Hasselblad X Announcement on 6/19

[eronald]

Why is everything still tied to the old 50 MP sensor? It's not even that it's 50 MP, which is plenty for most things - it's that it's an old, pre-BSI sensor. A fully modern 50-75 MP MF sensor could avoid the premium pricing associated with the 100 MP sensor, which may also have cooling questions (the big body of the GFX100 is partially to hold the IBIS unit, but I thought I had also read that power and cooling were part of it). Of course, Sony doesn't make a modern 33x44mm sensor other than the 100 MP, and there may not be the market demand for one.

I almost wonder if the 50 MP sensor is already out of production - but Sony made a lot of them for some reason (maybe a big, later cancelled order for something we don't think of as a camera?), and they're sitting on a shelf somewhere, selling cheaply.

There's no intrinsic price incentive to do a new-gen 50 as the cost is defined by the surface and so would be the same as the 100. On the other hand, the old design and old process lines can run off the same chip indefinitely with zero investment and *increasing* yield.

At this point the 50MP chip is probably sold at less than a cutting edge 35mm design, and of course a loss leader chip provides a strong incentive for camera companies to keep selling it as long as they can - witness the Fuji 50R.

Edmund

[Dan Wells]

A lesser magnification is an advantage, but an old, pre-BSI sensor is a disadvantage. From what I've been able to see from looking closely at prints from the Fuji 50 MP cameras and making prints from my own Z7 files, the two just about cancel each other out.

This is not to say that the 50 MP cameras are bad (at all)... Just about the same as the very highest resolution 24x36mm pixel monsters is darned good. Both are far more than good enough for most applications. It's just that they don't seem to have a unique advantage over those few 24x36mm cameras.

If it is a loss leader chip sold for the same price or less than a top 24x36mm chip, then it makes a lot of sense... Fuji can offer a camera that is somewhat price competitive with the 24x36mm pixel monsters and has an upgrade path to the GFX 100. They have a few extra build costs over Sony or Nikon, even if the chip's around the same cost. They aren't making as many of them, nor are they sharing a lot of parts with a cheaper, higher-volume camera (a few shared bits, and a lot of firmware, with the X-series, but not like the Z7 and Z6 or the A7rIII and A7III).

They're also running at a higher voltage, using a custom three-cell battery that's not really related to anything. There are several basic sizes of the usual two-cell battery, but a Nikon EN-EL 15b is a very close relative of a Canon LP-E6 or a Sony NP-FZ100, just as the smaller Fuji W126 is a relative of a Sony FW50 and several others. The Fuji MF battery (T125) is actually the same voltage as the D5 and 1Dx II batteries, in a much smaller package with a much lower capacity (mAh).

None of these things make a huge difference in cost compared to a Z7/A7rIII - that's why the GFX 50R can sell for as little as it does. Hasselblad is trying for a slightly different market, especially with the expensive lenses. Of course, the problem (for both companies) is that, once Sony runs out of however many old 50 MP sensors they have stockpiled, they either won't be willing to make more, or will charge much more for them. I wonder if I'm right that a big order (quite possibly from some three-letter Federal agency whose employees favor trenchcoats) might have gotten cancelled? If so, how many sensors is Sony selling as loss leaders?

[eronald]

Dan,

 The 50Mp is a very old sensor. When the first camera with it got released, I think the Phase, images from the sensor were seen which were 2 (!) years previous. Now Fuji and Hassy are selling cameras with it, and these are just simple retools of an existing design, so basically it's all profit for everybody - chip run off on old lines, cameras with old designs.

I don't think they're using old chips necessarily because the Fuji version has a bespoke microlens/CFA covering, and also I can't imagine *anybody* needed a stock of 10K+ 50Mp chips for remote sensing, unless someone was planning to put a high-rez people recognizer on every street corner of every major city in the US, and the format and frame rate isn't right for that (I believe).

My belief is that these sensors continue to be made, their CFA possibly still might get tuned again - eg a monochrome version released as a "special edition", and when they get stopped in 2 years or so, the current 100MP BSI sensor will be the loss-leader legacy product. This strategy keeps everybody coming to Sony for chips, and gives MF companies an entry-price product which was sorely lacking.

Edmund

A lesser magnification is an advantage, but an old, pre-BSI sensor is a disadvantage. From what I've been able to see from looking closely at prints from the Fuji 50 MP cameras and making prints from my own Z7 files, the two just about cancel each other out.

This is not to say that the 50 MP cameras are bad (at all)... Just about the same as the very highest resolution 24x36mm pixel monsters is darned good. Both are far more than good enough for most applications. It's just that they don't seem to have a unique advantage over those few 24x36mm cameras.

If it is a loss leader chip sold for the same price or less than a top 24x36mm chip, then it makes a lot of sense... Fuji can offer a camera that is somewhat price competitive with the 24x36mm pixel monsters and has an upgrade path to the GFX 100. They have a few extra build costs over Sony or Nikon, even if the chip's around the same cost. They aren't making as many of them, nor are they sharing a lot of parts with a cheaper, higher-volume camera (a few shared bits, and a lot of firmware, with the X-series, but not like the Z7 and Z6 or the A7rIII and A7III).

They're also running at a higher voltage, using a custom three-cell battery that's not really related to anything. There are several basic sizes of the usual two-cell battery, but a Nikon EN-EL 15b is a very close relative of a Canon LP-E6 or a Sony NP-FZ100, just as the smaller Fuji W126 is a relative of a Sony FW50 and several others. The Fuji MF battery (T125) is actually the same voltage as the D5 and 1Dx II batteries, in a much smaller package with a much lower capacity (mAh).

None of these things make a huge difference in cost compared to a Z7/A7rIII - that's why the GFX 50R can sell for as little as it does. Hasselblad is trying for a slightly different market, especially with the expensive lenses. Of course, the problem (for both companies) is that, once Sony runs out of however many old 50 MP sensors they have stockpiled, they either won't be willing to make more, or will charge much more for them. I wonder if I'm right that a big order (quite possibly from some three-letter Federal agency whose employees favor trenchcoats) might have gotten cancelled? If so, how many sensors is Sony selling as loss leaders?

[SrMi]

A lesser magnification is an advantage, but an old, pre-BSI sensor is a disadvantage. From what I've been able to see from looking closely at prints from the Fuji 50 MP cameras and making prints from my own Z7 files, the two just about cancel each other out.
<snip>

What is wrong with pre-BSI sensors, especially on FF and larger sensors? BSI is most useful on small sensors. Nikon has stated they use BSI more for speed increase than for anything else. When camera manufacturers switched from non-BSI to BSI sensor there was no noticeable difference in image quality, AFAIK.
Your claim that there is no image difference in FF and "crop" MF  opens a can of worms :-), a claim that probably anyone who owns both FF and MF cameras would strongly disagree.

[mcbroomf]

The main difference on the Sony A7R series from going to BSI sensors (when the A7R2 was released) was the edge and corner colour cast was eliminated on lenses with short rear pupil distances (typically wide angle RF type lenses)

[eronald]

We happen to have a straight-shooting Fuji (and Hassy?) dealer here, Steve Hendrix, maybe he can tell us what people say about the 50MP generation sensor cameras as of now.

Edmund

What is wrong with pre-BSI sensors, especially on FF and larger sensors? BSI is most useful on small sensors. Nikon has stated they use BSI more for speed increase than for anything else. When camera manufacturers switched from non-BSI to BSI sensor there was no noticeable difference in image quality, AFAIK.
Your claim that there is no image difference in FF and "crop" MF  opens a can of worms :-), a claim that probably anyone who owns both FF and MF cameras would strongly disagree.

[Rob C]

Unless you need/want a leaf shutter. Different tools for different jobs. I was looking at the Fuji and was seriously considering it. I like it. But this new Blad has me thinking. Not that money is not an object but you need the tools that suite your work and make your life easier and the leaf shutter does it for me.

Congratulations on a lovely portfolio!

Rob

[Gary Mulcahey]

Thanks you Rob!!That site is due for an upgrade.

[Jim Kasson]

What is wrong with pre-BSI sensors, especially on FF and larger sensors? BSI is most useful on small sensors. Nikon has stated they use BSI more for speed increase than for anything else. When camera manufacturers switched from non-BSI to BSI sensor there was no noticeable difference in image quality, AFAIK.
Your claim that there is no image difference in FF and "crop" MF  opens a can of worms :-), a claim that probably anyone who owns both FF and MF cameras would strongly disagree.

I didn't see that Nikon statement, and IMHO, the big improvement in BSI sensors is drastically reduced CFA crosstalk. I saw that with the Sony a7 line when they made the switch. I think that BSI should be a huge improvement for MF with short, symmetric  lenses. The reason you see more BSI in small sensors is that it's easier to use that technique for small sensors.

Jim

[pschefz]

Your claim that there is no image difference in FF and "crop" MF  opens a can of worms :-), a claim that probably anyone who owns both FF and MF cameras would strongly disagree.

the difference between top of the line FF and this 50mpix sensor are very, very slim and for most applications not visible....
if anyone looks at the XD or GFX 50 cameras to go to a different level of IQ, it wont happen....
there are some areas where they might make more sense and if those applications aren't impacted by overall speed, AF and size/weight then there is a case to be made for a XD or GFX over A7RIII or other latest FF.....but even then the differences are very small and final format (3:4 vs 2:3) and that extra sliver of DR might be a deciding factor in favor of the crop MF sensors....

at this point these two new hasselblad announcements to me are a few years too late....i would love to have both the new XD and that back, along with a few lenses...as a MF system for higher IQ....and a high end FF for faster work....turns out the FF does both....for a fraction of the cost and in reality with the same IQ....not very sexy but.....

and this does not take into consideration that sony will have a new high end FF out in the next 6?9?12? months that will beat these hasselblads in IQ as well....and provide all other advantages.....for a fraction of the cost....and sexiness.....

[BernardLanguillier]

The painful thing with the X1D II and the non communicating Hasselblad is that there may be nothing else for years.

Yes, it’s a sweet camera today with very nice lenses, but arguably it doesn’t expand the range of applications vs the original and progresses slower than both it’s FF and small MF competition.

Since I still hope to get an H7D-150 to mount on my Arca at a fraction of the cost of the born broken IQ4-150, I may be shooting myself in the foot here, but honnesty speaking, I fail to see how this announcement contributes to securing the viability of Hasselblad as a provider of top end equipment.

It feels more like an acknowledgment of “defeat”... they are whispering to our ears.. “that’s all we can do”.

They have not even attempted to add a joystick for AF control... this makes this update err on the side of tiny rather than minor. It speaks of extreme cost control rather than photographer satisfaction.

I mean, I wish them well and some fans seem happy so... let’s at least hope that the camera will be bug free when it reaches the shelves.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hubell]

The painful thing with the X1D II and the non communicating Hasselblad is that there may be nothing else for years.

Yes, it’s a sweet camera today with very nice lenses, but arguably it doesn’t expand the range of applications vs the original and progresses slower than both it’s FF and small MF competition.

Since I still hope to get an H7D-150 to mount on my Arca at a fraction of the cost of the born broken IQ4-150, I may be shooting myself in the foot here, but honnesty speaking, I fail to see how this announcement contributes to securing the viability of Hasselblad as a provider of top end equipment.

It feels more like an acknowledgment of “defeat”... they are whispering to our ears.. “that’s all we can do”.

They have not even attempted to add a joystick for AF control... this makes this update err on the side of tiny rather than minor. It speaks of extreme cost control rather than photographer satisfaction.

I mean, I wish them well and some fans seem happy so... let’s at least hope that the camera will be bug free when it reaches the shelves.

Cheers,
Bernard

Really, the answer is simple. If you want the stuff that Fuji is peddling, you should buy a Fuji. Anyone who buys an X1D thinking they will be getting an upscale version of an XT3 is sadly mistaken. Fortunately, the thousands of photographers who bought the X1D knew that’s not what they were getting, and that’s precisely why they bought it.

[eronald]

Really, the answer is simple. If you want the stuff that Fuji is peddling, you should buy a Fuji. Anyone who buys an X1D thinking they will be getting an upscale version of an XT3 is sadly mistaken. Fortunately, the thousands of photographers who bought the X1D knew that’s not what they were getting, and that’s precisely why they bought it.

Hassy could speed up its camera a bit, there's no shame in a camera actually taking a picture sooner rather than later.

Edmund

[TechTalk]

Hassy could speed up its camera a bit, there's no shame in a camera actually taking a picture sooner rather than later.

Edmund

You must have missed it. They announced an upgraded camera called the X1D II that does what you suggest a couple of days ago.

[BernardLanguillier]

Really, the answer is simple. If you want the stuff that Fuji is peddling, you should buy a Fuji. Anyone who buys an X1D thinking they will be getting an upscale version of an XT3 is sadly mistaken. Fortunately, the thousands of photographers who bought the X1D knew that’s not what they were getting, and that’s precisely why they bought it.

You're the one bringing Fuji into this discussion.

But ok, there are 3 things that come to my mind:
1. As a now happy H6D-100c owner, I would like to get updates about the future of the H platform. Nothing has been released for 2 years and their main competitors announced a 150mp back 10 months ago. Even if they don't have a product ready to ship (P1 still isn't ready to ship anyway although they have been shipping for months a non fully functional camera), it wouldn't have been easy for them to communicate about the platform, but they didn't, hence the "non-communicating".
2. As a Hasselblad customer, I want to be reassured that the company continues to invest, and when I see that they didn't even want to redesign the back of the X1D to add a joystick to speed up AF point selection, probably due to concerns about die mold costs, I am not reassured,
3. Finally, I can understand that Hasselblad isn't able to reuse components developed for larger volume platforms, but you must be aware about the fact that the world keeps evolving. When the X1D was released, Fuji also only had contrast AF. This isn't the case any longer. So yes, X1D customer accepted the limitation of the AF of their camera... but there was nothing better at the time. I would agree that the GFX100 isn't in the same category as the X1D/GFX50 since its much more bulky and that as we speak all compact MF bodies still only feature contrast AF, but we all know that the GFX50 II will most probably get on sensor PDAF also and it cannot be more than a few months away.

I am not a Fuji customer poking fun at Hasselblad. I am a customer of both companies who is worried about his very high investment in Hasselblad.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BobShaw]

To me at least, what Hasselblad has announced makes huge sense.

Those people who invested a lot of money to buy a CFV back to supercharge a horse have been rewarded for their nostalgic tear in eye love of the 50 year old square format V series with a new body and the ability to use not just V series lenses but X and even H series as well. If you were looking for a portrait format camera then the 500 series was never that.

Those who bought the X1D have probably been very happy with their purchase. The new model is faster and has a built in GPS allowing GPS with flash. Both good things. If you can't afford the X series lenses, of which there are now a lot, then you can still use your H series or V series, or even X pan lenses. Lots of choice really and for landscape the Canon Tilt shift lenses.  A zoom is a welcome addition. I haven't tried the new Phocus Mobile yet but apparently it has more features. I never found it lacking features anyway. I shoot tethered to a MacBook while the customer monitors and rates on the iPad. Direct to an iPad or iPhone is fine for me.

If you need 100MP or more then you have the H6. I don't think that there will huge developments in these huge cameras going forward. The design will just get minor refinements.

If you truly need a camera to photograph athletes then unless they are standing still at the finish line then you are in the wrong part of the forum. Buy a Canon or Nikon.

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, giving access to X1D lenses to CFV back owners is a smart move.

It’s a great way to optimize existing assets with minimal investment.

Cheers,
Bernard

[faberryman]

Yes, giving access to X1D lenses to CFV back owners is a smart move. It’s a great way to optimize existing assets with minimal investment.

With no price announced, we do not know whether it is a "minimal investment" or not.

[Rob C]

And as with all of these matters, it comes down to what the individual's business - or private wallet - can afford.

But having nothing more than what you need to get the job done is not always the point. Though I might have been doing a studio shoot on Nikon was no reason not to keep the Hasselblads and lenses on open display: some clients were informed about these things, and took notice, sometimes just by looking, but often by questions about why not use them instead of the camera actually being operated. When both are obviously available, your replies are taken at face value, not as excuses for something you can't afford to have. Confidence matters greatly in business, probably more than anything else. Hence the Mercedes, Jaguar etc.

Rob

[BernardLanguillier]

With no price announced, we don not know whether it is a "minimal investment" or not.

The investment is minimal for Hasselblad...

Cheers,
Bernard