Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on September 30, 2016, 07:56:47 am
-
Shakespeare said “Parting is such sweet sorrow,” and change comes in strange ways. It was a surprise for me to find the X1D, this harbinger of change, coming from the somewhat conservative Hasselblad, a small mirrorless Medium Format (MF) camera at an almost affordable price. As they say, “Who woulda’ thunk it.” But there it is, out there and almost delivered. More surprising yet was the fact that one day I found myself pushing the button to buy one! For me this took (and is taking) selling a LOT of equipment that I still might use, but probably can get along without.
Why I consider this as perhaps the tip of the iceberg of change in my camera world is something many may not agree with, but it can’t hurt to discuss it. And a lot of it stems from my basic ignorance of MF cameras. It is true that I once had a MF camera (Mamiya RZ67 with a 33 Mpx digital back), but I can’t say that I ever really learned (loved) the system or got that much out of it, aside from getting myself out of it. The interface of the digital back was too primitive at the time for me to put up with. And the lenses (I had eleven of them) were not THAT great, aside perhaps from a couple of them.
Anyway, I have been chomping at the bit for a year or so, waiting for Nikon to stop pussyfooting around and deliver me a high-end mirrorless camera or at least the successor to the D810, one with a 50 Mpx sensor, and preferably 75 Mpx. We all know that has not happened yet, with no hint of when it might take place. For my purposes, Nikon has gone AWOL, IMO.
I suppose I should have seen the writing on the wall when Sony came out with the A7s, a camera with a FF sensor, mostly of interest to video buffs, since each photosite gathers 2.8x more light than the Nikon D810 sensor. The A7s has a pixel pitch of something like 8.32 microns, 71% higher than the pixel pitch of the D810, which is 4.87 µm. However, the size of the Sony A7s sensor was only 12.2 Mpx, while I needed a much larger (in pixels) sensor for my work, so I did not keep it. However, what was beautiful about the A7s is that it had the larger pixel pitch like we find in Medium Format cameras and sensors. It was a sign of things to come for me, but I didn’t grasp it at the time.
Throwing these numbers around only goes so far, because newer sensor are more efficient and generally “better” overall, so a new sensor with a smaller pixel pitch may out perform an older sensor with a larger pixel pitch, etc.
As to why I consider the Hasselblad X1D so significant turns on a mistake that I apparently have been making, the idea that a 50 Mpx sensor on the Nikon system would equal a 50 Mpx sensor on a MF system, as far as the quality of the image. Of course, a 50 Mpx sensor on a 35 mm sensor would have to be squeezed into a smaller sensor than on a MF sensor, which are by nature larger, like 44 mm or higher.
Thus the 44 mm sensor of the Hasselblad X1D with 8300 px equals 5.3u (28.1um2), while the 35 mm FF sensor of the Nikon D810, with 8300 px equals 4.33u (18.7um2), meaning that the X1D has larger photosites, and thus greater light-gathering power. So, the same number of pixels in the X1D jammed into the smaller sensor of the D810 means 40% less light-gathering ability for the D810.
For a while I made the conceptual mistake of thinking I would wait for Nikon to pony-up with a D820 (or some number) camera with a 50 Mpx (or greater) sensor. And I assumed that 50 Mpx on a Nikon would somehow equal 50 Mpx on a Hasselblad, etc. Of course, for the Nikon to continue to be a 35 mm FF camera, a Nikon D820 FF sensor would always have less light-gathering power than an X1D sensor of an equal generation. This was a simple, but stupid mistake on my part.
The reason the X1D is so earth shaking for me is that if this is true, then I see my whole interest in FF DSLRs (not to mention scores of lenses) going out the window and I clearly see that the advent of Medium Format cameras (eventually affordable and small) is coming of age and the X1D is just the tip of the iceberg.
Thus, there is no reason whatsoever to wait for Nikon to respond with a larger FF 35mm with more pixels, because the light-gathering abilities will only continue to shrink as the FF sensor size increases. Unless Nikon issues their own medium-format camera to compete with Hasselblad, in some ways I am done with Nikon except as a way to feature my classic F-mount lenses.
Of course, since I have so many Nikon-mount lenses, I am not about to abandon the brand, but it will have to move to the back burner and be used to feature those particular lenses that I value which work on that mount. Which brings me to my point:
The Hasselblad X1D is not just an anomaly, but the tip of the top of a new wave of “affordable” medium-format cameras that will be compelling in their ability to take some of us forward into the future of our photography. Not everyone will care, but if I know the market, the virtues of the MF quality will gradually insert itself into the minds and hearts of FF photographers and we will be converted.
Providing that the X1D performs, you can count me among the already converted. Of course, I look to the day when I can use my Zeiss Oti lenses on a MF camera. Perhaps the new Fuji MF camera will have a solid adapter that will accomplish that. Meanwhile, to the best of my ability, I see this new generation of small MF cameras not only inevitable, but also compelling.
-
Interesting, however:
- the difference in sensor size is IMHO not sufficient to bother,
- although it is tempting, I am not sold yet on this generation of EVFs, in my view the technology is still in its infancy, like 4K TVs 4 years ago if you will,
- the lenses, although probably very good, aren't very likely to be in Oti territory in terms of image quality and focusing experience, and they obviously offer a lot less DoF control options (but I guess less DoF isn't a major objective of yours),
- I would not read too much into the lack of Nikon annoucement at the Kina.
This being said, I may go the Hassy route too, but having saved for an MF system for quite some time I am more attracted by the H6D. I am not sure whether I would keep my Oti or not in such a case. I may sell the 85 that has become redundant with the 105mm f1.4 anyway (nicer bokeh, very close technically and great AF) the 28mm f1.4 and just keep the 55mm as a stitching kens...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This being said, I may go the Hassy route too, but having saved for an MF system for quite some time I am more attracted by the H6D. I am not sure whether I would keep my Oti or not in such a case. I may sell the 85 that has become redundant with the 105mm f1.4 anyway (nicer bokeh, very close technically and great AF) the 28mm f1.4 and just keep the 55mm as a stitching kens...
Cheers,
Bernard
I hear ya'. I might sell the Otus 85mm, but not the 28mm and 55mm. Not sure about the 135mm Almost-Otus. It is nice to see Nikon (105mm, f/1.4) producing outstanding lenses again. Wish it was also macro. I like the small format size of the X1D and can get my feet wet there. Also, new, small MF lenses for the X1D appeal to me. Whatever the case, this is probably a sea-change for my work. I still have my D810 to play with and far too many lenses, not to mention technical cameras and LF lenses, etc.
-
X1D - 'affordable'. Hmm. No, sorry, does not compute.
-
Thus the 44 mm sensor of the Hasselblad X1D with 8300 px equals 5.3u (28.1um2), while the 35 mm FF sensor of the Nikon D810, with 8300 px equals 4.33u (18.7um2), meaning that the X1D has larger photosites, and thus greater light-gathering power. So, the same number of pixels in the X1D jammed into the smaller sensor of the D810 means 40% less light-gathering ability for the D810.
Hi Michael,
If you shoot on a tripod with good technique and lighting, both cameras will perform about the same as far as SNR is concerned when set up equivalently (see here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-and-equivalent-image-quality-signal/) for why). Where a larger format typically has the advantage is in linear spatial resolution (i.e. detail, see here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-sharpness-spatial-resolution/) for why). The X1D's diagonal is about 27% longer than the D810's. But the D810's pixels are about 8% smaller on the side, so let's cheat and say that the D810's lenses need to be about 20% 'sharper' than the 'blad's in order to capture images of the same resolution when displayed at the same size.
That's not bad, but not an earth shaking difference (for instance there is a bigger difference going from APS-C to FF), so it all boils down to the lenses. You have some outstanding FF lenses there and I don't know what MF lenses your budget would afford you - but it would behoove you to find out that they would be an improvement on what you have before committing.
Jack
-
Hi Michael,
If you shoot on a tripod with good technique and lighting, both cameras will perform about the same as far as SNR is concerned when set up equivalently (see here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-and-equivalent-image-quality-signal/) for why). Where a larger format typically has the advantage is in linear spatial resolution (i.e. detail, see here (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/equivalence-sharpness-spatial-resolution/) for why). The X1D's diagonal is about 27% longer than the D810's. But the D810's pixels are about 8% smaller on the side, so let's cheat and say that the D810's lenses need to be about 20% 'sharper' than the 'blad's in order to capture images of the same resolution when displayed at the same size.
That's not bad, but not an earth shaking difference (for instance there is a bigger difference going from APS-C to FF), so it all boils down to the lenses. You have some outstanding FF lenses there and I don't know what MF lenses your budget would afford you - but it would behoove you to find out that they would be an improvement on what you have before committing.
Jack
There is another factor running here, and that is that now that I am retired, I want to travel some. The Hasselblad X1D, with its (about to be) three lenses is compact enough that I could see my taking it on the road and keeping my accumulation of Nikon-mount related stuff for home and studio use. I like what Ming Thein can do with the Hasselblads and he states that the quality is the same with the X1D, so unless there is a big let-down, this could be the perfect system to take on the road and also branch out from just doing nature close-ups. I also have ordered the the lens adapter for some of the larger/older lenses as well as already purchased the main Hasselblad macro lens, which I may or may not take with me.
But right now, learning more portrait and landscape photography sound liberating. And being older now, time is of the essence, as in: now.
-
You want the Nikkor 105 f/1.4 to be a 1:1 MACRO? Gee, you don't ask for much.... ;)
-
X1D - 'affordable'. Hmm. No, sorry, does not compute.
Include me out too, Bill...
;-(
Rob C
-
Include me out too, Bill...
;-(
Rob C
i just got a $80 very light and compact 500mm manual focus mirror lens for my Canon, which has opened new photographic opportunities for me. That is what *I* call affordable change.
Edmund
-
Ignoring for a moment dynamic range and so on, the question of resolution in DSLRs vs mirrorless is an interesting one.
I can't find the link, but someone recently commented that the Fuji X-T2 holds better detail that the 50 Mpx Canon 5Ds. Once I got over the outrageousness of the claim I realised there is one circumstance where this would be true.
When you are using these cameras hand-held.
When I switched to an X-T1, I wondered why it usually out-resolved my Canon 5D2. It wasn't just the lenses and aa filtering. My 5D2 lost a huge amount of detail if I didn't use mirror lock-up, waiting five seconds for the camera to settle down. Ditto any exposure around a twentieth to one second as that large shutter slammed open. A two kilogram beanbag sitting on the camera helped. Fine except that most of my photography is hand-held. And when I needed a tripod the exposure often ended up in that twentieth to one second "zone of death".
It seems to me that the real advantage of the coming mirrorless MF cameras will be in the detail provided when you are unable to use a tripod. Depending on the characteristics of the shutter dampening.
David
-
Being older also, I fully understand the need to carry less. The X1d could have seen more interest from me if Hasselblad had given it an articulating LCD. For me macro tends to mean getting down close to the subject and the ability to tilt the LCD to me is a great asset.
Paul C
-
Being older also, I fully understand the need to carry less. The X1d could have seen more interest from me if Hasselblad had given it an articulating LCD. For me macro tends to mean getting down close to the subject and the ability to tilt the LCD to me is a great asset.
Paul C
Tilt screen....see Fuji GFX.
And rotating EVF option, too.
Not much bigger than the X1D.
Jeff
-
i just got a $80 very light and compact 500mm manual focus mirror lens for my Canon, which has opened new photographic opportunities for me. That is what *I* call affordable change.
Edmund
Edmund, a beautiful focal length; mine's Nikkor 500, for what that matters, go and play:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/4738044_orig.jpg)
Rob
P.S. On a Gitzo, just to frame, but there's absolutely no need to focus on any particular spot to make it look sharp - unless you have to - and here I intentionally avoided getting anything but the "circles" reasonably crisp. It's a dream-weaver's lens; if you need long and sharp follow Hans Feurer's way instead, and not Eddie Kohli's! Eddie and the late Arnaud de Rosnay built careers on mirror optics; Arnaud has a shot taken in the Bahamas, I think, which is the best 500 mirror shot I've ever seen: dark b/ground, incredibly silver circles and amazing clothes and model (Marisa Berenson?)... yep, dream-weaver stuff. All fucking lost to bigger and better and sharper until it kills, or you scream: gimme a break, enough crisp already, let's have some heart and soul, every Mrs Head's son Richard can do crisp!
-
This being said, I may go the Hassy route too, but having saved for an MF system for quite some time I am more attracted by the H6D. I am not sure whether I would keep my Oti or not in such a case. I may sell the 85 that has become redundant with the 105mm f1.4 anyway (nicer bokeh, very close technically and great AF) the 28mm f1.4 and just keep the 55mm as a stitching kens...
Cheers,
Bernard
The H6D us about perfect in size, IMO. Aside from being expensive, something in me wants to have a smaller MF camera with smaller lenses. I have the X1D on order, and also the three announced lenses. I also have the H-lens adapter and have already purchased the older HC 120mm Macro II for what little close-up I plan to do with the X1D. I still have and will keep the D810 and all of the many interesting lenses that work with it. The HGD is larger, heavier, and its lenses are way heavier, so that does not interest me... the size and weight. If I love the X1D, I will look harder at the H6D.
As far as paying for all this, here is my reasoning: I used to have to save and save to have enough to make it to the end of my life. Now I see I don't have so far to go, so I don't need as much money. Might as well spend some of it what I enjoy doing, photography.
I have to laugh. On another forum, when I wrote of purchasing the X1D, one flamer said that since I was not a professional photographer, the only reason I could possible have for the X1D was G.A.S. Some of us actually choose not to try to make a profession of photography, because it is not an easy road to travel.
-
The H6D us about perfect in size, IMO. Aside from being expensive, something in me wants to have a smaller MF camera with smaller lenses. I have the X1D on order, and also the three announced lenses. I also have the H-lens adapter and have already purchased the older HC 120mm Macro II for what little close-up I plan to do with the X1D. I still have and will keep the D810 and all of the many interesting lenses that work with it. The HGD is larger, heavier, and its lenses are way heavier, so that does not interest me... the size and weight. If I love the X1D, I will look harder at the H6D.
As far as paying for all this, here is my reasoning: I used to have to save and save to have enough to make it to the end of my life. Now I see I don't have so far to go, so I don't need as much money. Might as well spend some of it what I enjoy doing, photography.
I have to laugh. On another forum, when I wrote of purchasing the X1D, one flamer said that since I was not a professional photographer, the only reason I could possible have for the X1D was G.A.S. Some of us actually choose not to try to make a profession of photography, because it is not an easy road to travel.
I'm old, I can't keep up with modern linguistics: what's G.A.S.?
Rob
-
I'm old, I can't keep up with modern linguistics: what's G.A.S.?
Rob
Gear Acquisition Syndrome
-
Gear Acquisition Syndrome
Thanks! Clearly, I must be immune!
;-)
Rob
-
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that one more photographer was moving from full-frame to APS-C, because it is now good enough. It turns out that I was wrong... :-[
I would tend to agree with Bernard and say that those 44 x 33 mm sensors are too close to full-frame to make a substantial difference.
We still have not reached the point where more pixels on a full-frame sensor will negatively affect the dynamic range the sensor can capture. It will be interesting to see if this happens in the near future or if further advances in sensor manufacturing will keep the dynamic range constant with smaller pixels.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
When I first read the title of this thread, I thought that one more photographer was moving from full-frame to APS-C, because it is now good enough. It turns out that I was wrong... :-[
I would tend to agree with Bernard and say that those 44 x 33 mm sensors are too close to full-frame to make a substantial difference.
We still have not reached the point where more pixels on a full-frame sensor will negatively affect the dynamic range the sensor can capture. It will be interesting to see if this happens in the near future or if further advances in sensor manufacturing will keep the dynamic range constant with smaller pixels.
Cheers,
Fabien
I agree that this is a key question to be decided... as we go down the road. If it can, wonderful for me, because I have lenses that can take advantage of that. But regardless, the larger sensors have the same true of them and they have the advantage of having still larger photosites, etc.
-
Thus the 44 mm sensor of the Hasselblad X1D with 8300 px equals 5.3u (28.1um2), while the 35 mm FF sensor of the Nikon D810, with 8300 px equals 4.33u (18.7um2), meaning that the X1D has larger photosites, and thus greater light-gathering power. So, the same number of pixels in the X1D jammed into the smaller sensor of the D810 means 40% less light-gathering ability for the D810.
What if you calculate the light gathering ability of the whole system, not just the sensor? Hassy has f/3.5 and f/3.2 lenses, Nikon has f/1.8 and f/1.4 at all corresponding focal lengths. So comparing XD1 with f/3.2 lens to a Nikon D810 with f/1.4 lens, Nikon has 300% more light gathering ability than XD1.
-
Which is what I have always believed: photography shouldn't be confused with numbers. It's basically an art with industrial/commercial possibilities best exploited on the basis of photographer experience and not catalogues, websites and Internet pundits.
I grew up, photographically speaking, surrounded by 4x5 and upwards and printing from same; when I went solo I used nothing other than 135 and 120 film formats. That was a choice based on what I wanted to do and where I wanted to take myself in life. Had I other photographic destinations in mind, I'd have gone to different formats.
The only camera logic that means squat is the visceral one that you have, and that you need to learn to trust.
Rob
-
Rob, Nice pic and interesting advice.
Don't worry, I got my money's worth :)
I'm shooting handheld @ 1600 or 3200 ISO. Never really use a tripod except for video.
Edmund
Edmund, a beautiful focal length; mine's Nikkor 500, for what that matters, go and play:
(http://www.roma57.com/uploads/4/2/8/7/4287956/4738044_orig.jpg)
Rob
P.S. On a Gitzo, just to frame, but there's absolutely no need to focus on any particular spot to make it look sharp - unless you have to - and here I intentionally avoided getting anything but the "circles" reasonably crisp. It's a dream-weaver's lens; if you need long and sharp follow Hans Feurer's way instead, and not Eddie Kohli's! Eddie and the late Arnaud de Rosnay built careers on mirror optics; Arnaud has a shot taken in the Bahamas, I think, which is the best 500 mirror shot I've ever seen: dark b/ground, incredibly silver circles and amazing clothes and model (Marisa Berenson?)... yep, dream-weaver stuff. All fucking lost to bigger and better and sharper until it kills, or you scream: gimme a break, enough crisp already, let's have some heart and soul, every Mrs Head's son Richard can do crisp!
-
Rob,
Here's a tech demo.
Below a "real" shot.
Edmund
-
This one still needs some work ...
I like the grainy old-style 35mm look - the very opposite of multi-mega-pixel mf-itis.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I would suggest that the Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX start something new, cameras designed for and around the 44x33 mm sensor size. Before that, MFD systems were more built for the full frame 645 and lenses were optimised for the larger format, making them expensive and large.
The Hassy X1D and the Fuji GFX are optimised for the 44x33 mm size. The lenses are designed for that size of sensor.
Fuji talks about the lenses being designed for 100 MP, Hasselblad shows MTF graphs that are impressive. I would assume that next generation sensors will go to 75-100 MP.
These cameras are affordable - when compared to "top priced" 24x36 mm systems like "pro DSLRs" or Leica SL, offering much better image quality but far less capabilities of fast AF and frames per second.
Comparing with high resolution 24x36 mm systems is a different game. Assuming similar lens technology the sensor diagonal of the the 44x33 mm sensor is 27% larger which would give something like 27 % advantage in magnification. The 68% larger sensor surface would give a 29 % advantage in SNR. Or, you could say that 168 ISO delivers same signal/noise as 100 ISO on a 24x36 mm sensor.
So, you are paying 3X the price for something like 28% improvement of image quality. Worthwhile? Maybe. The lenses will be seriously good, will they be as good as the Otus? We don't know. The Otuses correct axial chroma fully, do the new Hassy and Fuji lenses do that, too? Due to medium apertures those lenses will be less challenged.
With the Fuji GFX it will be possible to use third party lenses. That is not the case with the X1D as it has no focal plane shutter. There is no macro or zoom lens announced yet for the X1D yet, as far as I know.
The way I see it, the new systems are very interesting. Personally I think there is plenty life in smaller formats. I have an admittedly old Hasselblad V/P45+ combo that is going into retirement (obsolescence) so I am no longer bitten by the MFD bug.
Best regards
Erik
-
Rob, Nice pic and interesting advice.
Don't worry, I got my money's worth :)
I'm shooting handheld @ 1600 or 3200 ISO. Never really use a tripod except for video.
Edmund
I am incapable of even framing with a hand-held 500mm mirror - even trying to frame with a hand-held 2.8/180mm is a challenge really a few klicks too far for me! Perhaps one needs those gunstock supports of olden days. Okay in olden days, but likely to get you shot by a nervous security guard today!
Yes, I also love the older, grainy look of images much of the time. Sharp and grainless is also very important for some product shots, of course, but I no longer do any of that work, so I chase romantic, either upbeat or down. Photography is the perfect fit for the polar options: it can do it all for each mood. Comforting...
Rob
-
Rob,
I think all the big lenses now have stabilisers built in so you can aim them without getting seasick ...
Some people have good eyesight, I have naturally stable hands.
Edmund
I am incapable of even framing with a hand-held 500mm mirror - even trying to frame with a hand-held 2.8/180mm is a challenge really a few klicks too far for me! Perhaps one needs those gunstock supports of olden days. Okay in olden days, but likely to get you shot by a nervous security guard today!
Yes, I also love the older, grainy look of images much of the time. Sharp and grainless is also very important for some product shots, of course, but I no longer do any of that work, so I chase romantic, either upbeat or down. Photography is the perfect fit for the polar options: it can do it all for each mood. Comforting...
Rob
-
Thank goodness G.A.S. stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Being in my sixties I was fearful it had something else to do with being older.
-
Thank goodness G.A.S. stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Being in my sixties I was fearful it had something else to do with being older.
Young people like you should not even think like that!
Rob
-
Not bye bye for me, but hello to new options. I agree we're living in exciting and interesting times for camera development but I'm certainly not going to buy anything new for a while to see how the dust settles and see how these systems develop and what lenses they make.
Generally, I love Medium Format and use it quite a lot but where I don't feel I've ever bonded with it is lenses. I love the Zeiss 110 Planar and the Contax 80 f2 and some of the Leica S lenses, but generally, for my preferences 135 lenses like the Zeiss Otus, the 135 apo-sonnar, Leica M lenses jhave particular qualities I like. It's quite frustrating because I need the quality of Medium Format files but generally I'm not keen on the Hasselblad HC lenses, and the Phase One lenses, though high quality I don't gel with so much either. if Phase dropped an 80mm f2, I would feel like I had more direction on where I wanted to head.
The X1D I like but, the lenses are going to be slow. The Fuji might have some more love but the Fuji Blad HC lenses, I'm not a fan of. The out of focus and bokeh is nothing I like at all.
I do feel that cameras like the D810, and to some extent the 5DS R, are probably better places to focus on for future as they close the gap further on medium format. Medium Format will always be king because it has the physical advantage of better quality but judging by the similarities between an a7r2 and a Phase One P45, it's going to get interesting as things progress.
The Leica S seems like a perfect balance to me, I love the look of the lenses. To their credit they are the pioneers of this sort of camera, IMO. Too bad it's crippled with reliability issues and has been stuck on 37MP since 2008. I saw a comparison with the 5DS R and the Canon came out very favourable in some keys areas.
-
Why should Leica not introduce a camera with a 100MP Sony sensor?
It seems a matter of time.
It would do them good showing more of the real quality of these excellent lenses.
And they can ask a high price for the camera for its named Leica.
it would do them well for sure.
-
Why should Leica not introduce a camera with a 100MP Sony sensor?
It seems a matter of time.
It would do them good showing more of the real quality of these excellent lenses.
And they can ask a high price for the camera for its named Leica.
it would do them well for sure.
I would love that, but it probably won't happen, because:
1) According to Leica statements, the current S lenses are designed exactly for the Leica Pro Format (Diagonal 54mm vs 67 mm Sony 100MP sensor). So they would have to start a new lens family … (having said that I wonder if this Leica statement is correct ... think of Leica R (43 mm diagonal) tele lenses which can be adapted to Leica S without vignetting issues)
2) According to Leica statements, the preferred aspect ratio is 3:2 and not 4:3 (which, by the way, is also an important factor, why the Leica S body is quite compact, because the mirror box has not to be that deep).
I am quite sure, they will make a mirror less version of S (probably with new lenses), but it will need some time. Again, they stated they won't make it until it is technical feasible to make a MF EVF with high resolution, fast and short black out time. Again they said, currently it is not possible to meet this standard (I assume Leica SL EVF standard).
Obviously Hasselblad wants to be first in this new market segment, but at the cost of a subpar EVF. Therefore I am curious what Fuji will get done as regards the EFV.
-
....
I am quite sure, they will make a mirror less version of S (probably with new lenses), but it will need some time. Again, they stated they won't make it until it is technical feasible to make a MF EVF with high resolution, fast and short black out time. Again they said, currently it is not possible to meet this standard (I assume Leica SL EVF standard).
Obviously Hasselblad wants to be first in this new market segment, but at the cost of a subpar EVF. Therefore I am curious what Fuji will get done as regards the EFV.
This blackout time as you call it was exactly the argument i got from Nikon spokesmen on my question why not a Nikon FF mirrorless...
I have not tried the Leica R, but i understand it also has an EVF with some blackout time?
-
Hi,
To keep things in perspective, a DSLR has also a a viewfinder blackout time, as the mirror needs to be flipped out and back into the optical path. There may be a need for setting a settling time prior shutter release, as the mirror up operation induces vibrations. Landscape photographers often use mirror lock up for that reason.
Best regards
Erik
This blackout time as you call it was exactly the argument i got from Nikon spokesmen on my question why not a Nikon FF mirrorless...
I have not tried the Leica R, but i understand it also has an EVF with some blackout time?
-
Having used slr-type cameras exclusively since the Exakta Varex llA, from the Nikon F onwards I am not even aware of mirror black-out; it's so rapid as not to count. Either way, the speed certainly outwits any attempt by me at useful second or more shots in rapid succession. I had motor drive for my F2 and only used it once, because it galloped through film and didn't really let me see what the hell I was doing. I don't like loss of control in those matters! Little point in getting several near identical shots of a model's eyelids closing down... I would normally want them open.
In fairness to the discussion, I have not used a camera with EVF and so the problem may be greater or smaller than I imagine. I'd find it hard to accept that anybody would market a camera where you can't see what you're about to shoot... Equally, I'd be amazed to discover anyone marketing a lens that has to be exchaged a couple of times from new just to get a non-lemon version... and we all know where that belief would get me today.
-
This blackout time has been reduced in DSLRs over the years. I can imagine it is of great importance to action and press shooters.
When Nikon came up with the D3x body; they should have realized -more than they did- that with this body an other kind of photographer was going to use it.
Too bad that they did not serve that kind of photographer well by releasing state of they art prime lenses.
Now i think they should not wait too long to come up with a mirroless FF. The photographer world is changing a lot.
The press photographers - at least in here in the Netherlands- have a hard time earning money because of the man in the street with the mobile phone that is there at the right moment and delivers for free.
I was surprised that there was not a FF-mirrorless on the photokina neither from Canon nor Nikon.
At the moment the progress comes from medium format companies, strangely enough.
Pieter Kers
-
What if you calculate the light gathering ability of the whole system, not just the sensor? Hassy has f/3.5 and f/3.2 lenses, Nikon has f/1.8 and f/1.4 at all corresponding focal lengths. So comparing XD1 with f/3.2 lens to a Nikon D810 with f/1.4 lens, Nikon has 300% more light gathering ability than XD1.
Good point that's very relevant when a desired DoF and/or a higher than base ISO is required because of poor lighting conditions.
For example, if a large DoF is required, the 35mm full-frame lens can be used at a one stop larger aperture, at least. A one stop larger aperture results in double the amount of light reaching the sensor, at a given shutter speed.
If shutter speed is not an issue because the subject is static and the camera is on a tripod, then the larger format has a light-gathering advantage.
However, if shutter speed is an issue, because of poor lighting and a moving subject, requiring the use of a higher-than-base ISO on the larger format, then any light-gathering advantage of the larger format is nullified.
-
If shutter speed is not an issue because the subject is static and the camera is on a tripod, then the larger format has a light-gathering advantage.
However, if shutter speed is an issue, because of poor lighting and a moving subject, requiring the use of a higher-than-base ISO on the larger format, then any light-gathering advantage of the larger format is nullified.
Exactly! I intend to use the X1D I have on order for landscapes, portraits, etc. And continue to use my Nikon D810 for other things, plus I have a ton of F-Mount lenses. Also might look into the new Fuji mirrorless MF camera, with an adapter for F-Mounts.
-
This blackout time has been reduced in DSLRs over the years. I can imagine it is of great importance to action and press shooters.
When Nikon came up with the D3x body; they should have realized -more than they did- that with this body an other kind of photographer was going to use it.
Too bad that they did not serve that kind of photographer well by releasing state of they art prime lenses.
Now i think they should not wait too long to come up with a mirroless FF. The photographer world is changing a lot.
The press photographers - at least in here in the Netherlands- have a hard time earning money because of the man in the street with the mobile phone that is there at the right moment and delivers for free.
I was surprised that there was not a FF-mirrorless on the photokina neither from Canon nor Nikon.
At the moment the progress comes from medium format companies, strangely enough.
Pieter Kers
Indeed, but no type of pro's camera is going make the commercial buyers pay more than what they can get for pretty much nothing. Ego-driven sales/gratis work always counts highly in this world. If you don't believe me, consider what exactly that has done to the great photographic stock agencies of yesteryear. Drove me out, for one, and has badly damaged several other professional photographers I know. Changing days; changed markets and the dumbing down of everything. Just watch the news or Presidential Debates for confirmation. Bullshit is all. The public has stopped questioning; Big Brother isn't just a stupid show: the real Big Bro is already ensconced in control, whichever colour of hat he/she decides to wear at any given time. It's a done deal, our Faustian Pact.
Rob
-
...
Just watch the news or Presidential Debates for confirmation. Bullshit is all. The public has stopped questioning...
Rob
a nice can of worms for the Coffee Corner... :)
what did we learn today:
Let's not low our discussions here to the presidential level...
-
Indeed, but no type of pro's camera is going make the commercial buyers pay more than what they can get for pretty much nothing. Ego-driven sales/gratis work always counts highly in this world. If you don't believe me, consider what exactly that has done to the great photographic stock agencies of yesteryear. Drove me out, for one, and has badly damaged several other professional photographers I know. Changing days; changed markets and the dumbing down of everything. Just watch the news or Presidential Debates for confirmation. Bullshit is all. The public has stopped questioning; Big Brother isn't just a stupid show: the real Big Bro is already ensconced in control, whichever colour of hat he/she decides to wear at any given time. It's a done deal, our Faustian Pact.
Rob
Well at least we get to see the Great Presidential Debate Comedy Show for free :)
Edmund
-
Well at least we get to see the Great Presidential Debate Comedy Show for free :)
Edmund
Save your enthusiasm for the great pan-European one about to begin in some parliaments near you soon! Or not, if a present head of one can manage it; faits accomplis are better.
How quickly can you press a red button - is it a quicker job than a sword, dagger to the belly or even a shotgun in the mouth?
From €1,32 some time ago it's hit €1.11 today and probably falling still. But like a famously egalitarian prime minister once said: the pound in your pocket is still worth a pound! Right on, sir, just don't think about it, please!
Rob
-
For action shooters using high shutter speeds, the SLR blackout time is trivial and unnoticeable. Think about it. Movies display a still image every 1/24 to 1/30 second. Yet our minds connect the still images together. Our minds manage the same feat when panning in burst mode. Admittedly I can only state from personal experience the effect of 1/500 to 1/8000 sec at a burst rate of 6 per second, for birds in flight.
As for the US presidential election, it has the morbid attention demand of a highway crash that you crawl past in a traffic jam.
In your guts, you know he's nuts!