Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?  (Read 31344 times)

henrikfoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 899
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #80 on: March 15, 2018, 01:29:44 pm »

I agree about the C1. But when you get used to it, Lightroom is good.
I think Phase One will never open up for GFX etc.
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #81 on: March 15, 2018, 02:22:37 pm »

I agree about the C1. But when you get used to it, Lightroom is good.
I think Phase One will never open up for GFX etc.

i don't think C1 will let GFX in either but honestly I don't really care much anymore....
LR tethering with the GFX is so rock solid, first time i am able to switch between tethered and un tethered so seamlessly....i also really, really like being able to shoot to both card and computer....instant back up....
as for processing and workflow i always preferred aperture to either C1 and LR but i am really getting into what adobe is doing with the cloud and mobile apps.....i don't like the subscription model but that is the way things seem to bye going anyway....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #82 on: March 15, 2018, 03:03:45 pm »

The beauty of the camera has no bearing for me when it comes to my choice of instrument. Before I got my nice-looking Master Technika, I was happy with the appearance of my ugly Speed Graphic. I got rid of my pretty M9 and M240 in favor of pedestrian-looking a7RIIs and IIIs. I use a lot of Nikon gear, but I was never tempted by the good-looking Df. My favorite MF view camera was the dull Arca Swiss folding-monorail 6x9. I also used Arca Swiss 4x5 and 8x10 monorail cameras, in spite of the fact that the Sinars looked better.

All those opinions about beauty are, of course, totally subjective.

Jim

Yeah it sure is subjective. Design is important to me and it matters what it looks like.

i have spent a lot time working with dull cameras too and when I pick up something that inspires me it's just a different feeling. It doesn't really matter, probably, but then it does make a difference to me. The experience of using a nice piece of gear makes the process more enjoyable. But then on a big shoot which is really busy, you don't even have the time for that or even any thoughts about it other than it just working.

Leica M, Hasselblad V, Linhof Technika & Deardorf are just cameras I have which is sort of like an affair. They are nice and they make me feel like a photographer.

I think the Speed Graphic is charming! I have the top mounted Crown and I love it.

That Fuji though, I was looking at it the other day. I don't know it's just so pedestrian looking. Such a miss mash of design and seems like it was cost prioritised. I just don't like it.

But I totally get that some people like the way it looks - what ever floats your boat.
Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #83 on: March 15, 2018, 03:28:01 pm »


But I totally get that some people like the way it looks - what ever floats your boat.

It's not that I think the GFX is beautiful. It's that it doesn't matter to me. I care how a camera works, not what it looks like.

But I can understand the appeal of using a beautiful thing. I'm a bit that way with cars.

Jim

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #84 on: March 15, 2018, 03:29:37 pm »

I agree about the C1. But when you get used to it, Lightroom is good.
I think Phase One will never open up for GFX etc.

i don't think C1 will let GFX in either but honestly I don't really care much anymore....
LR tethering with the GFX is so rock solid, first time i am able to switch between tethered and un tethered so seamlessly....i also really, really like being able to shoot to both card and computer....instant back up....
as for processing and workflow i always preferred aperture to either C1 and LR but i am really getting into what adobe is doing with the cloud and mobile apps.....i don't like the subscription model but that is the way things seem to bye going anyway....

I think C1 is a a bit of a tenuous thing in our industry.

I do like it and prefer to use it but I don't absolutely need it. Lightroom and Photoshop does everything I need.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 03:45:16 pm by Bo_Dez »
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #85 on: March 15, 2018, 05:03:51 pm »

I think C1 is a a bit of a tenuous thing in our industry.

I do like it and prefer to use it but I don't absolutely need it. Lightroom and Photoshop does everything I need.

the reason C1 is so intrenched is that for a looooooong time it was THE only really stable tethering software....LR was horrible...horrible....i honestly cant say how LR is for canon, nikon or sony these days but for the GFX it is the best tethering solution i have experienced yet....
as for C1 delivering the best files....not so sure about it, but i think overall that is a personal preference at this point....a lot of good solutions available  and a lot of factors to consider overall.....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #86 on: March 15, 2018, 05:24:09 pm »

Yeah it sure is subjective. Design is important to me and it matters what it looks like.

i have spent a lot time working with dull cameras too and when I pick up something that inspires me it's just a different feeling. It doesn't really matter, probably, but then it does make a difference to me. The experience of using a nice piece of gear makes the process more enjoyable. But then on a big shoot which is really busy, you don't even have the time for that or even any thoughts about it other than it just working.

Leica M, Hasselblad V, Linhof Technika & Deardorf are just cameras I have which is sort of like an affair. They are nice and they make me feel like a photographer.

I think the Speed Graphic is charming! I have the top mounted Crown and I love it.

That Fuji though, I was looking at it the other day. I don't know it's just so pedestrian looking. Such a miss mash of design and seems like it was cost prioritised. I just don't like it.

But I totally get that some people like the way it looks - what ever floats your boat.
i definitely think design and the joy of using an object has a big place in using a tool....but to anyone who uses a camera for work it probably is a tool first and as such it has to perform....and all great designers/architects, builders will agree that design without function probably falls into the bad design category....just as design to support pure functionality would almost automatically fall into the good design category.....pretty is of course very subjective.....
i would probably call the X1D pretty and it definitely feels good in the hand but i would consider the GFX a better more functional tool and continued use has definitely let me appreciate that "unfortunate" extra depth of the lcd housing....which is really the only questionable design decision when looking at the GFX....but i would rather have the bigger battery and the moveable LCD...
i really wonder what the GFX2 will look like, fuji has gotten so much negative feedback, part of it definitely because of the "good looks" of the X1D....
in the end though to me a camera has to work well first, look good second....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

hubell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1135
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #87 on: March 15, 2018, 05:43:48 pm »

Sure, the X1D LOOKS superb, but far more importantly, it is a joy to handle and shoot with. That, to me, is the real appeal. I have never used a camera that falls so perfectly in my hands the way the X1D does. It just feels like it was molded to fit in MY hands. Equally important to me is the overall user interface. It is spare, and I love that. I just hate the design philosophy behind Japanese cameras, where there is seemingly no limit to the number of options and features that they build into the menu system. I have had an X1D for over a year now, and not once have I had to read a manual to figure out how to set up the camera or have I been stumped about what I (or the camera) was doing after not using the camera for a few weeks. It has what I need to shoot, and very little more. If state of the art AF capabilities and FPS were required for what I shoot, the X1D wouldn't work. I generally use MF, and the X1D does that very well indeed. Plus, I can put the body and three lenses in a small bag and hike with the whole package effortlessly.

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #88 on: March 16, 2018, 06:12:17 am »

i definitely think design and the joy of using an object has a big place in using a tool....but to anyone who uses a camera for work it probably is a tool first and as such it has to perform....and all great designers/architects, builders will agree that design without function probably falls into the bad design category....just as design to support pure functionality would almost automatically fall into the good design category.....pretty is of course very subjective.....
i would probably call the X1D pretty and it definitely feels good in the hand but i would consider the GFX a better more functional tool and continued use has definitely let me appreciate that "unfortunate" extra depth of the lcd housing....which is really the only questionable design decision when looking at the GFX....but i would rather have the bigger battery and the moveable LCD...
i really wonder what the GFX2 will look like, fuji has gotten so much negative feedback, part of it definitely because of the "good looks" of the X1D....
in the end though to me a camera has to work well first, look good second....

Oh absolutely, if the tool doesn't do the job it's not even a consideration.

But for my purposes a camera needs only to be very simple. That's why I like the Leica M, the Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ. I have more complicated cameras too, Canon and Hasselblad H but I mostly use them on manual and just operate the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and shutter button mostly. Even if there are lots of buttons there, I hardly use them and I would rather they weren't there.

The Hasselblad X is super simple and I like it.

I can't imagine the GFX2 will look any different. I think the other thing Fuji have to contend with is brand perception. They were once a giant of the pro industry but the last decade and a half they really had to start from scratch in the consumer and amateur world. So they have so rebuilding of brand image to do.

These sort of things really shouldn't matter but they do. A photographer is, sadly, perceived by many clients as more or less legitimate, safe, reliable etc. by the gear they use. Unfortunately many see expensive gear as a mark of success and status and they tend to know which brands those are. It's amazing how many new clients point and ask "what camera are you using?" on shoot day. Even if you are using Lightroom, those that don't know can feel less assured because almost everyone is using Capture One. Silly I know, but some times it's a thing. When they see the results it's fine, but it can be awkward sometimes!

As long as I stable tether and have a curves palette I don't really care what I use.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 06:42:04 am by Bo_Dez »
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #89 on: March 16, 2018, 12:44:37 pm »

Oh absolutely, if the tool doesn't do the job it's not even a consideration.

But for my purposes a camera needs only to be very simple. That's why I like the Leica M, the Hasselblad V, Mamiya RZ. I have more complicated cameras too, Canon and Hasselblad H but I mostly use them on manual and just operate the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, and shutter button mostly. Even if there are lots of buttons there, I hardly use them and I would rather they weren't there.

The Hasselblad X is super simple and I like it.

I can't imagine the GFX2 will look any different. I think the other thing Fuji have to contend with is brand perception. They were once a giant of the pro industry but the last decade and a half they really had to start from scratch in the consumer and amateur world. So they have so rebuilding of brand image to do.

These sort of things really shouldn't matter but they do. A photographer is, sadly, perceived by many clients as more or less legitimate, safe, reliable etc. by the gear they use. Unfortunately many see expensive gear as a mark of success and status and they tend to know which brands those are. It's amazing how many new clients point and ask "what camera are you using?" on shoot day. Even if you are using Lightroom, those that don't know can feel less assured because almost everyone is using Capture One. Silly I know, but some times it's a thing. When they see the results it's fine, but it can be awkward sometimes!

As long as I stable tether and have a curves palette I don't really care what I use.
the leica M film cameras are perfect examples of great design....and i think fuji went that route when they got into digital, unfortunately there are so many more settings and things to consider these days with digital, but once set, IMO the fujis are like old manual film cameras because of the manual dials....i love the push in dial of the X1D, great idea, simple solution....and as much as i do like the os/interface/touchscreen controls of the X1D, i actually hate hate hate having to go to a (especially non tilting) screen to change simple settings....i also cant stand touch screens in cars, i need a tactile volume button or buttons to change stations,...everything else forces me to take my eyes off the road for longer then i am comfortable with....same with cameras....but as far as touchscreen interfaces go, the X1D is awesome....other then the lag and hiccups...
i completely agree that on set C1 is the standard and a big part of that is that even people who know nothing, know C1....but photoshop and LR are even better known as just as widely accepted....and i am sure nobody knows phocus but won't question why anyone would use the hasselblad app....
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #90 on: March 17, 2018, 09:58:16 am »

the leica M film cameras are perfect examples of great design....and i think fuji went that route when they got into digital, unfortunately there are so many more settings and things to consider these days with digital, but once set, IMO the fujis are like old manual film cameras because of the manual dials....i love the push in dial of the X1D, great idea, simple solution....and as much as i do like the os/interface/touchscreen controls of the X1D, i actually hate hate hate having to go to a (especially non tilting) screen to change simple settings....i also cant stand touch screens in cars, i need a tactile volume button or buttons to change stations,...everything else forces me to take my eyes off the road for longer then i am comfortable with....same with cameras....but as far as touchscreen interfaces go, the X1D is awesome....other then the lag and hiccups...
i completely agree that on set C1 is the standard and a big part of that is that even people who know nothing, know C1....but photoshop and LR are even better known as just as widely accepted....and i am sure nobody knows phocus but won't question why anyone would use the hasselblad app....
But the Leica M (and other Leica) are not overloaded with complex menus. When we need to learn a xpages manual to operate a camera, then I have some reservations. Yeah, they (Fuji) look like Leicas, they are inspired by Leicas...but they aren't.
The paradox is when one tries an Arri, which is the industry standart in movie, and realises how simple,
Clean and clever are the functions/ops and usability of the camera. Gear made to be operated by
Working people who use exclusively what is necessary to get the best imagery. Not more nor less.
No fancy stuff hidden in menus, no extra dials. Leica is minimalistic such is Arri.
Same happens to me with Fuji or Pana compared to Leica.
They are great, raffined cameras of the digihipster...but...the king is (still) the king. Imo.
Don't get me wrong, I think Fuji Leica inspired (or Pana) are great little cameras.
There are no bad cameras nowdays but not all iqual in operability.
I do like very much the GX8 for ex, but the feel, the experience has nothing to do with a proper M.
It's miles away.

There is a strange misconception in many forums which basically points that brands like Leica, Hasselblad...in short
Everything that is expensive is suspicious and are just useless cameras for posh people.
That nobody needs MF nor Leicas because Sony or Fuji are doing better for less money.
I think on the contrary that all the digital sophistication has not prooven to bring a better imagery
That what we had with snobs using their Leicalblad. Do we have a more convincing imagery
Today with touch screens, phase detect, pixel shifts, luts film simulators, 5000 fps and EVFs? Nope!
It's just a hyper lucrative tech buzz. I don't beleive a world in which the cheapest and more
Complicated is best simply because it never worked that way and never will.
What's good is expensive and what's really good is really expensive, in every single area of life.
Each time I read former Leica users who miraculously switched to Fuji cause it's better...I don't bite.
If I am a M user, I have zero interest in switching to a Fuji mirrorles system unless I have money issues.
But yes what we got are agressive campaigns of markering depts to make people buying their gears every 2 years with cosmetic vintageries, pixel counts and cutting edge technology and many users are caught by those campaigns without
Them even knowing it. I'm not sure A.Wintour has made Vogue a better quality vogue, a part from being
Insanely dictatorial to use a //.

I think that the question is a matter of "shooting philosophy". How much one is willing to pay to get
the best engineering possible, the simpliest operation possible, that fully delivers in the situations it has been designed for.
Menus and programable dials everywhere are gimmicks. One editing software used in huge Hollywood
Mega productions has...NO...menu whatsoever! (So rare that I underlined the "no") It just works. Adobe is menu oriented. Menus everywhere.
I don't share this philosophy neither in gear nor softwares.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 12:57:05 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Fotophil

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #91 on: March 17, 2018, 02:01:26 pm »

I am interested in understanding how the electronic shutter on the X1D handles landscapes with moving water. Most often my shutter speeds for flowing water are in the range of 1/8 to 1/2 sec so I wonder what the effect of the 1/4 sec (300 ms) read time would have. I do some seascape landscapes in which the surf often extends across the entire frame so would that subject to the rolling shutter effect? Would true "still life" landscapes with rocks and trees be satisfactory with ES or would breeze movements of small branches and leaves be a problem? Any suggestions?
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #92 on: March 17, 2018, 02:25:22 pm »

But the Leica M (and other Leica) are not overloaded with complex menus. When we need to learn a xpages manual to operate a camera, then I have some reservations. Yeah, they (Fuji) look like Leicas, they are inspired by Leicas...but they aren't.
The paradox is when one tries an Arri, which is the industry standart in movie, and realises how simple,
Clean and clever are the functions/ops and usability of the camera. Gear made to be operated by
Working people who use exclusively what is necessary to get the best imagery. Not more nor less.
No fancy stuff hidden in menus, no extra dials. Leica is minimalistic such is Arri.
Same happens to me with Fuji or Pana compared to Leica.
They are great, raffined cameras of the digihipster...but...the king is (still) the king. Imo.
Don't get me wrong, I think Fuji Leica inspired (or Pana) are great little cameras.
There are no bad cameras nowdays but not all iqual in operability.
I do like very much the GX8 for ex, but the feel, the experience has nothing to do with a proper M.
It's miles away.

There is a strange misconception in many forums which basically points that brands like Leica, Hasselblad...in short
Everything that is expensive is suspicious and are just useless cameras for posh people.
That nobody needs MF nor Leicas because Sony or Fuji are doing better for less money.
I think on the contrary that all the digital sophistication has not prooven to bring a better imagery
That what we had with snobs using their Leicalblad. Do we have a more convincing imagery
Today with touch screens, phase detect, pixel shifts, luts film simulators, 5000 fps and EVFs? Nope!
It's just a hyper lucrative tech buzz. I don't beleive a world in which the cheapest and more
Complicated is best simply because it never worked that way and never will.
What's good is expensive and what's really good is really expensive, in every single area of life.
Each time I read former Leica users who miraculously switched to Fuji cause it's better...I don't bite.
If I am a M user, I have zero interest in switching to a Fuji mirrorles system unless I have money issues.
But yes what we got are agressive campaigns of markering depts to make people buying their gears every 2 years with cosmetic vintageries, pixel counts and cutting edge technology and many users are caught by those campaigns without
Them even knowing it. I'm not sure A.Wintour has made Vogue a better quality vogue, a part from being
Insanely dictatorial to use a //.

I think that the question is a matter of "shooting philosophy". How much one is willing to pay to get
the best engineering possible, the simpliest operation possible, that fully delivers in the situations it has been designed for.
Menus and programable dials everywhere are gimmicks. One editing software used in huge Hollywood
Mega productions has...NO...menu whatsoever! (So rare that I underlined the "no") It just works. Adobe is menu oriented. Menus everywhere.
I don't share this philosophy neither in gear nor softwares.

no doubt that a great shot is a great shot, regardless of camera...unfortunately I (and a lot of other working photographers) have to create several great shots one a shoot and things like AF make things a lot easier, sony's eye AF is just awesome and it does make a huge difference....not having to worry about having focus locked in while considering all other things on a commercial shoot is very nice.....so is better DR or being able to shoot at 800, 1600 or 3200 iso and still not have to worry about what it looks like printed....i personal just got the fuji XH1 because of IBIS and the eterna image profile....of course one cold argue that these are amateur tools but the reality is that these days clients want and expect video on top of stills.....i used to own RED and sony FS7, but these are most of the time complete overkill and clients don't want to pay for these kind of productions on a still shoot....feature films use amateur cameras these days as crash cams or B roll....
ignore all video features, ignore all AF options, ignore all connection settings, ignore all jpeg options (incl image profiles) and the menus are pretty bare...
we never had cameras before that could do all these things....and to me all these settings (and reading the manual) really only come in when i initially test and set up the camera....for example the second top display of the XH1 and GFX are a really great solution....being able to set them up and display everything i need to see in stills and movie mode are huge time savers....because i rarely have to go into menus or use the back LCD to make adjustments.....because i honestly hate doing it and i (in general) won't during a shoot.....
i generally believe in that you get what you pay for but i strongly disagree that more expensive is better....cutting corners usually means mediocre results, but throwing money at things usually means that someone will take advantage of the situation....

the last leica i looked at was the SL, i tested it with the zoom and a summilux 35.....vs a sony A7RIII with the zeiss (yes, the worst zoom in the line up) and a voigtlander 40 1.4.....there was not one single aspect of that leica set up that was anywhere close to the sony, IQ, speed, AF, video, DR, iso,...nothing....not even size and weight....the most surprising thing was that i preferred the voigtlander to the summilux.....wide open, stopped down, CA, sharpness, OOF rendering,....
16000$ vs 4500$ and there was absolutely nothing there to justify any extra price, absolutely no reason at all to pick up the leica kit for any job or occasion regardless of price....

Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #93 on: March 17, 2018, 03:13:56 pm »

no doubt that a great shot is a great shot, regardless of camera...unfortunately I (and a lot of other working photographers) have to create several great shots one a shoot and things like AF make things a lot easier, sony's eye AF is just awesome and it does make a huge difference....not having to worry about having focus locked in while considering all other things on a commercial shoot is very nice.....so is better DR or being able to shoot at 800, 1600 or 3200 iso and still not have to worry about what it looks like printed....i personal just got the fuji XH1 because of IBIS and the eterna image profile....of course one cold argue that these are amateur tools but the reality is that these days clients want and expect video on top of stills.....i used to own RED and sony FS7, but these are most of the time complete overkill and clients don't want to pay for these kind of productions on a still shoot....feature films use amateur cameras these days as crash cams or B roll....
ignore all video features, ignore all AF options, ignore all connection settings, ignore all jpeg options (incl image profiles) and the menus are pretty bare...
we never had cameras before that could do all these things....and to me all these settings (and reading the manual) really only come in when i initially test and set up the camera....for example the second top display of the XH1 and GFX are a really great solution....being able to set them up and display everything i need to see in stills and movie mode are huge time savers....because i rarely have to go into menus or use the back LCD to make adjustments.....because i honestly hate doing it and i (in general) won't during a shoot.....
i generally believe in that you get what you pay for but i strongly disagree that more expensive is better....cutting corners usually means mediocre results, but throwing money at things usually means that someone will take advantage of the situation....

the last leica i looked at was the SL, i tested it with the zoom and a summilux 35.....vs a sony A7RIII with the zeiss (yes, the worst zoom in the line up) and a voigtlander 40 1.4.....there was not one single aspect of that leica set up that was anywhere close to the sony, IQ, speed, AF, video, DR, iso,...nothing....not even size and weight....the most surprising thing was that i preferred the voigtlander to the summilux.....wide open, stopped down, CA, sharpness, OOF rendering,....
16000$ vs 4500$ and there was absolutely nothing there to justify any extra price, absolutely no reason at all to pick up the leica kit for any job or occasion regardless of price....
Although I absolutly love the S system that I also tried when it came out for being to me the best peice of engineering/design I have ever seen on a still camera you make very good points and I agree on what you say about the cost justification of this system. It just does not deliver 3 times its astronomical cost considering the lenses also.
But it doesn't change the general idea of the fact that we generaly pay for what we get. There are some exceptions, some cheap equipments are surprisingly very good, some expensive ones can perform worse than better priced brands.
And that happened more than once in photography. The S you mentionned is a perfect example of this paradox and the hand made in germany is not going to pay the bills better.
My point was not really contradicting this, nor denying the goodies of some technological improvements when they really help to acheive the job easier. Actualy I'm not in favor of paying more just for a craftmanship excelence or a red dot.
If I can afford the experience maybe, as a whim.

The idea I wanted to share is this: when the D800 went up, I knew it was going to be a 10 years camera. And 6 years later it is still an amazing bang for the buck for now 1000 euros for still imagery. Video being 4k, let's forget it.
I strongly doubt that a photographer who sold his D800 for the next cutting edge toy suddenly
Experienced a magic increment of the keepers and an artistic enlightenment. I don't bite on this.
Technology is great, necesarly, we should not underestimate it but neither overestimate it  so thay every 2 years there is
A need for brand new stuff. But that is what happens. Nobody looks now at a D800 like nobody looks at a R1.
Everything seems to become obsolete almost inmediatly.
But again: do we have a better photography now? Do we have a better cinema now?
No, we have a cheaper imagery (in production costs).

What I like of the Leica M, is that it is not obsolete, it is still there despite its limitations.
And I still see a lot of Hasselblad in the fashion corridors.
There are here to last.
They seem to be kind of ”out” the current skizo that is happening
In the imagery today. I'm completly in favor of democratisation and reduced costs
(Although I’d prefer to be a better payed employee of Leica Germany with great social security than a chinese worker...),
But the frenesy that is happening today is out of control and there are very serious
Issues that are happening for example wlthin the motion industry.

I'm horrified by the menu system of many new generation cameras. For me it doesn't work and remains
Unproductive. For others, it's god's gift. Who's right? I don't know and probably dom't care but if I have to
Press more than twice  menu buttons or touch screens, It does not feel right.
But you mentionned a few improvements in technology that really helped the photographer
To acheive the same result smoother and sometimes better accuracy.

I agree wlth all you said in essence except for movie using mirrorless hybrid cameras (even for B, or Z) where I completly disagree on their usability and the postprod but it
Would be too long to explain why and way out of topic.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 04:01:00 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

pschefz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 586
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #94 on: March 17, 2018, 05:33:18 pm »


The idea I wanted to share is this: when the D800 went up, I knew it was going to be a 10 years camera. And 6 years later it is still an amazing bang for the buck for now 1000 euros for still imagery. Video being 4k, let's forget it.
I strongly doubt that a photographer who sold his D800 for the next cutting edge toy suddenly
Experienced a magic increment of the keepers and an artistic enlightenment. I don't bite on this.
Technology is great, necesarly, we should not underestimate it but neither overestimate it  so thay every 2 years there is
A need for brand new stuff. But that is what happens. Nobody looks now at a D800 like nobody looks at a R1.
Everything seems to become obsolete almost inmediatly.
But again: do we have a better photography now? Do we have a better cinema now?
No, we have a cheaper imagery (in production costs).


there is no 10 year camera anymore, there might bee a 10 year system or glass but even that is questionable....as much as i love some old glass that i have, i use if for a certain look now....and not everything has to be perfectly sharp and detailed....
as far as bodies go....2 years is a good rotation...the old body is still valuable enough to get some money for it and the new ones usually just do just about everything slightly better then the one it replaces....D800, D810, D850....A7RII, A7RIII (even more so) ...nobody would work with the D850 and say "no the D810 is better" because it isn't...it might not be worth the hassle and extra cost to make the switch but in the end there are a lot of people out there who have the D800 and want the D810, so right now, that makes the choice easy....
switching systems is a much bigger deal: lenses (less so with mirrorless) and of course menus and handling....but even that is in reality not that big of a deal and (like i said) I and most people i know don't like any menu system...we all agree that it gets crazy and i am pretty sure that at this point i could probably do things quicker with my cameras if i would read the manual better and use some of the features better.....same goes for my computer/trackpad....i have to force myself to learn new shortcuts and gestures and when i do, the do make my life easier...that won't change, it will only get worse (or better depending how you look at it)...it used to be that one had to deposit checks at the bank, then the ATM, then mobile, now "who writes checks anymore?"
all these advances are just on a curve that never stops going up, steeper and steeper.....i already feel i missed a few points on that curve when i watch my kids interact with devices....they are also so much more open to accepting changes and new ways, as long as they are intuitive and make sense....funny enough they have zero tolerance for bad interfaces....
i don't think it is a coincidence that film and analog is making a big comeback....the simplicity of the act of shooting (very little settings other then iso, shutter and f stop) combined with the thrill of the unexpected and the coincidence and the piece of mind that there are limited options for post (at least if you stay analog and don't hire a master printer)....its liberating....
i am very excited that hasselblad got out of their "lets relabel sonys and sell them to idiots" phase and really hope that DJI will bring some real innovation because photography needs heritage and nostalgia....which is why i think what leica is doing is great as well...i love their boutiques, i love their angagement in the community, but they will have to at some point concentrate on actually producing semi competitive cameras, because right now (other then the Q) they do not....it starts with the sensor....it would bee so much harder to argue against a leica that has the same basic specs as pix, iso, dr and general speed but the magic leica sauce applied to it, wrapped in a magic leica body, combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else) ....i would pay a premium for a A7RII leica with extra leica sauce (and i am not talking about a wood handle and ostrich leather skin)....hey, i am shooting a GFX, so i am paying a premium for slightly better IQ with lesser speed and handling (compared to D850 and A7RIII)!
Logged
schefz.com
artloch.com

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #95 on: March 17, 2018, 05:59:19 pm »

there is no 10 year camera anymore, there might bee a 10 year system or glass but even that is questionable....as much as i love some old glass that i have, i use if for a certain look now....and not everything has to be perfectly sharp and detailed....
as far as bodies go....2 years is a good rotation...the old body is still valuable enough to get some money for it and the new ones usually just do just about everything slightly better then the one it replaces....D800, D810, D850....A7RII, A7RIII (even more so) ...nobody would work with the D850 and say "no the D810 is better" because it isn't...it might not be worth the hassle and extra cost to make the switch but in the end there are a lot of people out there who have the D800 and want the D810, so right now, that makes the choice easy....
switching systems is a much bigger deal: lenses (less so with mirrorless) and of course menus and handling....but even that is in reality not that big of a deal and (like i said) I and most people i know don't like any menu system...we all agree that it gets crazy and i am pretty sure that at this point i could probably do things quicker with my cameras if i would read the manual better and use some of the features better.....same goes for my computer/trackpad....i have to force myself to learn new shortcuts and gestures and when i do, the do make my life easier...that won't change, it will only get worse (or better depending how you look at it)...it used to be that one had to deposit checks at the bank, then the ATM, then mobile, now "who writes checks anymore?"
all these advances are just on a curve that never stops going up, steeper and steeper.....i already feel i missed a few points on that curve when i watch my kids interact with devices....they are also so much more open to accepting changes and new ways, as long as they are intuitive and make sense....funny enough they have zero tolerance for bad interfaces....
i don't think it is a coincidence that film and analog is making a big comeback....the simplicity of the act of shooting (very little settings other then iso, shutter and f stop) combined with the thrill of the unexpected and the coincidence and the piece of mind that there are limited options for post (at least if you stay analog and don't hire a master printer)....its liberating....
i am very excited that hasselblad got out of their "lets relabel sonys and sell them to idiots" phase and really hope that DJI will bring some real innovation because photography needs heritage and nostalgia....which is why i think what leica is doing is great as well...i love their boutiques, i love their angagement in the community, but they will have to at some point concentrate on actually producing semi competitive cameras, because right now (other then the Q) they do not....it starts with the sensor....it would bee so much harder to argue against a leica that has the same basic specs as pix, iso, dr and general speed but the magic leica sauce applied to it, wrapped in a magic leica body, combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else) ....i would pay a premium for a A7RII leica with extra leica sauce (and i am not talking about a wood handle and ostrich leather skin)....hey, i am shooting a GFX, so i am paying a premium for slightly better IQ with lesser speed and handling (compared to D850 and A7RIII)!
I certainly agree on your comments about Leica and Hassy, and we need them in business and not with ostrich leather or champagne like boxes  ;D. I share
Your views.

And yeah, gone are the days when money was gold based. Now
Its debt based only.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 06:06:28 pm by fredjeang2 »
Logged

Bo_Dez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #96 on: March 18, 2018, 09:17:37 am »

combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else)

Actually the newest Leica lenses are all some of the best they've ever made. The 50mm APO-Summicron actually seems a bit better than the Otus, even the now older 50mm Summilux is very close to the Otus. The 75mm Noctilux looks extremely good, the colour, tonality, sharpness is next generation/next level stuff for this sort of lens. The 50mm 0.95 is ground breaking in its speed and  performance. The 28mm Summilux is stunning, the 35mm 1.4 Summilux FLE is a few years old now but absolutely magical and incredible. I would certainly use the term magical for the lenses and next to their equivalent lenses from other brands they are, in my own testing, better in many ways - expect for price of course. The 50 Noctilux next to the Canon and Nikon equivalents, there is no comparison - the Leica is significantly better, as in night and day difference - Which was my justification for buying them.

The slightly older lenses like the 90mm APO-Summicron have been eclipsed by better lenses elsewhere but these were the bench mark lenses for a good many years and in real world use aren't missing much. There is an incoming 90mm Summilux which is expected to be exceptional.

I think the Leica M is the only camera I would consider a 10 year camera. If you buy right, you find the lenses go up in value, not down. The bodies of course drop in value as to be expected with digital cameras but the performance difference in sensors between other brands is really very little in the real world use. And the lenses absolutely deliver.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 09:35:19 am by Bo_Dez »
Logged

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1020
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #97 on: March 18, 2018, 10:03:18 am »

I am interested in understanding how the electronic shutter on the X1D handles landscapes with moving water. Most often my shutter speeds for flowing water are in the range of 1/8 to 1/2 sec so I wonder what the effect of the 1/4 sec (300 ms) read time would have. I do some seascape landscapes in which the surf often extends across the entire frame so would that subject to the rolling shutter effect? Would true "still life" landscapes with rocks and trees be satisfactory with ES or would breeze movements of small branches and leaves be a problem? Any suggestions?

I don't have experience with the X1D, but I since the Phase One backs added ES I have used it exclusively. ES on the IQ3100 takes longer (about 1 second total) so the effect may be different. I would assume the effect on the X1D would be less evident than on the IQ3100.

Below are some images taken at the following shutter speeds:
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
0.6 sec
1.6 sec
1.3 sec
1/5 sec

I am sure the effect is there, but because waves are perceived more random than a person walking I do not think it is obvious. You may feel differently:

0.6 sec


0.6 sec


0.6 sec


1.6 sec


1.3 sec


1/5 sec


Dave
« Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 11:46:20 am by dchew »
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1376
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #98 on: March 18, 2018, 11:49:02 am »

there is no 10 year camera anymore, there might bee a 10 year system or glass but even that is questionable....as much as i love some old glass that i have, i use if for a certain look now....and not everything has to be perfectly sharp and detailed....
as far as bodies go....2 years is a good rotation...the old body is still valuable enough to get some money for it and the new ones usually just do just about everything slightly better then the one it replaces....D800, D810, D850....A7RII, A7RIII (even more so) ...nobody would work with the D850 and say "no the D810 is better" because it isn't...it might not be worth the hassle and extra cost to make the switch but in the end there are a lot of people out there who have the D800 and want the D810, so right now, that makes the choice easy....
switching systems is a much bigger deal: lenses (less so with mirrorless) and of course menus and handling....but even that is in reality not that big of a deal and (like i said) I and most people i know don't like any menu system...we all agree that it gets crazy and i am pretty sure that at this point i could probably do things quicker with my cameras if i would read the manual better and use some of the features better.....same goes for my computer/trackpad....i have to force myself to learn new shortcuts and gestures and when i do, the do make my life easier...that won't change, it will only get worse (or better depending how you look at it)...it used to be that one had to deposit checks at the bank, then the ATM, then mobile, now "who writes checks anymore?"
all these advances are just on a curve that never stops going up, steeper and steeper.....i already feel i missed a few points on that curve when i watch my kids interact with devices....they are also so much more open to accepting changes and new ways, as long as they are intuitive and make sense....funny enough they have zero tolerance for bad interfaces....
i don't think it is a coincidence that film and analog is making a big comeback....the simplicity of the act of shooting (very little settings other then iso, shutter and f stop) combined with the thrill of the unexpected and the coincidence and the piece of mind that there are limited options for post (at least if you stay analog and don't hire a master printer)....its liberating....
i am very excited that hasselblad got out of their "lets relabel sonys and sell them to idiots" phase and really hope that DJI will bring some real innovation because photography needs heritage and nostalgia....which is why i think what leica is doing is great as well...i love their boutiques, i love their angagement in the community, but they will have to at some point concentrate on actually producing semi competitive cameras, because right now (other then the Q) they do not....it starts with the sensor....it would bee so much harder to argue against a leica that has the same basic specs as pix, iso, dr and general speed but the magic leica sauce applied to it, wrapped in a magic leica body, combined with magic leica glass (which btw is the biggest let down for me right now, their glass isn't so magic anymore compared to everyone else) ....i would pay a premium for a A7RII leica with extra leica sauce (and i am not talking about a wood handle and ostrich leather skin)....hey, i am shooting a GFX, so i am paying a premium for slightly better IQ with lesser speed and handling (compared to D850 and A7RIII)!

I have a bit more time to write today (and apologies for my clumpsy english) and expand a bit my thoughts on this conversation because what you pointed is interesting.

The question to me, and many others as a growing movement (or countermouvement), is aimed to what kind of imagery this business is willing to go and for who and...if digital really simplified the workflows as we all claim or are there hidden aspects that in fact made it even more complicated and sometimes more costly? As photographers/videographers, there is no question: technology helps.
As viewer, art lover and consummer, not that sure.

In digital imagery, the incredible technological advances and complexities involved did not have the same impact in real life to the consummer it's aimed for.
It did mostly for the shooter and production costs, apparently and at first.

You take your car, a plane, a train, and the security aspect, ambiental, interface and performances has nothing to do with let's say the 90's. The evolution is extremely noticiable for both the client and the operator.
I take a vogue magazine from the 90's, I go to see a Branco exhibition huge prints in an art gallery and compare to what's being produced today, as a viewer, I don't notice anything except an extremely boring and repetitive HDR imagery, skin pores on models that I don't want to see.
The imagery today is pretencious, pompous and not better despite the enourmous amount of technology. Ask people (not photographers) in a movie theater, in a gallery about 50mpx, HDR and so on...they don't care. They are not interested in those things. People hardly notice the difference in a 2k dcp theater vs 4k. They enjoy the story when it's good, and the only ones who notice are  professionals. So? We have a problem here already, but
This, is a much bigger problem that is comming: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWs75BLCAA

You pointed to the fact that you have to learn new shorcuts, new workflows, new training every 2 or so years. True, we all bloody have. Is that really freedom? It's bondage! And we are all trapped. Bondage with not only photographical tools but all the post production aspect pressure that is getting more complex and expensive, and require constant educational upgrades. Wait until clients will ask 8 bloody k in HDR and we'll have to upgrade studios at the cost of a home to keep-up with the "inevitable flow of technology". And when we'll do, we'll be out of business 4 years later when the need for a new magical step will be imposed by the brand themselves. Is that the low cost of digital imagery roadmap?
It costs less first...then,
It costs more!
Brilliant! Economicaly geniouses. As you pointed Hassy, but to take a general picture and use a bit your phraseology,
Brands say: "let's sell new gear and standarts to those idiots every 2 years so they also have to renew computers, displays, softwares and we all make an enourmous amount of cash on those".
So they create the needs. And they really do.

This already is an enormous mess with proprietary curves, gammas etc...and the attempts of the academy to cure the sins on the fly has brought even more confusion in what was already a divine chaos. I join a screenshot of my studio with a red arrow to underline this current nonsense I'm talking about and it's just scratching the surface of a much bigger black hole as you know.

So the tech never ceses to grow as you pointed, and with the flow, the need to keep-up, which means that instead of enjoying our kids, wife or whatever, we, as idiots, will be obliged to learn more shortcuts, more menus, more softwares all the time.
And that is exponential as it grows.
But we still print the same size magazines don't we? and theaters have not trippled their screen sizes because of 8k.
The guy who was my photo teacher in Fine Arts does
Huge prints, 3, 4 and more meters. His work is on museums. I'm still waiting to see this quality with today's printer extremely oscur profiles and colour management jargon that became an affair only tech freaks understand...and the more hillarious of all that is, the art consummers/lovers, vogue readers, don't even care because what matters is the quality of the work, the emotion, the connection and none of those things.

Peter Lindberg could not care less about frequency separation gimmicks nor use MUAs and hates as much as I do the art directors of the agencies. He is the perfect example of a big name who said fuckoff to this industry madness and just shoots digital like in film days.
I'm not the kind of guy who like to live in the past. I love the now, I love the tech...but what is happening is 80% a big hoax
To make people buying gear and tv screens every 2 years.

To conclude, we have this never ending imagery tech, new super sensors, new AF...
What do they really brought? Marketing? Real? Both! This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!

What is happening in today's imagery? I don't know but for the viewer nothing ever happened.



Logged

Jim Kasson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2370
    • The Last Word
Re: gfx50s fujifilm or Hasselblad x1D? is one really better?
« Reply #99 on: March 18, 2018, 12:01:57 pm »


To conclude, we have this never ending imagery tech, new super sensors, new AF...
What do they really brought? Marketing? Real? Both! This morning I did something for the fun I hate doing and actually never did. I took in imaging ressources the same boring image of a house from an old rusty uncompetitive outdated unapropriate dinausor Nikon D2x 12mpx, and the current micro 4/3 super mega hyper reffined sophisticated 20mpx sensor. I upsampled both to the exact same resolution. I was sure the enormous goodies of today's tech would smatch the old D2 in the face...I was blown away when I saw the results I link here. I was not expecting what I saw but it's real. It makes think...and think big!

What is happening in today's imagery? I don't know but for the viewer nothing ever happened.

Nobody is making you ride the tech train. There are plenty of great films cameras around at attractive prices. You can still buy film, chemicals, and paper. There are many folks using alternative processes who print at least as well, and probably better, than the best printers when the processes were current. Why not you? If you though the old days were great, you can go back there, which is not true of a lot of things.

Jim
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9   Go Up