ES
- EFCS
- ES
- 3 f/s
- shortest shutter lag
- remote cable release
- silent shutter noise
- optional battery grip
- (mainly) dial/ button/ lever user interface
- short start-up time
- high EVF resolution
- highest EVF magnification
- high EVF refresh rate
- short EVF lag
- play mode in EVF
- optional tiltable EVF
- large number of focus points
- larger AF area
- face/eye detection
- higher AF speed
- AF point selection w/ joystick
- high resolution TFT screen
- tiltable TFT screen
- super wide angle AF lens
- fast portrait AF tele lens
- AF macro lens
- AF zoom lens
- option to adapt 3rd party lenses
This kind of comparison is sort of ridiculous, because it fails to prioritize what is most important to any single photographer. It completely ignores the issue of how a camera handles in your hands. It's also premature. Let's discuss the comparison in a few weeks after the GFX finds its way into the hands of photographers who are not Fuji ambassadors and we can shoot both cameras in the wild and process the raw files side by side. Hasselblad has made the X1D available to thousands of photographers to try. The GFX has essentially been under lock and key.
Let's also see what Hasselblad has in store for lenses for the X1D, as I have heard that Hasselblad may soon issue a roadmap of 5 new XCD lenses that it intends to release during 2017.
I don't think those who have bought the X1D are reluctant to discuss what it is missing. They just have different priorities as to what is most important. Why is that so difficult to understand?
-
Hi,
The way it works for me, I see the camera as a picture making device. Weight and format obviously matters not least when on travel as I feel that I want a complete lens kit and two camera bodies, one for back up, all in the cabin luggage. So, for me small lenses are a big plus.
I mostly shoot on tripod, so how the camera works handheld doesn't matter for me. Efficient live view, magnification and things like Af-point selection matters a lot.
When shooting macro, which often at a low level above ground, I feel that an articulated screen is an essential feature, especially combined with a well working AF.
None of the cameras I have bought in the last 12 years is something that has been in my hands before it arrived by mail.
If you check out the features you need and add some preferences the short list of choices may get very short.
My list:
- Access to great lenses (covering ultravide to long telephoto)
- Good live view
- Actual pixels magnification on live view for accurate focus
- Vibration free release
- Tilts with lenses from 28-100 mm (24x36 mm equivalent)
- Access to shift lenses
- Articulating display
- AF that is well working over a large part of the image, with selectable AF-points
Not that many major cameras match that list.
Live view implementation was the driving factor behind all cameras I bought since 2008, except that I switched to Sony A7rII late 2015. The reason I switched to the A7rII was that it allowed for tilt and shift options and use of canon lenses. The reason I skipped over the original A7r was mostly lack of EFSC and on sensor PDAF. I ordered the A7rII as early as possible, so I had a long wait. X1D buyers have all my sympathy, but it seems that many X1D buyers got their cameras and that they work fine.
Best regards
Erik
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:
- FPS
- 1/4000s shortest exp. time, 1/16000s w/ ES
- EFCS
- ES
- 3 f/s
- shortest shutter lag
- remote cable release
- silent shutter noise
- optional battery grip
- (mainly) dial/ button/ lever user interface
- short start-up time
- high EVF resolution
- highest EVF magnification
- high EVF refresh rate
- short EVF lag
- play mode in EVF
- optional tiltable EVF
- large number of focus points
- larger AF area
- face/eye detection
- higher AF speed
- AF point selection w/ joystick
- high resolution TFT screen
- tiltable TFT screen
- super wide angle AF lens
- fast portrait AF tele lens
- AF macro lens
- AF zoom lens
- option to adapt 3rd party lenses
-
Hi,
The way it works for me, I see the camera as a picture making device. Weight and format obviously matters not least when on travel as I feel that I want a complete lens kit and two camera bodies, one for back up, all in the cabin luggage. So, for me small lenses are a big plus.
I mostly shoot on tripod, so how the camera works handheld doesn't matter for me. Efficient live view, magnification and things like Af-point selection matters a lot.
When shooting macro, which often at a low level above ground, I feel that an articulated screen is an essential feature, especially combined with a well working AF.
None of the cameras I have bought in the last 12 years is something that has been in my hands before it arrived by mail.
If you check out the features you need and add some preferences the short list of choices may get very short.
My list:
- Access to great lenses (covering ultravide to long telephoto)
- Good live view
- Actual pixels magnification on live view for accurate focus
- Vibration free release
- Tilts with lenses from 28-100 mm (24x36 mm equivalent)
- Access to shift lenses
- Articulating display
- AF that is well working over a large part of the image, with selectable AF-points
Not that many major cameras match that list.
Live view implementation was the driving factor behind all cameras I bought since 2008, except that I switched to Sony A7rII late 2015. The reason I switched to the A7rII was that it allowed for tilt and shift options and use of canon lenses. The reason I skipped over the original A7r was mostly lack of EFSC and on sensor PDAF. I ordered the A7rII as early as possible, so I had a long wait. X1D buyers have all my sympathy, but it seems that many X1D buyers got their cameras and that they work fine.
Best regards
Erik
+1 for me, except I don't care about auto-focus because I always manually focus. The two main concerns for me are a usable LiveView and low ISO, which makes the D810 a workhorse for me. Whether or not I buy a GFX, I will keep my Nikon D810 (just out of respect) and perhaps pick up the D820, if indeed it is 46 Mpx as rumored, maintains the ISO 64..... and hopefully improves the LiveView screen.
Nikon D810, El Nikkor 105mm APO. Not too shabby.
-
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.
-
Just curios. Why then read it and comment ?
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Just curios. Why then read it and comment ?
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
Entertainment :)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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-
-
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
-
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.
-
Already making adapters
Adapters (http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/first-images-new-leica-m-zeiss-otus-mamiya-schneider-kreuznach-fuji-gfx-adapters/)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Oh, I have no clue. That would be interesting if that was the case. Sorry I don't have the answer for that.
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
Sony makes sensors for everyone, yet they compete with their cameras.
-
Most past Fuji's will work with any style of remote that plugs into the USB3 port (using the long section of the port which is really just a USB2 connection). The 90 from Fuji is very basic just a trigger. I have already confirmed that the GFX only has a max of 1/30 for timed long exposures, which is a bit stupid (why Fuji?) So again an intervalometer will be needed to do any type of long night astro work, (stacking). I will wait to see if the current line of non Fuji brand intervalometers which work with all the other X series cameras will work on the GFX via the USB3 port.
In the past Fuji also programed the mic port to accept most non remote protocols, i.e. Canon and Nikon, but not sure if this will be the case with the GFX however I assume it does have a mic port.
It's a total shame that Canon, Nikon and now Fuji still don't get the fact that by stopping the timed exposures to 1/30 extremely limits the camera for long exposure work. Plus the programming is not that hard to do it based on the the fact the Magic Lantern has added such a feature to all the Canon cameras that they support. Nikon at least makes a good remote intervalometer (as does Canon).
But it just bugs me when all these companies state "full intervalometer support" yet they don't have a clue as to what most photographers would be using such a device for, i.e. longer expsoures past 1/30 in a stacked series.
Paul Caldwell
-
Most past Fuji's will work with any style of remote that plugs into the USB3 port (using the long section of the port which is really just a USB2 connection). The 90 from Fuji is very basic just a trigger. I have already confirmed that the GFX only has a max of 1/30 for timed long exposures, which is a bit stupid (why Fuji?) So again an intervalometer will be needed to do any type of long night astro work, (stacking). I will wait to see if the current line of non Fuji brand intervalometers which work with all the other X series cameras will work on the GFX via the USB3 port.
In the past Fuji also programed the mic port to accept most non remote protocols, i.e. Canon and Nikon, but not sure if this will be the case with the GFX however I assume it does have a mic port.
It's a total shame that Canon, Nikon and now Fuji still don't get the fact that by stopping the timed exposures to 1/30 extremely limits the camera for long exposure work. Plus the programming is not that hard to do it based on the the fact the Magic Lantern has added such a feature to all the Canon cameras that they support. Nikon at least makes a good remote intervalometer (as does Canon).
But it just bugs me when all these companies state "full intervalometer support" yet they don't have a clue as to what most photographers would be using such a device for, i.e. longer expsoures past 1/30 in a stacked series.
Paul Caldwell
Do you mean 30 sec and not 1/30 sec?
Regarding the remote, the current X system accepts remotes that have the Canon protocol, I'm not sure about Nikon. As you said, they work with both the mic plug or with the USB.
-
Yes. 30 sec. sorry about that.
Paul
-
I found this article about the GFX 50s sensor worth understanding, in particular the part where they say that unlike the standard 35mm FF 50mm sensor with a 4.1 nm, the GFX sensor is 5.3nm. Here are some extracts:
"Fujifilm just launched a new series about the Fujifilm GFX, the “GFX Technologies” series. Episode one is all about the GFX sensor, which is different compared to the other 44×33 MF sensor, because:
"The sensor itself has the surface size of 43.8×32.9mm, but the shape of the sensor unit is different for the GFX 50S. Typically the sensor is mounted to the silicon circuit with terminals placed on both sides of the sensor. But in the case of GFX, the sensor is mounted to the silicon circuit with the terminals placed on the back side of the sensor. This allows not only the sensor unit, but also the silicon circuit to be smaller in size.
"In order to effectively process the lights, the size of micro-lenses haven been reduced and more spaces have been created between each pixel. This is one reason why the images appear so sharp when taken by GFX even though the pixel counts are the same. You may wonder about the negative impact for sensitivity and S/N if the micro-lenses are smaller in size. There is no need for such concern. The pixel size is big enough to receive enough lights without making micro-lenses any bigger. This optimization is only possible for the medium format sensor.
"The photic saturation point of the sensor is extended and wider dynamic range is realized as a result. The dynamic range becomes 1/3 step wider. This wider dynamic range is a result of extended photic saturation point, so the images are 1/3 tougher against over-exposure. This extended photic saturation becomes most effective when the sensitivity is set at ISO 100
"The camera is not equipped with the phase-detection pixels, but the autofocus speed is quite fast for a medium format camera nonetheless. One of the reasons for this is the increased sensor readout speed from 130fps to 200fps. Our sensor is customized so that faster readout is realized during autofocus. The speed is slower than DSLRs with dedicated phase detection autofocus, but it is much more accurate than that of the DSLR."
The article with photos, etc. is here:
http://fujifilm-x.com/de/x-stories/gfx-technologies-1/
-
I found this article about the GFX 50s sensor worth understanding, in particular the part where they say that unlike the standard 50mm sensor with a 4.1 nm, the GFX sensor is 5.3nm.
It appears to be a comparison between the Sony MF 50 MP sensor used in the GFX (and the X1D)and a 50MP sensor used in a FF 35mm sensor (i.e., like Canon's). You have to read the fine print, because otherwise you might conclude that Fuji was comparing its 50MP sensor with that in the X1D.
-
It's a total shame that Canon, Nikon and now Fuji still don't get the fact that by stopping the timed exposures to 1/30 extremely limits the camera for long exposure work. Plus the programming is not that hard to do it based on the the fact the Magic Lantern has added such a feature to all the Canon cameras that they support. Nikon at least makes a good remote intervalometer (as does Canon).
Why? The Nikon D810A can go for 900 seconds. The D4s, if I remember correctly, can do T mode after a firmware update. I don't see the need of intervalometer any more.
-
I found this article about the GFX 50s sensor worth understanding, in particular the part where they say that unlike the standard 35mm FF 50mm sensor with a 4.1 nm, the GFX sensor is 5.3nm. Here are some extracts:
http://fujifilm-x.com/de/x-stories/gfx-technologies-1/
I tried to make it clear.
-
Fuji manager sort of confirms Sony is working on a new 100+ Megapixel 44x33mm sensor (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/fuji-manager-sort-confirms-sony-working-new-100-megapixel-33x44mm-sensor/)
That brand dedicated to crop sensors huh ;D
Cinema5D interviewed a Fuji manager whom confirmed that the next generation 44x33mm Sony sensor will likely have 100+ Megapixel and 4K video recording support. So while the next generation Full Frame sensor could have around 70 Megapixel the 44x33mm medium format sensor will have 30% higher resolution compared to FF.
-
I tried to make it clear.
I know, but the Fuji article confused me at first.
-
Why? The Nikon D810A can go for 900 seconds. The D4s, if I remember correctly, can do T mode after a firmware update. I don't see the need of intervalometer any more.
No plans for eithe a D4s or 810A. Also no reason Nikon can't update the internal intervalometer in the D810 via firmware. Maybe one of the reasons for their current financial issues. The 810A's main design is for deep space Astro work which I don't do. Sure it has a bit better signal to noise results over the 810 but not enough to matter for 2K more and a possibly very limited use outside of deep space Astro work.
Paul Caldwell
-
Hi Void,
Thanks for the link. Very interesting to hear a Fuji manager in his own language. Yes, they essentially confirm 100+ MP on the 44x33 mm sensor, but I see this as a natural thing. It is great that Fuji designs the GFX for > 100 MP resolution.
Just to say. I don't really see I have a need for that kind of resolution. On the other hand, I don't think that there is any problem with resolution, except filling up my hard dives and disk development is certainly not standing still. Also, if I need less pixels I can choose a smaller format and save a lot of money, and weight…
If 16-24 MP is all what I need, an APS-C or 4/3 system looks awfully good!
Best regards
Erik
Fuji manager sort of confirms Sony is working on a new 100+ Megapixel 44x33mm sensor (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/fuji-manager-sort-confirms-sony-working-new-100-megapixel-33x44mm-sensor/)
That brand dedicated to crop sensors huh ;D
-
No plans for eithe a D4s or 810A. Also no reason Nikon can't update the internal intervalometer in the D810 via firmware. Maybe one of the reasons for their current financial issues. The 810A's main design is for deep space Astro work which I don't do. Sure it has a bit better signal to noise results over the 810 but not enough to matter for 2K more and a possibly very limited use outside of deep space Astro work.
Paul Caldwell
You have spare cash for a Pentax K1 but not for a Nikon D810A? The Nikon D810A is also very good at general photography (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/astrophotography/general/index.html) outside deep space astral work. In addition to wedding sessions, I use it to take pictures of my family as well.
Sigma is probably going to make a 18mm f/1.8 Art (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-sigma-will-launch-two-new-art-prime-lenses-year-14mm-f1-8-135mm-f1-8/) but I don't think it can be guaranteed for the Pentax K1 mount.
As for the D810, you could use the built-in "interval timer shooting" function in conjunction with 30 seconds per exposure and do stacking in post-processing. You don't have to get a D4s or D5 but the point is to let you know that Nikon does support T(ime) mode.
-
Hi Void,
Thanks for the link. Very interesting to hear a Fuji manager in his own language. Yes, they essentially confirm 100+ MP on the 44x33 mm sensor, but I see this as a natural thing. It is great that Fuji designs the GFX for > 100 MP resolution.
Just to say. I don't really see I have a need for that kind of resolution. On the other hand, I don't think that there is any problem with resolution, except filling up my hard dives and disk development is certainly not standing still. Also, if I need less pixels I can choose a smaller format and save a lot of money, and weight…
If 16-24 MP is all what I need, an APS-C or 4/3 system looks awfully good!
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
It would be interesting to see if the X1D and GFX can generate sufficient cash flow for the continued development of Sony CMOS in the 44x33 mini-MF format. But this could potentially be a threat to the 54x40 format if the sales of the IQ3100/IQ1100/H6D100c do not warrant fast advancement of these fullframe sensors. The top-end product line does need a sufficient time window for the life-cycle of each flagship product to "survive and lead" long enough to justify its cost. No one would be happy to dump $40,000 into an IQ3100 only to find it "obsolete" in 18 months or so, except the exceptionally rich ones.
As for the megapixels, yes I agree with you - 24 MP is probably gonna be good enough for a while until mobile phones catch up. Currently drone photography has become more and more popular so the laws and restrictions will be enforced eventually. I can see the direction that telephoto lenses with outstanding image stabilization could be vital to counter the upcoming laws and restrictions (if telephoto lenses are not censored). In such case, the 4/3 format systems do look awfully good!
-
Hi Void,
I am not sure. My guess is that IQ3 100MP buyers want 100 MP, I think they want the best technology available today, and I think it is quiet OK.
Personally, I would suggest that say 40-50 MP is quite OK for my print sizes, but I still see a lot of aliasing at that resolution, even on 24x36 mm. So I think it makes a lot of sense to increase resolution say 95 MP on 24x36, just to get rid of aliasing.
For Fuji in particular it makes a lot of sense to go to say 44x33 mm at 100 MP as their normal offering is 16 MP at APS-C. So, going to 44x33 mm is a major step with an obvious lot of benefits. But, going from 24x36 mm at around 40 MP to 50 MP small medium format may not make a lot of sense. So, I think that next generation of the 44x33 mm sensors needs a hike on resolution and 100MP would be just fine.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
It would be interesting to see if the X1D and GFX can generate sufficient cash flow for the continued development of Sony CMOS in the 44x33 mini-MF format. But this could potentially be a threat to the 54x40 format if the sales of the IQ3100/IQ1100/H6D100c do not warrant fast advancement of these fullframe sensors. The top-end product line does need a sufficient time window for the life-cycle of each flagship product to "survive and lead" long enough to justify its cost. No one would be happy to dump $40,000 into an IQ3100 only to find it "obsolete" in 18 months or so, except the exceptionally rich ones.
As for the megapixels, yes I agree with you - 24 MP is probably gonna be good enough for a while until mobile phones catch up. Currently drone photography has become more and more popular so the laws and restrictions will be enforced eventually. I can see the direction that telephoto lenses with outstanding image stabilization could be vital to counter the upcoming laws and restrictions (if telephoto lenses are not censored). In such case, the 4/3 format systems do look awfully good!
-
I am not sure. My guess is that IQ3 100MP buyers want 100 MP, I think they want the best technology available today, and I think it is quiet OK.
Phase One P65+ 60MP (Sep 2008 - Sep 2010) $40,000 for 24 months
Leaf Aptus-II 12/R 80MP (Sep 2010 - Jan 2016) $32,000 for 63 months
Phase One IQ3100 100MP (Jan 2016 - ?) $44,000 for ? months
So that you can see the value of the IQ3 100MP highly depends on the release date of the 100+MP 44x33 sensor. Given that the earthquake caused significant delays for the shipment of the 100MP sensors for both Phase One and Hasselblad, the actual time spent in the consumers' hands is essentially reduced by almost one year for most pre-orders.
-
Void.
We are getting way off track here. But for sure the K1 has much value for Astro work than the D810 or 810A for the type of photography I am doing. But I do agree it's tragic Sigma has choosen not to continue their excellent Art line for Pentax. The K1 long ago replaced my Nikons for anything but small bird work.
Paul Caldwell
-
Phase One P65+ 60MP (Sep 2008 - Sep 2010) $40,000 for 24 months
Leaf Aptus-II 12/R 80MP (Sep 2010 - Jan 2016) $32,000 for 63 months
Phase One IQ3100 100MP (Jan 2016 - ?) $44,000 for ? months
So that you can see the value of the IQ3 100MP highly depends on the release date of the 100+MP 44x33 sensor. Given that the earthquake caused significant delays for the shipment of the 100MP sensors for both Phase One and Hasselblad, the actual time spent in the consumers' hands is essentially reduced by almost one year for most pre-orders.
For Phase One customers, they were delayed by about 2 months, not 12 months.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
For Phase One customers, they were delayed by about 2 months, not 12 months.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Brand new purchases shipped with higher priority but upgrade orders suffered significant delays.
I pre-ordered my upgrade towards the IQ3 100MP in London on 5th Feb 2016 and cancelled my preorder on 21st July 2016, and still had no clue when it would have been shipped. By the time I posted the long exposure issue it wasn't readily available. My impression is that it became readily available by the end of 2016.
-
Brand new purchases shipped with higher priority but upgrade orders suffered significant delays.
I pre-ordered my upgrade towards the IQ3 100MP in London on 5th Feb 2016 and cancelled my preorder on 21st July 2016, and still had no clue when it would have been shipped. By the time I posted the long exposure issue it wasn't readily available. My impression is that it became readily available by the end of 2016.
There was a bias toward new order priority, yes. I cannot account for any situation with the dealer you ordered through.
The vast majority of our IQ3 100 orders were upgraders - right from the start. And none of them experienced any delay like you did.
The average delivery time for our orders was 8 - 10 weeks up until the earthquake. Afterward, from July on, it was shorter, 2-4 weeks on average.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
There was a bias toward new order priority, yes. I cannot account for any situation with the dealer you ordered through.
The vast majority of our IQ3 100 orders were upgraders - right from the start. And none of them experienced any delay like you did.
The average delivery time for our orders was 8 - 10 weeks up until the earthquake. Afterward, from July on, it was shorter, 2-4 weeks on average.
Steve Hendrix/CI
+1
CI handled the situation of upgrades vs new orders on the IQ100 very well. I was 100% satisfied.
Paul Caldwell
-
Yeah C1 and Steve are really good at what they do.
-
Just got information from a Sony engineer - they can make 70MP in 35mm format, 114MP in 44x33 format and 170MP in 645 format (but mass production will be subject to market demand). This means the fuji rumor is highly likely.
-
Just got information from a Sony engineer - they can make 70MP in 35mm format, 114MP in 44x33 format and 170MP in 645 format (but mass production will be subject to market demand). This means the fuji rumor is highly likely.
Good, we need more detail...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/32101414553_cb87085ab1_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/780/32599498931_a2ea66b8d2_o.jpg)
H6D-100c + 28mm f4 @ f5.6, shot handheld at 1/90s - upper image is a 100% detail of the central portion of the picture below
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Brand new purchases shipped with higher priority but upgrade orders suffered significant delays.
I pre-ordered my upgrade towards the IQ3 100MP in London on 5th Feb 2016 and cancelled my preorder on 21st July 2016, and still had no clue when it would have been shipped. By the time I posted the long exposure issue it wasn't readily available. My impression is that it became readily available by the end of 2016.
I ordered my upgrade in Mid January, and was expecting delivery around April/early May. It was delivered in early July. so as Steve said, about 2 months.
-
It's amazing to think, we're almost to the 3 year point on the 50mp CMOS....
And yes, I need more detail.
-
Just got information from a Sony engineer - they can make 70MP in 35mm format
So that's about twice as many pixels as my D800. I'll take a one stop increase in exposure latitude instead, thanks Sony.
-
Hi,
You don't get that. A half stop possibly. That is pure math.
You can check this link: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D750,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII
- Nikon D750 24 MP
- Nikon D810 36 MP
- Sony A7rII 42 MP
At low ISO the Nikon D810 has a 0.1 EV advantage, but the Sony A7rII pulls ahead at 640 ISO due to dual gain conversion licensed from Aptina. If/when a Sony 70 MP sensor arrives it will probably be quite close to the A7rII, D810 and D750 in DR - which is the same as exposure latitude - but it will deliver an image with less artefacts that is more tolerant of sharpening.
Best regards
Erik
So that's about twice as many pixels as my D800. I'll take a one stop increase in exposure latitude instead, thanks Sony.
-
Hi,
Time moves fast…
It seems that both the GFX and the X1D is designed for higher resolutions. Fuji has been very clear on that issue, their lenses are designed for 100 MP or more. Hasselblad didn't make any statements like that, but my impression is that the lenses may be very good. That judgement is based on MTF data that Hasselblad has published and perhaps a couple of samples I have seen.
I don't know how much resolution we need, but it is very clear that it is pretty optimal that the sensor can resolve the image that the lens can deliver. Else, fake detail will be the result. Again, this is simple and well known math.
In many cases, it will not matter. We photographers are fallible, too. We don't always shoot optimum aperture with optimum focus. But, a better sensor will always deliver a better result.
In film days we could use Tri-X or Panatomic-X. I was in the Panatomic-X camp. But, very clearly Tri-X could deliver a nice tonality…
Best regards
Erik
It's amazing to think, we're almost to the 3 year point on the 50mp CMOS....
And yes, I need more detail.
-
I'll also take more pixels, even if as a consequence I just end up downresing more in post. At this point I don't care about additional spatial detail for its own sake, but by increasing the pixels you can get finer tonal gradation too. That I do care about.
-Dave-
-
I ordered my upgrade in Mid January, and was expecting delivery around April/early May. It was delivered in early July. so as Steve said, about 2 months.
Ordered my H6D-100c mid December and received it mid-Jan. Leaving out the X-Mas vacation, it took 2.5 weeks. I can live with that.
As far as detail goes, many of us would really benefit from integrating stitching to our toolkit. Detail is pretty much limitless for many applications once you get good at it. ;)
I have on my wall a 400mp stitch of a mountain scene that I shot 8 years ago... and that makes the H6D-100c images look like smartphone snaps.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Ordered my H6D-100c mid December and received it mid-Jan. Leaving out the X-Mas vacation, it took 2.5 weeks. I can live with that.
As far as detail goes, many of us would really benefit from integrating stitching to our toolkit. Detail is pretty much limitless for many applications once you get good at it. ;)
I have on my wall a 400mp stitch of a mountain scene that I shot 8 years ago... and that makes the H6D-100c images look like smartphone snaps.
Cheers,
Bernard
Too many situations where you can't stitch. I'd rather have the pixels in one shot so I'm covered every time.
-
Good, we need more detail...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/447/32101414553_cb87085ab1_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/780/32599498931_a2ea66b8d2_o.jpg)
H6D-100c + 28mm f4 @ f5.6, shot handheld at 1/90s - upper image is a 100% detail of the central portion of the picture below
Cheers,
Bernard
Incredible!
-
Too many situations where you can't stitch. I'd rather have the pixels in one shot so I'm covered every time.
There are some for sure.
But my point is that there are many situations where stitching works perfectly and can help go much much beyond what a single frame can do. There is little point in using a high res MF sensor and not stitch with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Incredible!
What I find impressive is the quality of Hasselblad glass and the ability to get these results handheld, both in terms of lack of any visible handshake and focus accuracy.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What I find impressive is the quality of Hasselblad glass and the ability to get these results handheld, both in terms of lack of any visible handshake and focus accuracy.
I agree, it's a brilliant design. The mirror dampening is exceptional. I think the only place Hasselblad fall short of Phase One is software, otherwise, to me it's better in every way.
-
Horses for Courses for sure. The Phase Solution is very workable for me.
I have never used the H6D and 100c, never will so I can't state that Hasselblad is better or worse, and won't attempt it.
However I do find it hard to believe that a photographer working with an XF and LS glass from P1 could not get the same results. Both cameras only have one focus point, and Focus recompose is fine for what I do, and if not the LiveView screen on the IQ back can easily work. I can move my back to my tech camera, anytime I want to either work tethered or not. The use of the XF hand held is not an issue for me either as long you keep the shutter speed within reason. I am sure since the Hasselblad has no focal shutter there is less vibration but using the 80LS, 55LS, and 35LS is not a problem. Using the 75-150LS is also workable but not as often. The 240LS and 300mm need a tripod. The older 75-150mm and 210mm Mamiya lenses are very easy to hand hold on the XF again with shutter speed reason. AF accuracy for me is also not an issue. Really hasn't been since the DF+.
For now the additional ability to use a full electronic shutter on either tech camera or XF is a huge benefit as the vast majority of my work is on tripod. However I do like do handheld stitching with the 80 and 55LS, shutter speeds at 125 and faster.
I still do not understand why Phase One continues to not allow a user on the XF to shoot exposures @ 1 second or longer without having to shoot the dark frame (the intervalometer option does allow this but I don't use it). I understand that Hasselblad does allow this on all of their CMOS backs and to me it's a bit positive.
I also don't have any knowledge base on Phocus software so I can't comment on it, but C1 and the improvements with Vr 10 is a wonderful solution, I do wish that P1 would work closer with Adobe and come up with a HDR and Pano merge within C1. The current LR tools for this are excellent but LR can't open the P1 IQ100 files in native 16 bit, hopefully this will also change.
Paul Caldwell
Paul Caldwell
-
Horses for Courses for sure. The Phase Solution is very workable for me.
I have never used the H6D and 100c, never will so I can't state that Hasselblad is better or worse, and won't attempt it.
However I do find it hard to believe that a photographer working with an XF and LS glass from P1 could not get the same results. Both cameras only have one focus point, and Focus recompose is fine for what I do, and if not the LiveView screen on the IQ back can easily work. I can move my back to my tech camera, anytime I want to either work tethered or not. The use of the XF hand held is not an issue for me either as long you keep the shutter speed within reason. I am sure since the Hasselblad has no focal shutter there is less vibration but using the 80LS, 55LS, and 35LS is not a problem. Using the 75-150LS is also workable but not as often. The 240LS and 300mm need a tripod. The older 75-150mm and 210mm Mamiya lenses are very easy to hand hold on the XF again with shutter speed reason. AF accuracy for me is also not an issue. Really hasn't been since the DF+.
For now the additional ability to use a full electronic shutter on either tech camera or XF is a huge benefit as the vast majority of my work is on tripod. However I do like do handheld stitching with the 80 and 55LS, shutter speeds at 125 and faster.
I still do not understand why Phase One continues to not allow a user on the XF to shoot exposures @ 1 second or longer without having to shoot the dark frame (the intervalometer option does allow this but I don't use it). I understand that Hasselblad does allow this on all of their CMOS backs and to me it's a bit positive.
I also don't have any knowledge base on Phocus software so I can't comment on it, but C1 and the improvements with Vr 10 is a wonderful solution, I do wish that P1 would work closer with Adobe and come up with a HDR and Pano merge within C1. The current LR tools for this are excellent but LR can't open the P1 IQ100 files in native 16 bit, hopefully this will also change.
Paul Caldwell
Paul Caldwell
All good points Paul, but TrueFocus makes a really big difference with one focal point, especially so with focus and recompose. IMO, C1 kills Phocus. It has become the industry standard at least in my part of the world and that is one of the main reasons I use Phase One backs on the Hasselblad platform, which is IMO the best of both worlds.
-
What impresses me the most is that there are two really excellent solutions out there depending on your needs as a photographer that allow access to the Sony 100MP Chip. I know if I was starting out fresh which way I would go, but I have been with P1 since 2008 and would take way to big a loss. It's tragic to me that P1 continues to keep their price points at the level they are.
They have gotten much more competitive on the 50MP CMOS and some day will get there with the 100MP chip.
Paul Caldwell
-
While I am glad we have two options, it's a shame we don't have more. Rollei, Contax, these are two incredible platforms, unique in their own ways that we've sadly lost. I think if there was one more player in the field we would have more innovation and both Contax and Rollei have some of the best ever lenses which are sadly lost. I wish Blad or Phase would make a 80mm f2. It's great Pentax and Fuji are getting back up there though. What I'd do for a full frame 6x7 Pentax 67z!
One thing I particularly like about the Hasselblad H is the ability to shoot film with the same system and lens just by changing backs, another major reason I am taken by the Hasselblad.
-
I still do not understand why Phase One continues to not allow a user on the XF to shoot exposures @ 1 second or longer without having to shoot the dark frame (the intervalometer option does allow this but I don't use it).
I have stated why (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/58994-iq3-100mp-long-exposure-issue-shadow-filled-red-color-cast-4.html#post717598), which is severe enough for me to give up "full" frame, and I would have brought this to legal grounds to get the refund of my pre-order if necessary, even if I didn't stand a good chance.
-
Not sure if your "why" is the answer for me. As it works fine on the tech camera albeit you are limited to keeping the same shutter speed, but at least you can do it. And it works in Timelaspe mode also on the XF.
It's a simple firmware switch to fix this. And to be honest as Hasselblad has always been doing it with the 50MP, Fuji will soon, Pentax has always, Phase really has no reason not to allow the user to make the choice. On the 100MP again Hasselblad allows the user to make the choice. Pretty simple stuff no need for the P1 Big brother we know better approach. Let me have it, if the file is too noisy, I will drop back to the dark frame. But there is no reason that at base ISO the file should be noisy, as other cameras using the same chip are able to do it just fine.
Paul Caldwell
-
albeit you are limited to keeping the same shutter speed
This is essentially the same as not allowing the user to disable the darkframe NR. Taking it beforehand (and keeping the power on to drain battery until the actual shot), is perhaps even worse than taking it afterwards. I would not accept any darkframe NR in the field in 2017, no.
Other than that, the IQ3 100MP is the godlike digital back, at least for now.
-
While I am glad we have two options, it's a shame we don't have more. Rollei, Contax, these are two incredible platforms, unique in their own ways that we've sadly lost. I think if there was one more player in the field we would have more innovation and both Contax and Rollei have some of the best ever lenses which are sadly lost. I wish Blad or Phase would make a 80mm f2. It's great Pentax and Fuji are getting back up there though. What I'd do for a full frame 6x7 Pentax 67z!
One thing I particularly like about the Hasselblad H is the ability to shoot film with the same system and lens just by changing backs, another major reason I am taken by the Hasselblad.
As long as it isn't just a film version with a sensor on the back!
It was a beautifully made camera, and were it only for holding, then perfect. But boy did it leap about when it fired! It was bad enough for film, and for digital I'd imagine it to be useless.
;-)
Rob C
-
I ordered my upgrade in Mid January, and was expecting delivery around April/early May. It was delivered in early July. so as Steve said, about 2 months.
That's not how I calculated it. I would say it's 6 months between Jan and July. The time starts to tick whenever the 80MP becomes "obsolete" (in terms of king of megapixels). Likewise, whenever anything with 100+ MP is announced, the second-hand value of the 100MP would start to drop. These 6 months are included and wasted for the precious lifecycle of the 100MP.
It's the same reason why one doesn't want to buy a Nikon D4s right before the announcement of the Nikon D5, because the cost is the depreciation of second-hand trade value caused by the announcement of a new product. The longer you can use the camera as a flagship in your hand, the greater value/justification you get for the same money.
As for the 100MP case, 6-12 months are already lost.
-
That's not how I calculated it. I would say it's 6 months between Jan and July. The time starts to tick whenever the 80MP becomes "obsolete" (in terms of king of megapixels). Likewise, whenever anything with 100+ MP is announced, the second-hand value of the 100MP would start to drop. These 6 months are included and wasted for the precious lifecycle of the 100MP.
It's the same reason why one doesn't want to buy a Nikon D4s right before the announcement of the Nikon D5, because the cost is the depreciation of second-hand trade value caused by the announcement of a new product. The longer you can use the camera as a flagship in your hand, the greater value/justification you get for the same money.
As for the 100MP case, 6-12 months are already lost.
Figures tell you one thing, but there's another point to consider: if you know how large your largest image is realistically going to be, then once you reach the required number of million pixies, there's very little incentive to change your camera until it stops working, when repair costs might/would indicate it makes sense to buy new again. Then it could make sense to opt for higher numbers, or perhaps not.
Just throwing your money around because something is new is crazy. But then, you have to have the perspective of age to realise a lot of these things; they do seem exciting when one is youthful, but are eventually seen as dumb moves. I've made many. Which if it proves anything, proves that I was indeed youthful for far too long. Ask my various bank managers, past and present. To make it easier to digest: think of your cameras as you would of your cars: unless you drive for a living, do you really need that many horses under the hood? Do you really think a Ferrari will get you a more beautiful girlfriend? If it does, is she a better person; are you?
;-(
Rob C
-
Figures tell you one thing, but there's another point to consider: if you know how large your largest image is realistically going to be, then once you reach the required number of million pixies, there's very little incentive to change your camera until it stops working, when repair costs might/would indicate it makes sense to buy new again. Then it could make sense to opt for higher numbers, or perhaps not.
Just throwing your money around because something is new is crazy. But then, you have to have the perspective of age to realise a lot of these things; they do seem exciting when one is youthful, but are eventually seen as dumb moves. I've made many. Which if it proves anything, proves that I was indeed youthful for far too long. Ask my various bank managers, past and present. To make it easier to digest: think of your cameras as you would of your cars: unless you drive for a living, do you really need that many horses under the hood? Do you really think a Ferrari will get you a more beautiful girlfriend? If it does, is she a better person; are you?
;-(
Rob C
One thing is that pretty much of the purpose of buying into these flagship products is the fulfilment/pride of ownership of the best. Once it becomes second to something new, the purpose is defeated at the time of the announcement of the new product. The owner would get a similar feeling as if he has just retired from an important job position and suddenly no one cares about him. You either lose much of the joy with the gear, or you keep spending more money to buy newer gear.
The other thing is that these technology advancements are real.
It's said that Bill Gates said something like "640K RAM ought to be enough for anyone." In year 2017, even with 8GB RAM a PC can lag from time to time surfing the internet with lots of tabs opened with AdBlock plugins.
A Leaf DCB II Live (year 1996) has 4MP resolution, but easily gets beaten down by an iPhone in year 2017.
Digital backs are electronic devices and are therefore subject to depreciation in a Moore's law-style. It's a bit different from cars - you can still drive old skool muscle cars, but you can no longer surf the internet freely with an old computer running Windows 98.
An iPhone 7 Plus has a screen with a resolution of 1920 × 1080. An Eizo CG318-4k has a resolution of 4096 x 2160. News says that Dell is going to ship a 8k monitor with a resolution of 7680 x 4320. These new displays ruthlessly make the images taken by a Canon 1Ds (11MP) look soft.
-
One thing is that pretty much of the purpose of buying into these flagship products is the fulfilment/pride of ownership of the best. Once it becomes second to something new, the purpose is defeated at the time of the announcement of the new product. The owner would get a similar feeling as if he has just retired from an important job position and suddenly no one cares about him. You either lose much of the joy with the gear, or you keep spending more money to buy newer gear.
The other thing is that these technology advancements are real.
It's said that Bill Gates said something like "640K RAM ought to be enough for anyone." In year 2017, even with 8GB RAM a PC can lag from time to time surfing the internet with lots of tabs opened with AdBlock plugins.
A Leaf DCB II Live (year 1996) has 4MP resolution, but easily gets beaten down by an iPhone in year 2017.
Digital backs are electronic devices and are therefore subject to depreciation in a Moore's law-style. It's a bit different from cars - you can still drive old skool muscle cars, but you can no longer surf the internet freely with an old computer running Windows 98.
An iPhone 7 Plus has a screen with a resolution of 1920 × 1080. An Eizo CG318-4k has a resolution of 4096 x 2160. News says that Dell is going to ship a 8k monitor with a resolution of 7680 x 4320. These new displays ruthlessly make the images taken by a Canon 1Ds (11MP) look soft.
Yes, but so what? The truth is that for the majority of snappers the digital age has already surpassed what they can usefully use. That being the case, there is no logical argument for that majority to get anything else.
Look, in my own career, though I grew up professionally in the LF world and printing from nothing other than 4x5 and upwards, five days a week for about six years, when I went out on my own I lived very easily on a staple diet of 135 and 120 formats. They did everything I was ever asked to do, including multi-page advertorials for UK Vogue, the IWS and several clothing manufacturers; I produced very expensive bespoke company calendars and travelled pretty much to all the exotic places I had the urge to visit, shooting on just those two formats.
In today's world, where less and less is going to be seen in quality paper magazines and more and more on a rotten little screen that lives in somebody's pocket or handbag, even 120 film format is overkill, and probably 135 film too.
One of the best photographers to grace this site is perfectly happy to use a tiny digital for some work; that's realism.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone, with the pockets that allow it, to keep buying the latest iteration of whatever gives him his woodies. All I'm pointing out is that, from the perspective of real world use, unless he's a pro with some specialist needs, he'd be doing more popular good just walking down the street and buying some buskers a cup of coffee. They might even give him access to some great photographs on his smartphone as reward. Spreading the joy, as it were.
;-)
Rob C
-
Yes, but so what? The truth is that for the majority of snappers the digital age has already surpassed what they can usefully use. That being the case, there is no logical argument for that majority to get anything else.
Look, in my own career, though I grew up professionally in the LF world and printing from nothing other than 4x5 and upwards, five days a week for about six years, when I went out on my own I lived very easily on a staple diet of 135 and 120 formats. They did everything I was ever asked to do, including multi-page advertorials for UK Vogue, the IWS and several clothing manufacturers; I produced very expensive bespoke company calendars and travelled pretty much to all the exotic places I had the urge to visit, shooting on just those two formats.
In today's world, where less and less is going to be seen in quality paper magazines and more and more on a rotten little screen that lives in somebody's pocket or handbag, even 120 film format is overkill, and probably 135 film too.
One of the best photographers to grace this site is perfectly happy to use a tiny digital for some work; that's realism.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone, with the pockets that allow it, to keep buying the latest iteration of whatever gives him his woodies. All I'm pointing out is that, from the perspective of real world use, unless he's a pro with some specialist needs, he'd be doing more popular good just walking down the street and buying some buskers a cup of coffee. They might even give him access to some great photographs on his smartphone as reward. Spreading the joy, as it were.
;-)
Rob C
Nice pictures! Vogue is awesome ;-)
I still don't think digital image quality has saturated, not even for the purpose of pictures to be shown on mobile phones. If we have a sensor with 10,000 MP and a wide angle lens with infinite resolution, then we can crop the image into something as if shot with a telephoto lens or a macro lens, and still have decent image quality for mobile phones. This saves the weight of telephoto lenses, as well as the harassment of swapping lenses in the field just for the right frame. On the other hand, we could always expect smaller gear for the same image quality (see how Pentax 645Z evolves into Fuji GFX 50s, or even less precisely, how Nikon D3s evolves into iPhone 7+).
That being said, we never know what kind of display technology would be available in decades. Perhaps a 32k resolution projector embedded in the walls would become a pretty common and cheap decoration for every home, and by that time, we would probably hope that we have recorded our children's growth with whatever best cameras we could have obtained. Even on today's mobile phones we could pinch to zoom-in and see the details of each picture, given that the image has high resolution.
-
One thing is that pretty much of the purpose of buying into these flagship products is the fulfilment/pride of ownership of the best. Once it becomes second to something new, the purpose is defeated at the time of the announcement of the new product. The owner would get a similar feeling as if he has just retired from an important job position and suddenly no one cares about him. You either lose much of the joy with the gear, or you keep spending more money to buy newer gear.
IMO this is among the saddest aspects of human nature. By behaving this way you become a slave to other peoples' perceptions & judgments. I find it's far more enjoyable to own & use stuff that performs great, even "best," and yet can go largely unnoticed. The pleasure you get from doing this is self-generated. Of course this assumes your sense of self is developed such that you don't need other people to tell you who you are or approve of what you do.
I like that the GFX 50S looks kinda blocky & workmanlike. Unexceptional. So slap some black tape on the front logo and let it hide in plain sight. :D
-Dave-
-
I have to admit the worse thing about having a Phase One is when I'm shooting with a group I feel conspicuous. With my Nikon 810 I fit right in and nobody makes comments about the camera (the way I like it). I'm sure some people buy to be noticed (Leica?), some buy because they just have to have the latest technology/gear (I do like new stuff) and some buy because they want the best quality possible (since I print really large that's very important to me). I'm sure for most buyers it's a mix of all three. A buyers motivation is seldom one dimensional.
-
Hi,
No GFX for me, I don't feel the need but I like the concept.
Best regards
Erik
IMO this is among the saddest aspects of human nature. By behaving this way you become a slave to other peoples' perceptions & judgments. I find it's far more enjoyable to own & use stuff that performs great, even "best," and yet can go largely unnoticed. The pleasure you get from doing this is self-generated. Of course this assumes your sense of self is developed such that you don't need other people to tell you who you are or approve of what you do.
I like that the GFX 50S looks kinda blocky & workmanlike. Unexceptional. So slap some black tape on the front logo and let it hide in plain sight. :D
-Dave-
-
Had to laugh at that one.
The overriding reason I bought into the Leica M system was that it offered me a degree of anonymity that I've not experienced with the other systems I've used.
Even customs/immigration officers don't consider them to be serious cameras!
If Leica decides to add Electronic Shutter for the M10 in a later firmware (just like what they did to the SL) then I'd buy it for the capability of stealth photography. Otherwise it's a high profile camera to be noticed by its shutter sound just as the M Typ 240.
One crucial advantage of the GFX over the X1D is the Electronic Shutter imo.
-
If Leica decides to add Electronic Shutter for the M10 in a later firmware (just like what they did to the SL) then I'd buy it for the capability of stealth photography. Otherwise it's a high profile camera to be noticed by its shutter sound just as the M Typ 240.
Stealth photography ? If you're going to don a mac, brothel creepers and dark glasses then I think the Leica M ain't the appropriate cam irrespective of the shutter sound !
On a more relevant note, what landscape photographers seem to always overlook, at least the ones that don't shoot humans - the Leica M and its diminutive lenses are far less intimidating. Discreet and not in-yer-face. Try shooting a teenager, or anyone that's camera shy, with an M/75 compared to your D800/85/100 and you'll realise the difference.
-
If shutter sound is likely to be a problem I'll use my M9 in discreet mode.
I've been using M cameras for almost 4 years and in that time I've never had anyone commenting on the cameras or anyone taking an unhealthy interest in them. There again I avoid other photographers like the plague.
Leica M9 without Electronic Shutter vs. Leica Q/SL with Electronic Shutter:
a) I know many infants are disturbed by shutter sound, which means only the first exposure from the M9 can capture the most natural expression, while all subsequent shots only capture scared looks. Q/SL on the other hand, can continue to capture lots of great emotions.
b) Just for kidding: If one shoots upskirt in the street (which is considered to be a criminal offense in many countries), an M9 would probably mean getting caught and getting detention, while a Q/SL would probably mean getting away unnoticed.
c) The above example is only for joking and is inappropriate. A better example would be the documentary/journalism photography in war zone. A shutter sound from the M9 may result in the photographer getting killed by rebels/terrorists, while the silent shutter of Q/SL may save the photographer's life.
-
... an M9 would probably mean getting caught and getting detention, while a Q/SL would probably mean getting away unnoticed.
what ? with that zoom lens ?
(https://static.leica-camera.com/var/leica/storage/images/media/media-asset-management-mam/global-international/photography/sl-system/leica-sl-typ-601/teaser/sl_window-teaser_apo-vario-elmarit-90-280-sl_neu_2400x940/2070955-1-eng-MA/SL_Window-Teaser_APO-Vario-Elmarit-90-280-SL_Neu_2400x940_teaser-1200x470.jpg)
[/light-hearted sunday banter]
-
what ? with that zoom lens ?
No. With a small lens. You can hang your Q with a strap or whatever, and use WiFi to remotely control it using your iPhone. You can pretend to be playing with your iPhone and no one would realize that you are taking pictures with your Q.
-
If I were you I wouldn't worry, if your pretty pics are anything to go by then it's not a problem you're going to face anytime soon.
I shoot weddings for my friends, but I don't post these over the internet because of privacy. For more than once I have ruined the atmosphere of the wedding sessions with the shutter sounds of Leica M240/Nikon D4/Nikon D4s etc (without Electronic Shutter). The Leica Q/Sony RX1R/Sony A7s etc (with silent shutter) are a life saver to make my burst of continuous shots a lot less intruding.
If the Electronic Shutter is something useless, then Leica would be stupid to spend human hours to implement it in the SL in a later firmware. Even Phase One added that function to their IQ3 100MP.
-
If Leica release an EVF camera the size of the Q with electronic shutter and that will take M series lenses I will be first in line to buy.
/*off-topic
.. and wouldn't that have been the logical next step for the M-E? Can only guess that Leica didn't want to produce it for fear that it'd eat into sales of the full M. Looking at the success of the A7x Sony's it still amazes me that Leica didn't, and still don't, produce one.
And, no - the SL isn't a full M/EVF replacement - M wides still need those micro-lenses!
-
/* back-on topic
Interested to see that Fotodiox are offering both Canon and Nikon mechanical adapters for the GFx. The Canon ones look to having limited usefulness as, apparently, the lens/adapter combo defaults to the smallest f-stop. Nikon D (and G?) series work.
-
I have the Fotodiox adapter for the GFX in hand (the one for Nikon). Now I just need the GFX. I also have the RR-90 remote for the GFX. I want to be able to fully test the camera and then either keep it or return it within the trial period. I hope I can keep it.
-
Hi Michael - out of curiosity, how much of the Fuji sensor are the Nikon FF lenses guess-timated to cover and will the adapter work with the newer /E incarnations , or is it strictly limited to /D and /G lenses?
-
Hi Michael - out of curiosity, how much of the Fuji sensor are the Nikon FF lenses guess-timated to cover and will the adapter work with the newer /E incarnations , or is it strictly limited to /D and /G lenses?
I have the adapter, but no the GFX. Of course, the FF lenses will vary depending on the size of their image circles, so the various PC lenses should work, etc. I am curious about the Otus lenses, which I have been told will work, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I will wait until I can see for myself. Then, various LF lenses, etc. should work. I am trying to gather what I will need to test all this out. And I am waiting to hear from Nikon with the D810 replacement, as to the lowest ISO and the size of the photo-sites. A rumored 46 Mpx Nikon with low ISO and if they can get more light to those photo-sites, that would be a great camera... perhaps.
-
Sorry – I guess I got us off topic with my Leica comment. I’m sure most Leica users buy because the camera works for them but there are certainly some that buy to have a Leica or the latest camera. I was really responding to the statement – “One thing is that pretty much of the purpose of buying into these flagship products is the fulfilment/pride of ownership of the best.” I was just pointing out that a buying decision is often more complicated than that. Buying the X1D or the GFX, for me, has little to do with pride of ownership but has a lot to do with weight --- just hike around with a XF100 for a few hours.
-
I have the adapter, but no the GFX. Of course, the FF lenses will vary depending on the size of their image circles, so the various PC lenses should work, etc. I am curious about the Otus lenses, which I have been told will work, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I will wait until I can see for myself. Then, various LF lenses, etc. should work. I am trying to gather what I will need to test all this out. And I am waiting to hear from Nikon with the D810 replacement, as to the lowest ISO and the size of the photo-sites. A rumored 46 Mpx Nikon with low ISO and if they can get more light to those photo-sites, that would be a great camera... perhaps.
When you will test this adapter with Zeiss Otus lenses, would you be so kind to post some test photos. I am very interested to see which effective sensor surface can be used with Otus lenses without considerable loss of IQ.
-
When you will test this adapter with Zeiss Otus lenses, would you be so kind to post some test photos. I am very interested to see which effective sensor surface can be used with Otus lenses without considerable loss of IQ.
What I do need to know, if anyone knows. Is when they make an adapter like this Fotodix, does that adapter amount to having a Nikon camera? I am sure not. How do I tell how much extension or lack thereof is provided by the adapter. That info would help.
-
What I do need to know, if anyone knows. Is when they make an adapter like this Fotodix, does that adapter amount to having a Nikon camera? I am sure not. How do I tell how much extension or lack thereof is provided by the adapter. That info would help.
I am quite sure, the measurement/extension is made for the Fuji GFX. I have a Fotodiox adapter for Hasselbald V lenses to mount on my Contax 645. Works perfectly. Infinite stays infinite.
-
I am quite sure, the measurement/extension is made for the Fuji GFX. I have a Fotodiox adapter for Hasselbald V lenses to mount on my Contax 645. Works perfectly. Infinite stays infinite.
Or to be more exact: the flange focal distance of Fuji G mount is 26,7 mm, and for the Nikon F mount it is 46,5 mm. so the adapter should measure 19,8 mm.
-
No GFX for me, I don't feel the need but I like the concept.
I'm in "wait & see" mode. After cameras are in the hands of snappers for awhile, and any early gotchas are (presumably) dealt with, I'll take a more serious look.
-Dave-
-
I can't imagine that the adaptor wouldn't allow for infinity focus with Nikon lenses. That isn't to say that the infinity 'Stop' couldn't be off a little in a particular lens but that's a lens defect and not an adaptor defect.
Victor
-
Back to the question on the Fotodiox adapters.
From reading on their site I found this:
• If your lens does not have a manual aperture control ring, it will stop down to its smallest f/stop by default.
Does the adapter have any type of aperture control? If not you are basically limited to only the much older Nikkor glass with a manual ring, thus no G glass, and I assume the same is true for the M645 adapter.
Thanks
Paul Caldwell
-
you are basically limited to only the much older Nikkor glass with a manual ring, thus no G glass, and I assume the same is true for the M645 adapter.
Fortunately:
- the Otus have an aprture ring,
- there are quite a few lenses I use wide open most if the time (105mm f1.4, 70-200mm f2.8,...).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
After using and having been very pleased with the 645Z images (which uses the same or similar Sony 51MP sensor) either of these cameras will produce superb, easily malleable images.
The specifics for each platform are up to each of us to decide which works best for our needs.
Real world comparisons are going to be coming at us at a furious pace very soon. Great times.
-
Should I get a Leica or GFX... ?
-
Should I get a Leica or GFX... ?
Depends. Which Leica and what are your requirements?
-
Depends. Which Leica and what are your requirements?
2 words - Medium Format!
-
2 words - Medium Format!
That is pretty vague and flexible! 45x30 and 44x33 are sometimes called mini-format, or enhanced 35mm format. Even 54x40 are sometimes joked as the APSC of 120 format. ;)
Seriously you ought to tell what you shoot or your shooting style otherwise it would be hard to receive useful advise.
-
Hi,
My take is that if you want to make great pictures you would go with an up to date system having a good choice with excellent lenses. So, I would go with a system having a Sony sensor and than look at my needs.
I use an A7rII with Canon, Contax and Sony lenses. That works for me as I shoot on tripod and focus manually. Canon has some great lenses, but they lag a bit in dynamic range at low ISO.
With the A7rII you can use almost any lens ever made on the planet, except Leica M lenses. But Leica M lenses were not made for digital sensors, so using Leica M on digital is a compromise. Leica solves some of those issues with ultra thin cover glass and sensors designed to support M lenses, but that is still a compromise.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. Hasselblad, Phase One, Pentax, Fuji, Nikon all use Sony sensors. Canon and Leica have their own designs.
Should I get a Leica or GFX... ?
-
Should I get Leica or GFX?
A GFX system with about 3 new lenses can cost less than a Leica S007 body alone. Plus the GF lenses are new designs and we are led to believe good for 100MP use. Any S lens in the S system is a major outlay.
I now feel that Leica glass in about any class has been euqlalled or surpiassed by many other manufacturers.
Based on the service problems Leica is facing at least in the US, be careful what you buy.
-
Leica may have a lot of problems, but their recent glass being outclassed is not likely to be one of them.
Edmund
Should I get Leica or GFX?
A GFX system with about 3 new lenses can cost less than a Leica S007 body alone. Plus the GF lenses are new designs and we are led to believe good for 100MP use. Any S lens in the S system is a major outlay.
I now feel that Leica glass in about any class has been euqlalled or surpiassed by many other manufacturers.
Based on the service problems Leica is facing at least in the US, be careful what you buy.
-
The S lenses are incredible. Shame about the AF reliability...
-
Hi,
I don't know about the Leica lenses. The only way to find out about a lens is to do a proper test and I have not done that.
I have seen some sample shots with the Hasselblad X1D 90 mm and that was awfully good and really needed a higher resolution sensor. The Fuji lenses are also calculated for 100 MP according to Fuji.
What I think had been noticed is that the Leica S lenses are not fully corrected for axial colour, leading purple fringing that can be eliminated sharp cut UV or IR filters, I don't recall which. Hopefully the Fuji and Hasselblad lenses are better corrected in that respect.
Leica has some sample images from the S2 on it's home page, one of them is the one shown in the enclosed image. The green fringing in out of focus areas is almost certainly axial chroma. Would I buy a large aperture lens for short DoF shooting I would try to get one with well corrected axial chroma. The Otus lenses are free of axial chroma and that has been a significant part of the design effort.
Best regards
Erik
Should I get Leica or GFX?
A GFX system with about 3 new lenses can cost less than a Leica S007 body alone. Plus the GF lenses are new designs and we are led to believe good for 100MP use. Any S lens in the S system is a major outlay.
I now feel that Leica glass in about any class has been euqlalled or surpiassed by many other manufacturers.
Based on the service problems Leica is facing at least in the US, be careful what you buy.
-
Erik, this is sensor-dependent as well, i believe.
Edmund
Hi,
I don't know about the Leica lenses. The only way to find out about a lens is to do a proper test and I have not done that.
I have seen some sample shots with the Hasselblad X1D 90 mm and that was awfully good and really needed a higher resolution sensor. The Fuji lenses are also calculated for 100 MP according to Fuji.
What I think had been noticed is that the Leica S lenses are not fully corrected for axial colour, leading purple fringing that can be eliminated sharp cut UV or IR filters, I don't recall which. Hopefully the Fuji and Hasselblad lenses are better corrected in that respect.
Leica has some sample images from the S2 on it's home page, one of them is the one shown in the enclosed image. The green fringing in out of focus areas is almost certainly axial chroma. Would I buy a large aperture lens for short DoF shooting I would try to get one with well corrected axial chroma. The Otus lenses are free of axial chroma and that has been a significant part of the design effort.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Diglloyd has demonstrated that the purple fringing can be eliminated UV or IR cut of filters. But the magenta, green fringing we see is very typical of axial chroma, so I would say it 100% a lens issue.
Jim Kasson has looked at some Leica lenses and studied axial chroma and he may have found Leica is a bit liberal in using the APO-designation:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-leica-r-1002-8-apo-macro/
When I bought my A7rII I wanted a lens in the 70-90 mm interval that is virtually free from axial chroma, as I am a bit allergic to bokeh fringing. My choice was the Sony 90/2.8G macro. Jim found that is has very good behaviour regarding axial chroma:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-sony-902-8-fe-macro/
These test were done on Jim's Sony A7rII, using the same sample of the same sensor.
I would be pretty sure that LoCa we see are lens issues and not sensor issues, but they could certainly be aggravated by weak filtering of IR and UV where correction of spherochromatism may be weak.
Best regards
Erik
Erik, this is sensor-dependent as well, i believe.
Edmund
-
For those of you who have not tried MF glass other than Leica S glass (I know once we select a system other systems have no or little interest any longer) you might be surprised at how those S lenses, though good today, are not the only good glass as many other MF lenses are great glass with much more modern designs.
-
I am waiting my GFX......