Does the X1D resolve better than 8 x 10 film?

[eronald]

To me, a cheap entry level model makes sense; one could even imagine a really cheap version of this camera with a 35mm sensor dropped in, or one with a sensor with a wide cine aspect ratio like the old Xpan

Edmund

[BobShaw]

Perhaps there should be a sentence at the end of each comment along the lines of one of the following:
1. I own and use this camera
2. I have used this camera
3. I have seen and held this camera
4. I know someone who has seen this camera
5. I never used, held, or even seen this camera and have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about.
(:-)

[Chris Barrett]

6. What is camera?

[D Fuller]

... nikon is coming out with a mirrorless system to go head to head with sony's A7 line....the next fuji and hasselblad models will not only have to have pretty amazing sensors (to keep an edge) but also really step up the overall handling and functionality of the bodies.....it wont be enough for the X2D or GFX100 to have better AF then a phase or H6....it will be compared to the A7RIII and D850....i think fuji will have an advantage because of their in house experience with the smaller systems....

I think this is a really good point. It’s hard to imagine MF giving speed of focusing comparable to Sony or Nikon or Canon. There’s just too much mass in the lenses for them to be as quick without the lenses becoming much larger to house more powerful motors (see the Leica SL). But one of the real compromises in usabilit6 for the X1D is the need to close the leaf shutter before it can open to take a shot. It requires a delay that is very hard to live with for some uses. I wonder if an electronic shutter mode would be possible in a MF sensor, and if that could provide an effective alternative for some use cases?

[eronald]

Perhaps there should be a sentence at the end of each comment along the lines of one of the following:
1. I own and use this camera
2. I have used this camera
3. I have seen and held this camera
4. I know someone who has seen this camera
5. I never used, held, or even seen this camera and have absolutely no idea of what I am talking about.
(:-)

Do you request the same of politicians or journalists?

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It is not necessary to close the shutter before exposure. The exposure can be started by just resetting the sensor. That is the same method that is used for electronic first shutter curtain. As far as I know, Hasselblad uses this technology to achieve 1/2000s sync time.

With present technology, global simultaneous readout is not possible with normal CMOS. So it is possible to start an exposure with a global reset, but it is not possible to terminate it with a global readout.

Electronic First Curtain is possible with Focal Plane shutter. Exposure starts with open shutter the sensor is reset row for row, resulting in a sweeping reset. This acts as first curtain. The second curtain terminates exposure. The sweeping reset and the second curtain must be in sync.

So, exposure starts with shutter open and terminates with the second shutter fully closed.

The electronic shutter on the X1D and the GFX is a virtual electronic focal plane shutter. The first curtain is a sweeping reset. The second curtain is a sweeping readout of the sensor. But, full readout of the sensor takes around 300 ms. The sweep time of the electronic shutter is thus around 300 ms.

Global shutter is possible, if the charge in each pixel can be popped to a storage position, but that means giving up half of the sensor area for storage, meaning 41% increase in noise and a loss of 1EV in DR.

Best regards
Erik

I think this is a really good point. It’s hard to imagine MF giving speed of focusing comparable to Sony or Nikon or Canon. There’s just too much mass in the lenses for them to be as quick without the lenses becoming much larger to house more powerful motors (see the Leica SL). But one of the real compromises in usabilit6 for the X1D is the need to close the leaf shutter before it can open to take a shot. It requires a delay that is very hard to live with for some uses. I wonder if an electronic shutter mode would be possible in a MF sensor, and if that could provide an effective alternative for some use cases?

[D Fuller]

[In the interest of full disclosure, I’m in category 3: I’ve held and tried this camera, but only in a camera store. So my time with it and knowledge is very limited.]

So that is different from what I understood, and perhaps the need to close the shutter is a changeable setting. That would be good. My understanding was that electronic shutter was possible on the 50mp chips, but at a readout so slow that it’s not really useable in many (especially hand held) situations. Global shutter is a few years away, I expect. (We’re not seeing much of it yet even in motion cameras, where ther is a lot of interest in it for a variety of reasons.) But my thought was that responsiveness improvements in the ‘decisive moment’ were likely to be important—and possible—in the next generation, even in the face of physics that limit pure focus speed.

Hi,

It is not necessary to close the shutter before exposure. The exposure can be started by just resetting the sensor. That is the same method that is used for electronic first shutter curtain. As far as I know, Hasselblad uses this technology to achieve 1/2000s sync time.

With present technology, global simultaneous readout is not possible with normal CMOS. So it is possible to start an exposure with a global reset, but it is not possible to terminate it with a global readout.

Electronic First Curtain is possible with Focal Plane shutter. Exposure starts with open shutter the sensor is reset row for row, resulting in a sweeping reset. This acts as first curtain. The second curtain terminates exposure. The sweeping reset and the second curtain must be in sync.

So, exposure starts with shutter open and terminates with the second shutter fully closed.

The electronic shutter on the X1D and the GFX is a virtual electronic focal plane shutter. The first curtain is a sweeping reset. The second curtain is a sweeping readout of the sensor. But, full readout of the sensor takes around 300 ms. The sweep time of the electronic shutter is thus around 300 ms.

Global shutter is possible, if the charge in each pixel can be popped to a storage position, but that means giving up half of the sensor area for storage, meaning 41% increase in noise and a loss of 1EV in DR.

Best regards
Erik

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Just for your information, I was looking for having a demonstration of the X1D at the museum of photography in Stockholm (capital of Sweden), but they just had a stand with some mock ups and DJI drones. Later I was looking for Hasselblad at the Stockholm Photo Exhibition in Stockholm, the main photo gear exhibition in Sweden, but Hasselblad could not be found.

Fuji was there, and I could play with the GFX.

That said, I don't think it is possible to evaluate a camera system in a short demo. You need to work with the system for a few months to find weaknesses and strengths. user testing is just too much error prone and subject to bias.

Looking at test, like DPReview is actually pretty good. Professional testers do testing for living and they know a couple of things about testing. They also have invested a lot in test setups and testing experience.

Looking at DPReview tests tells far more about any camera than doubling with it for a few days or weeks.

Best regards
Erik

[In the interest of full disclosure, I’m in category 3: I’ve held and tried this camera, but only in a camera store. So my time with it and knowledge is very limited.]

So that is different from what I understood, and perhaps the need to close the shutter is a changeable setting. That would be good. My understanding was that electronic shutter was possible on the 50mp chips, but at a readout so slow that it’s not really useable in many (especially hand held) situations. Global shutter is a few years away, I expect. (We’re not seeing much of it yet even in motion cameras, where ther is a lot of interest in it for a variety of reasons.) But my thought was that responsiveness improvements in the ‘decisive moment’ were likely to be important—and possible—in the next generation, even in the face of physics that limit pure focus speed.

[DougDolde]

The X1D surely has less resolution but film, at least transparency film, has nowhere the dynamic range of the 50 or 100 mp sensor nor does it have the high iso capability.  Then there is the hassle of loading film holders, the expense of film, developing, and scanning.

Practically speaking film is dead for all but the die hards

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

Based on my experience, I would agree with what you say.

But, if you have a time and a great drum scanner it may make some sense to use large format film.

This video tells a story: https://luminous-landscape.com/single-video/charlie-cramers-story/

Listen in at around 17:40 in the video...

Best regards
Erik

The X1D surely has less resolution but film, at least transparency film, has nowhere the dynamic range of the 50 or 100 mp sensor nor does it have the high iso capability.  Then there is the hassle of loading film holders, the expense of film, developing, and scanning.

Practically speaking film is dead for all but the die hards

[tcdeveau]

[In the interest of full disclosure, I’m in category 3: I’ve held and tried this camera, but only in a camera store. So my time with it and knowledge is very limited.]

So that is different from what I understood, and perhaps the need to close the shutter is a changeable setting. That would be good. My understanding was that electronic shutter was possible on the 50mp chips, but at a readout so slow that it’s not really useable in many (especially hand held) situations. Global shutter is a few years away, I expect. (We’re not seeing much of it yet even in motion cameras, where ther is a lot of interest in it for a variety of reasons.) But my thought was that responsiveness improvements in the ‘decisive moment’ were likely to be important—and possible—in the next generation, even in the face of physics that limit pure focus speed.

The limitations of the e-shutter on the X1D are pretty overblown and my impression from people actually using the X1D with third party lenses is that the limitations of eshutter on the X1D aren't really that big a deal in real world usage.  Yes we're all aware of the readout speed, but it's an instance in my mind where tech specs don't necessarily match up with real-world results. 

For example, if you head over to hasselbladdigitalforum.com, there's a thread with sample images with an X1D and a 350mm Hassy V lens handheld, demonstrating it's perfectly usable even at longer focal lengths with moving subjects.  Even when e-shutter for the X1D was announced, Ming Thein posted samples with various Zeiss lenses handheld in a concert atmosphere, which is challenging light even for cameras without eshutter.  There are numerous examples over at GetDPI, the X1D facebook group, etc of people using the X1D in eshutter mode in a variety of settings and shooting configurations, which demonstrates it is actually mostly usable, rather than mostly unusable. 

In my limited testing with eshutter and the X1D I found it to be fine for my purposes too, although I personally prefer sticking with the native lenses (I have the 21, 30, 45, and 90 XCD). 

[Chris Barrett]

The limitations of the e-shutter on the X1D are pretty overblown...

Except that you can't use strobe, right? Which pretty much precludes it from being useful in about 90% of professional situations.  Point to the GFX.  Also, back to Doug's point about DR.  I've found neg films, color and b&w to have DR very comparable to digital.  My a7r3 has become the polaroid for my studio film shoots.  As for transparency... yeah, I definitely do not miss having 5 or 6 stops to work with.

CB

[tcdeveau]

Except that you can't use strobe, right? Which pretty much precludes it from being useful in about 90% of professional situations.  Point to the GFX.  Also, back to Doug's point about DR.  I've found neg films, color and b&w to have DR very comparable to digital.  My a7r3 has become the polaroid for my studio film shoots.  As for transparency... yeah, I definitely do not miss having 5 or 6 stops to work with.

CB

That is true I think, but for situations that don't require strobe it is a lot more usable than people make it to be. 

For anyone that relies heavily on adapting third party lenses (and needs strobes), the GFX (or camera with a FPS) is a better option.  I like that eshutter is there if I need it, but I don't really use it.  I would think too for architectural work, the a7r3 is probably a better choice than the GFX or X1D because you probably get greater range of movements with the smaller sensor and can utilize pixel shift?
-Todd

[pschefz]

The limitations of the e-shutter on the X1D are pretty overblown and my impression from people actually using the X1D with third party lenses is that the limitations of eshutter on the X1D aren't really that big a deal in real world usage.  Yes we're all aware of the readout speed, but it's an instance in my mind where tech specs don't necessarily match up with real-world results. 

For example, if you head over to hasselbladdigitalforum.com, there's a thread with sample images with an X1D and a 350mm Hassy V lens handheld, demonstrating it's perfectly usable even at longer focal lengths with moving subjects.  Even when e-shutter for the X1D was announced, Ming Thein posted samples with various Zeiss lenses handheld in a concert atmosphere, which is challenging light even for cameras without eshutter.  There are numerous examples over at GetDPI, the X1D facebook group, etc of people using the X1D in eshutter mode in a variety of settings and shooting configurations, which demonstrates it is actually mostly usable, rather than mostly unusable. 

In my limited testing with eshutter and the X1D I found it to be fine for my purposes too, although I personally prefer sticking with the native lenses (I have the 21, 30, 45, and 90 XCD).

its not overblown since the issue definitely is there, that does not mean that a lot of people might only shoot situations where it is no problem at all....for others it might be the opposite....
i personally have had issue using the e shutter even with sonys and had problems there, i have tried it on my GFX and it does not make any sense for me to use it....
if anyone really wants to shoot with 3rd party lenses, the GFX probably makes more sense but it is good to have the option anyway....

a friend of mine was just asked to shoot a celebrity editorial for a high end european fashion magazine and they asked him to shoot film as well as polaroids.....he obviously shot digital as well....all the hip kids (who did not grow up shooting film) are shooting film now, i think its great, i can do it as well but i know why i prefer digital....

to me the discussion about shooting film ends when scanning gets involved....makes zero sense to me at that point.....i can totally understand an analog master print from negative....

a digital print from a scanned negative is a little bit like using all the new turntables which come with direct USB out to rip records....i get buying vinyl and the process of listening....but it just makes me wonder how many people just play the record once (what a pain to flip it over!) and from that moment on listen on their iPhones anyway......

once one takes all things involved with 4x5 or 8x10 capture, analog printing (or high end scanning) and the price into consideration, even the highest end digital capture device seems reasonable if the only concern is quality and detail....
if it is all about the process, then why does it matter if film out resolves digital?

[pschefz]

That is true I think, but for situations that don't require strobe it is a lot more usable than people make it to be. 

For anyone that relies heavily on adapting third party lenses (and needs strobes), the GFX (or camera with a FPS) is a better option.  I like that eshutter is there if I need it, but I don't really use it.  I would think too for architectural work, the a7r3 is probably a better choice than the GFX or X1D because you probably get greater range of movements with the smaller sensor and can utilize pixel shift?
-Todd

pixel shift is pretty insane, the quality is crazy....and i would assume that even right now it probably comes pretty close to what the GFX 100 or X2D100 will do (with single shot)....and i agree that if one does shoot mostly static situations (where pixel shift can be used) the A7RIII might be a better choice......
i am not sure about movements as i havent really looked into the options available.....i guess the issue is the trade off lens coverage and what the lens can resolve....
every 3rd party lens i have tried on my own GFX has looked pretty disappointing....some are better then others but so far i have always clearly preferred native fuji glass.....
i am not sure a lens that does not blow me away on the GFX will be so much better on the A7RIII with pixel shift?
again: it is awesome to have these options available and especially at such (comparably) low cost....

[D Fuller]

... I don't think it is possible to evaluate a camera system in a short demo. You need to work with the system for a few months to find weaknesses and strengths. user testing is just too much error prone and subject to bias.

Looking at test, like DPReview is actually pretty good. Professional testers do testing for living and they know a couple of things about testing. They also have invested a lot in test setups and testing experience.

Looking at DPReview tests tells far more about any camera than doubling with it for a few days or weeks.

Best regards
Erik

Erik, I totally agree with this. Unfortunately, it’s pretty hard to arrange that kind of long-term test of very many camera systems unless you have quite a lot of money to devote to it.

I’m looking at a lot of things right now because I’ve reached a point where it’s time to refresh quite a lot of my camera hardware. I’m seeing things in shots that just aren’t good enough on an optical level, and it’s time to upgrade bodies as well, so that opens a lot of options. The the kind of look you get at a showod in a store, is useful, but more because it lets you feel the weight and size of the camera. And confirm a few things you’ve read and brings up questions to research later.

[BobShaw]

Except that you can't use strobe, right? Which pretty much precludes it from being useful in about 90% of professional situations.  Point to the GFX.  Also, back to Doug's point about DR.  I've found neg films, color and b&w to have DR very comparable to digital.  My a7r3 has become the polaroid for my studio film shoots.  As for transparency... yeah, I definitely do not miss having 5 or 6 stops to work with.

Well actually that is one of the main reasons people buy the X1D. It is fantastic with strobes. The leaf shutter system gives you up to 1/2000S shutter sync speed. (That assumes that you are professional enough to use the lenses made for it.) Compare that to the GFX (not the subject of this thread by the way) which only has a piddling 1/125S sync speed. So you have 4 stops better flash performance to use either less flash or more movement.

As for flash being 90% of professional situations, well  certainly not for landscapes and I know many highly paid portrait and even wedding togs who have never used flash.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Chris is in architecture photography as main profession, as far as I know. In that business shift lenses are needed. Chris is using a technical camera. So, a leaf shutter doesn't help him as the lenses he needs are not available for Hasselblad. Flash will not work with E-shutter.

Personally, I am mostly a landscape shooter. Shooting landscape I often resort to tilts. I would think E-shutter would work with tilts.

Best regards
Erik

Well actually that is one of the main reasons people buy the X1D. It is fantastic with strobes. The leaf shutter system gives you up to 1/2000S shutter sync speed. (That assumes that you are professional enough to use the lenses made for it.) Compare that to the GFX (not the subject of this thread by the way) which only has a piddling 1/125S sync speed. So you have 4 stops better flash performance to use either less flash or more movement.

As for flash being 90% of professional situations, well  certainly not for landscapes and I know many highly paid portrait and even wedding togs who have never used flash.

[StuartR]

It's interesting that this discussion has not touched on printing...are we talking about resolution on the screen? If you are printing analog, the 8x10 is going to outresolve the X1D for a long way, as well as any other digital camera. The reason being that the max resolution for printers tops out at 360-720dpi and is not continuous tone. At small to moderate sizes and contact prints, the smoothness and resolution of the film print is going to surpass that of the digital print, which forces you to discard information below the native print size. I am not saying an analog print has infinite resolution, but in my experience they are sharper than digital prints when working with large film and moderate paper sizes. When you start printing very large, you hold on to the good tonality, but you lose the fine detail to the break down of optical chain (misalignments, vibration, sagging paper in wall prints etc). Here digital has the advantage again for being able to lay down the detail accurately regardless of print size.

Which is better? I like Nabokov, you like Dostoevsky. They are both great Russian authors. Which is better, pizza or hamburger? The answer is yes.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Getting back to the original question, I think that there are two answers:

• If the X1D is good enough, why shoot 8"x10"?!
• If the X1D is delivering the resolution/sharpness from 8"x10" clearly depends on how the 8"x10" images are exposed and processed.

Historically, many 4"x5" photographers switched to the P45 when it arrived back in 2006. According to some testing by Charlie Cramer, the P45 was very close to 4"x5" in things like resolution.

Michael Reichmann, Bill Atkinson and Charlie Cramer all had the P45 backs and did a shootout comparing with other systems, including 4"x5" Velvia. The result was that the P45 was good enough to replace 4"x5". A similar analysis was done by Joseph Holmes. So, it seems that 39 MP was competitive with 4"x5".

8"x10" has four times the area compared to 4"x5" so we would need 4x39 mp to match, if the P45 was a good match for 4"x5" film.

But, there are some buts. Large format film is often used with small apertures to have enough DoF and once you stop down beyond say f/11, diffraction will take is tribute.

On the other hand, small medium format also needs to be stopped down for DoF and diffraction may be noticable at f/5.6. Large format often has tilts and swings, so the focal plane can be tilted. The X1D does not really have that option. So, if you don't have tilt, you may need to stop down far to much also on the X1D.

I would be pretty sure that excellent prints can be made at almost any size from a well executed 50 MP image. Much depends on the lenses and good lenses perform best at large to medium apertures.

Achieving optimal results on 8"x10" is probably not easy. On EVF systems vi can magnify LV to the pixel level. i would presume the X1D has that capability. A modern CMOS camera has live view, good histograms etc. So, there is reason that the images we make would be less than optimal.

But, I think the X1D deserves a 100 MP sensor...

Best regards
Erik

Just saw this video on the Hasselblad site and at about the 1.20 mark, he states that he had his lab do a print and that it was able to resolve better than those from his film 8 x 10 camera....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=60&v=1BplS1MmZXk

Anybody shooting with either the X1D or GFX and care to comment? 

I still think the prints I have seen from 8 x 10 negatives are the absolute ultimate to my eyes but would be interested to know what others thought..