What medium format, Phaseone

[TechTalk]

Not sure if you caught that I'm a Hass owner, who isn't trying to beat down a brand (they're doing a plenty good job of doing it themselves).

No disparagement - everything stated is true & well hashed here on LuLa.  Hass made business decisions, Phase made business decisions. Phase doesn't want to be on the hook for Hass's decisions & lack of action.  As I stated, some HC glass is up for the 150mp sensor, but a lot isn't. There are plenty of H mount IQ1/2/3 backs available to those who bought into the system, unfortunately there is an end to it.  Yes, the H6D is better than the H5D & H4D platforms, but that wasn't part of this discussion.

I put my name on these statements, please do the same with yours.

For a company beating itself down, it seems to be in amazing health! They've had a dramatic increase in sales volume since the release of the X1D.

If one were to go today to the B&H website and sort the list of medium format cameras by "Best Sellers" (please note that although Best Sellers shows in the drop down sort menu by default, you have to actually click on and select Best Sellers for it to then sort the list that way), you would find that their best sellers are:

B&H Medium Format Best Sellers

#1 Hasselblad X1D II (which has a flag next to the product image on it's page which says #1 Seller)  https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1487057-REG/hasselblad_x1d_ii_50c_medium.html

#2 Fuji GFX 100 (Over the past week or so it has traded places with the X1D II for the #1 spot a couple of times. Prior to that the X1D II was at #1 for about a month solid)

#3 Hasselblad 907x Special Edition Mirrorless Camera (907x with CFV II 50c Package)

#4 Fuji GFX 50R

#5 Pentax 645Z

#6 Fuji GFX 50S

Now this is just one data point, so not too much should be made of it (though they are the largest photo retailer in the U.S.). And I bring it up only to illustrate a couple of things. 1) It indicates that Hasselblad is hardly a beaten down company. They are obviously making products that have some impact in the market. 2) They are all mirrorless except for the Pentax (which has no removable back).

Now you might say (and if you don't, Doug likely will) that Phase One doesn't compete in that space. And you'd be right. The question is... Why not? It is the direction that  technology and the entire market is heading. And at a rapid pace! It's as if they've painted themselves into a corner, but don't realize it because they're facing the wall. Unfortunately, the wall keeps getting closer.

Today, Hasselblad is expanding the options for their customers while keeping as much modularity as is practical. An H6 user has a well integrated mirrorless option for their lenses. XF owners do not. H users can attach a film back. XF, not an option. Your H6D back can be adapted for professional 4k video. https://www.alpa.ch/en/site/moving-image (check out the show reels at Alpa Platon) Hasselblad offers a great 100 mp single-shot camera along with an incredible 400 mp multi-shot option. XF, single-shot only. Go to see a block-buster big-budget movie on the big screen and there's a very good chance your seeing Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses being used with the Arri Alexa 65 digital cinema camera (Arri Prime 65 lenses are rehoused Hasselblad H lenses). https://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

The point I'm trying to make clear to you is that Phase One not offering the IQ4 in a Hasselblad H mount has nothing whatever to do with Hasselblad camera or lens capabilities or because they're some beaten down company. Absolutely zero.

It has been clear for over a decade, for any company paying attention, that in order for imaging technology to advance a complete integration of cameras, lenses, and electronics was a requirement. Phase One clung to the idea that all they needed to do was to make software and backs for way too long. Why would they want to make medium format cameras and lenses? Medium format SLR camera manufacturing has been a money losing proposition for way more than a decade (which is why Hasselblad and Imacon merged). The profit was in the software and backs. It wasn't until most of the camera platforms they were selling backs for disappeared that they began to wake up. They finally bought into the one remaining option left, Mamiya, before it was too late. But they still continued to promote the idea of generic cameras and backs even though the technology limitations were obvious. They even made their promotion of that idea to customers seem like it was somehow a virtue. Freedom of Choice! I'm wondering which customers have the most freedom of choice now.

The fact is DSLR camera sales are in steep decline. An ever increasing number of photographers, some of whom never thought they would want a mirrorless camera, are embracing mirrorless as the technology for these cameras advances at an ever increasing pace. If you really want to offer your customers a system with a future, the time to start transitioning was a few years ago. Will Phase One enter that space? Who knows? They have brand new ownership now. At the time of sale, the prior private equity firm which owned Phase One stated in their press release "Silverfleet has supported Phase One to undergo a significant transformation, from a hardware to software-centric business focus". https://www.privateequitywire.co.uk/2019/06/17/276569/silverfleet-sells-phase-one So, who knows what the plan for the future is? I don't.

So maybe I need to make it very simple to be understood. Why does Phase One no longer offer digital backs for Hasselblad? 1) It was technological dead end concept years ago. Advancement required integration. 2) They now have a camera and lens factory of their own that needs to be supported financially and the lower the volume of sales from that endeavor, the more burdensome the cost. 3) They are a DSLR manufacturer in a market racing toward mirrorless and need to keep all the backs they sell on their newest camera platform in order to subsidize the cameras which are extremely costly to manufacture and to provide full integration. 4) "Hybrid" backs and cameras never made sense as anything more than a way to transition us from film to fully-integrated digital systems.

Of course it's a lot easier to say... well we really truly wanted to keep offering digital backs for Hasselblad and stay with the "open platform", but their cameras and lenses were just too old and out-of-date so we couldn't. Now Phase One of course would never say that. They don't need to. There are others that will go on the world-wide-web and do it. Some end-users because they're misinformed. Others imply it in a veiled way for their own reasons.

Internet forums... yuck! Enjoy the hash.

[TechTalk]

If there is any way... I recommend living and shooting with a system for a week.  Good dealers can arrange that.  Or it’s worth renting.  A systems specs and features are worthless if it doesn’t gel with you personally.  Especially because medium format is a different working style than a typical slr.  Sometimes slower, sometimes more cumbersome, but often more efficient depending on your work.  Everyone’s needs are different.  It’s worth the rental.

To the original poster... Above is the best advice anyone has given. My advice is don't look to internet forums for advice or information. There are pearls of wisdom to be found, but you have to wade through a lot of oysters to find one.

[BernardLanguillier]

It's probably fair to say that Hasselblad is overall in a much better spot than P1, would it only be because they are owned by DJI and already have a half baked mirrorless platform with excellent lenses. Half backed because it lacks the most important ability of mirrorless, that is on sensor phase detection AF.

But both are far behind Fuji in terms of technology and, most importantly, pace and quality of execution.

It's also a bit far fetched to argue that Hasselblad is a totally functioning camera manufacturer since they obviously don't have the capacity to both develop the X1D - again at a very slow pace - while releasing reasonably quickly updates to their historical platform, the H. As a H6D-100c user, I am really wondering whether I should write off my investment and shoot happily with my GFX-100 or whether I can still hope to get the 150 megapixel sensor to work with my Arcaswiss... the only motivation being that that chip is much better with camera movements.

So I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think that Hass can be given a pass on their executions these past couple of years. Yes, the previous CEO put them on a very interesting track, but the current one has done absolutely nothing to convey the message that they still have a bright future. And I am sorry to say, the X1D II doesn't change that a bit IMHO. Releasing a point update has no strategic value.

Cheers,
Bernard

[TechTalk]

It's probably fair to say that Hasselblad is overall in a much better spot than P1, would it only be because they are owned by DJI and already have a half baked mirrorless platform with excellent lenses. Half backed because it lacks the most important ability of mirrorless, that is on sensor phase detection AF.

But both are far behind Fuji in terms of technology and, most importantly, pace and quality of execution.

It's also a bit far fetched to argue that Hasselblad is a totally functioning camera manufacturer since they obviously don't have the capacity to both develop the X1D - again at a very slow pace - while releasing reasonably quickly updates to their historical platform, the H. As a H6D-100c user, I am really wondering whether I should write off my investment and shoot happily with my GFX-100 or whether I can still hope to get the 150 megapixel sensor to work with my Arcaswiss... the only motivation being that that chip is much better with camera movements.

So I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think that Hass can be given a pass on their executions these past couple of years. Yes, the previous CEO put them on a very interesting track, but the current one has done absolutely nothing to convey the message that they still have a bright future. And I am sorry to say, the X1D II doesn't change that a bit IMHO. Releasing a point update has no strategic value.

Cheers,
Bernard

I can only offer my own perspective on the current state of the medium-format camera market. As for myself, I am very satisfied with where we are at. Pentax, Leica, Phase One, Fuji, and Hasselblad are all offering products which exhibit many differences in design and approach. That makes me happy! The last thing that I would want to see is a market where the priority of medium-format manufacturers is to race each other to the finish line of the latest features or sensor resolution in order to declare momentary victory.

Each offers their own unique user experience, ergonomics, and interface. They have their own unique system options. They all move at their own speed in new product offerings and those products operate at their own speed when in use. They are all compromises in design as is every product made. They all naturally have inherent advantages and disadvantages. They have their own priorities which work for some users and may not for others.  The same is true regarding feature sets.

The question as to which system is best is up to the user. Some users may find it hard to understand what drives each manufacturer's direction. They all have a history of products that precede their current offerings. All of their current products exhibit deep ties to that history. And I might add, I have great respect for all of them. I think that I have a reasonable understanding of how each has gotten to where they are today. They have all had to face and over come a variety of challenges in a very demanding marketplace. Hence my respect for them all. It may be a fault of my own personal makeup that I don't think in terms of any one of these companies being ahead or behind another. I view them as occupying different positions within the field offering well differentiated options. The more different they are and the broader the range of options they offer, the happier I will be personally. I most definitely consider each of them them to be a "totally functioning camera manufacturer".

I consider the "most important ability" of a camera, mirrorless or otherwise, to be making satisfying images for a photographer that enjoys the experience. I don't consider any of the current options half-baked, nor would I based on any particular feature or lack thereof.

[kers]

I can only offer my own perspective on the current state of the medium-format camera market. As for myself, I am very satisfied with where we are at. Pentax, Leica, Phase One, Fuji, and Hasselblad are all offering products which exhibit many differences in design and approach. That makes me happy!...

How about sensors- doesn't it all boils down to what Sony  has to offer at the moment?
An important part of the resulting photo.

[BobShaw]

It's probably fair to say that Hasselblad is overall in a much better spot than P1, would it only be because they are owned by DJI and already have a half baked mirrorless platform with excellent lenses. Half backed because it lacks the most important ability of mirrorless, that is on sensor phase detection AF.

But both are far behind Fuji in terms of technology and, most importantly, pace and quality of execution.
....

So I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think that Hass can be given a pass on their executions these past couple of years. ....And I am sorry to say, the X1D II doesn't change that a bit IMHO. Releasing a point update has no strategic value.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I care little about sensor phase detection AF. Most of my work is manual focus or if I am using AF I would override it anyway.
What I want is a system that works the way I want and lasts a very long time. These things aren't cheap.

My H3D/H4D was a great camera when I got it, even though it was nearly 8 years old. i did not have the work to afford to spend the price of a decent car on a camera. All of a sudden Hasselblad released the world's first medium format mirrorless camera in the X1D and we had a high quality medium format camera that we could carry up a mountain. After the first adopters had fixed it for us it was even affordable. So I bought one and paid for it in new work within the first two months. I sold my H4D for good money too but kept the lenses. So pretty happy. I don't think that the X1D is half baked at all. The X1DII is only minor changes. A faster camera with a built in GPS.

I would like one, but won't be rushing to buy one and sell the X1D. I expect that the subsequent firmware updates for the X1D will give me what I want. (I would love to be able to reverse the aperture and shutter wheels in manual mode and they keep saying it is in the next release.)

In 35mm cameras the major market is for new toys.
Sony is the master of new toys. They are a consumer electronics company, making Games, TVs, Audio gear and currently cameras.
Canon and Nikon will add 10 to a model number each year and newbies will go out and buy one, even though last years model is still in the box sitting on the Green Square. However their top end cameras like the 1D have hardly changed in forever.

The medium format market is not like 35mm.
I see most users of medium format cameras just wanting a platform that works well and will last many years. That is the market.
I do agree that Hasselblad and Fuji are in a much better space than Phase.

[TechTalk]

How about sensors- doesn't it all boils down to what Sony  has to offer at the moment?
An important part of the resulting photo.

For some I suppose that the technology, including sensors, used to capture an image is an important part of the photo. I don't consider these things to be an important part of any photograph. The only exception might be images made for a very technical application like medical, scientific, industrial, or reproduction. The only important parts of a photograph for me are the subject matter and how I can use whatever skills I posses to interpret what I'm seeing with whatever equipment I have available at the time.

I've never blamed a camera for a bad image or given it credit for a good one. I am a mixed-up individual that loves technology but doesn't want to become overly dependent on it to make images (or life) better for me.

For instance, two of the methods that can be used for capturing fast action are tracking it or anticipating it and waiting for a moment. Both are perfectly valid methods to use. Having learned photography with ancient mechanical film cameras, I always find myself using the latter method even when I'm using equipment that would allow for the former. Some might say that I'm missing potential great moments by not using high-speed tracking. They'd be right, but I don't mind and will applaud great images captured regardless of how it was done or what was used to do it.

[Joe Towner]

Today, Hasselblad is expanding the options for their customers while keeping as much modularity as is practical. An H6 user has a well integrated mirrorless option for their lenses. XF owners do not. H users can attach a film back. XF, not an option. Your H6D back can be adapted for professional 4k video. https://www.alpa.ch/en/site/moving-image (check out the show reels at Alpa Platon) Hasselblad offers a great 100 mp single-shot camera along with an incredible 400 mp multi-shot option. XF, single-shot only. Go to see a block-buster big-budget movie on the big screen and there's a very good chance your seeing Hasselblad HC/HCD lenses being used with the Arri Alexa 65 digital cinema camera (Arri Prime 65 lenses are rehoused Hasselblad H lenses). https://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

Hasselblad doesn't make the HC/HCD lenses, that's Fuji glass.  Yes, the Fuji glass is used with a wide range of cameras (Arri Prime 65 in this case, one of 4 lens lineups for the Arri 65), but Hasselblad doesn't see a dime of those sale.

I agree with Bernard about Hass not executing as they needed to these past few years.  It impacts both current shooters, but also possible customers who wonder if their investment will last.

[kers]

....
The medium format market is not like 35mm.
I see most users of medium format cameras just wanting a platform that works well and will last many years. That is the market.
I do agree that Hasselblad and Fuji are in a much better space than Phase.

Indeed this is the Medium Format part of the forum....
I use a Nikon for 40 years and they always have been very reliable, precise and no nonsense... extreme wide lenschoice from budget to HQ, also thanks to third-parties like Sigma.
As much as you like your Hasselblad i like my Nikons... no toys...  just well crafted tools for making a photograph. They last forever and you can still use very old nikkors on it, even on the Z.
Indeed my needs are different than yours- i need AF as much as i need MF- i need F1.4 - i need a camera i can break and buy another.

[TechTalk]

Hasselblad doesn't make the HC/HCD lenses, that's Fuji glass.  Yes, the Fuji glass is used with a wide range of cameras (Arri Prime 65 in this case, one of 4 lens lineups for the Arri 65), but Hasselblad doesn't see a dime of those sale.

I agree with Bernard about Hass not executing as they needed to these past few years.  It impacts both current shooters, but also possible customers who wonder if their investment will last.

Thanks for posting this. I'm sure others have misconceptions regarding the relationship between Hasselblad and Fujinon (the division at Fuji that manufactures lenses for Fuji as well as contract manufacturing for other companies that design lenses but contract manufacturing to an outside supplier). This is an opportunity to clear up any misconceptions that may exist for anyone that might see your comments.

Hasselblad is responsible for the design of all of the HC, HCD, and XCD lenses from origination to finalization. In addition, the lenses all use a unique shutter system designed and manufactured by Hasselblad. Hasselblad chooses a company to whom they contract manufacturing and assembly of the optics and mechanics including the shutter assembly which is shipped to them from Sweden by Hasselblad. In the case of HC/HCD lenses, the contracted manufacturer is Fujinon. For XCD lenses, it is Nittoh. In addition, Fujinon makes one other optical component of the H system which is the viewfinder. Fuji also makes the film magazines. The body (including back), is made by Hasselblad in Sweden as is the X series. One exception to this is the HTS 1.5 Tilt/Shift Adapter which is made by Hasselblad in Sweden. The HTS 1.5 is a very clever bit of design and engineering and was a difficult project according to Per Nordlund, Hasselblad Lead Optical Designer. Designed to work with six different focal lengths, extension tubes of various lengths, and a macro converter (made for the 50mm II lens) it required generating over 200,000 lens correction tables for the DAC automatic lens corrections in order to account for the huge number of variables involved. https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/brains-behind-camera-gear/

So, Per Nordlund, who I mentioned above, has been with Hasselblad for 30 years. Starting in the MTF measuring lab at Hasselblad, he worked his way up to become Lead Optical Designer. They are advertising for another optical engineer position in Sweden in case you know someone. Could be a great job. In addition to "Design of optical systems from concept to finished product", the job description also includes "Field testing". Sweet! You don't have to sit in front of a computer all day, you get paid to go take some images with the lenses you design.  https://www.hasselblad.com/careers/optics-engineer--gothenburg-sweden/ Oh, before I forget... if you have a chance to use the HTS 1.5, the 24, 50 II, and 80mm are especially nice performers.  http://static.hasselblad.com/2014/11/uk_hts_datasheet_v9.pdf

Per's name doesn't come up very often, but it pops up once in awhile. Like in the recent press release for the XCD 35-75mm where he was quoted as saying “This really is the best lens Hasselblad has developed – its performance is extremely high, competing with our prime lenses. I can even go as far to say that it’s probably the best zoom lens currently available on the market”. I'm sure that statement will be put to the test when it arrives in photographers hands.  https://www.hasselblad.com/press/press-releases/hasselblad-expands-reach-of-medium-format/  In the meantime, check out the MTF curves on this beauty!  https://cdn.hasselblad.com/datasheets/xcd-lenses/XCD35-75-Datasheet-en.pdf

So anyway, Hasselblad starts with a lens design, sends it to the chosen contractor for review, comment, and estimates of cost to manufacture. Hasselblad will make any changes or refinements to the design in consultation with the contracted manufacturer and request prototypes for evaluation in their lab and with actual photographs. Once Hasselblad is satisfied that a lens is ready, they will authorize production (as the originator and owner of the design, they make that call). The contract manufacturer then produces and ships finished lenses to Hasselblad in Sweden who then tests each individual lens before it is sold to you or Arri or any other customer. If a lens doesn't meet the required standard, it is returned to the contracted supplier.

Hasselblad is the only company that sells the lenses they have designed and not the contract manufacturers. I mean you wouldn't think that Apple designs an iPhone, contracts it to Foxconn to manufacture, and then permits Foxconn to sell copies themselves while Apple "doesn't see a dime of those sales". Would you? How products are designed and manufactured changed last century. Contracting for parts, manufacturing, and assembly by companies that own the design and intellectual property rights for the products that they sell, market, and service is the way business has been done around the world for several decades now.

As to Arri, there is an interesting article interviewing an engineer from IB/E Optics to whom Arri contracts the lens assembly, which is done from complete HC/HCD lenses purchased from Hasselblad and which have to be disassembled and the optics removed for reassembly in a custom cine mount. They would like to buy just the optics, but Hasselblad will only sell them finished H mount lenses (I suspect it's because that's how they are set up to test the lenses before they are shipped to customers). The article quotes him to say "It started with a call from Manfred Jahn of ARRI Rentals. They had a choice of several candidates who had lenses for this big format. The well-known contenders in medium format lenses included Leica S, Schneider, Mamiya, Hasselblad, and others. Together, we tested lenses, did MTF tests and comparisons. We liked the Hasselblad lenses. When we looked at the MTF values; they were really great lenses." "Manfred and I spent a lot of time doing very critical optical testing of all the possible lenses that were out there."  http://www.fdtimes.com/pdfs/issues/65FDTimes-ALEXA65v6.0-150.pdf  http://static.hasselblad.com/2016/03/2014-12-10_pr_hasselblad_arri_collaboration_en.pdf  As you may know, the Arri Alexa 65 is an extremely expensive camera. You can't buy one. You can only rent it from Arri. It's so costly to rent, they are normally only used in productions with very large budgets.

If for some reason Fujinon didn't want the job any longer, Hasselblad could simply choose someone else. Maybe Nittoh would like to do more business with Hasselblad considering the success of the XCD line. Then again, when you've had a long and productive relationship between a customer and a supplier, you tend to want to keep it.

I think that might be enough for those that are under the misconception that Hasselblad is just putting their name on Fuji (or Nittoh) lenses, but probably not for some. You have to have hope in people though.

[BobShaw]

I think that might be enough for those that are under the misconception that Hasselblad is just putting their name on Fuji (or Nittoh) lenses, but probably not for some. You have to have hope in people though.

Optimism.
Thanks for the post.

[alan_y]

The article above insinuates that Arri preferred Hasselblad H lenses to Leica S ones. But one reason that they didn't go with the latter must be that Leica themselves had already converted (with some modifications and one new 55mm design) the S lenses into the Thalia line of cine lenses.

[TechTalk]

The article above insinuates that Arri preferred Hasselblad H lenses to Leica S ones. But one reason that they didn't go with the latter must be that Leica themselves had already converted (with some modifications and one new 55mm design) the S lenses into the Thalia line of cine lenses.

No. Sorry. The article you referenced doesn't just insinuate that Arri preferred the Hasselblad lenses over the others available; it actually states it pretty clearly, along with the reasons why. Your post reads to me as if you may be a little defensive of Leica's reputation for lens quality. No need to be. Leica clearly makes fantastic lenses and I think you may be reading into the article (or my referral to it) something that was never said. They list multiple reasons as to why they chose the Hasselblad lenses. One of which is that they "they were really great lenses". No where does the article say that any of the lenses tested or the lens lines evaluated were better or worse than another and neither have I. If you read the article completely and carefully, it says that they really liked the image quality, the range of focal lengths, the size, and the availability of the Hasselblad lens line. It was meeting that combination of criteria that made Hasselblad lenses Arri's preferred choice among the medium format lenses available when the Alexa 65 hit the market and they needed a set of prime lenses to cover their new large sensor.

The assertion that one reason Arri did not choose Leica for their lens line "must be that Leica themselves had already converted (with some modifications and one new 55mm design) the S lenses into the Thalia line of cine lenses" doesn't make sense to me given that the Arri Alexa 65 was introduced in 2014 and the Leica Thalia lens line was introduced in 2017. And the Thalia lenses (which are undoubtedly great) while based on the Leica S lenses feature significant optical changes, including: increased image circle, new coatings, and are designed with deliberately under-corrected spherical aberrations to give them a softer look than the S lenses. Leica describes them as "smooth, forgiving, and clear without being overly sharp." Given that the Thalia line appeared 3 years later, I think the reason for not using Leica S lenses must have been one or more of the criteria quoted in the interview that they considered in making a selection.

In retrospect, I wish I hadn't brought up the Hasselblad-Arri connection in the first place as it only provides more rabbit holes for an online forum to descend into. I mentioned it only because a couple of people made broad and vague assertions regarding Hasselblad lens quality and their potential for use with another system and Arri was obviously an extremely quality conscious customer that adopted the H line of lenses as part of their highest end camera system, partially because they really liked the optical quality.

[SrMi]

It's probably fair to say that Hasselblad is overall in a much better spot than P1, would it only be because they are owned by DJI and already have a half baked mirrorless platform with excellent lenses. Half backed because it lacks the most important ability of mirrorless, that is on sensor phase detection AF.
<snip>

OSPDAF is in a way both a curse and a blessing. Jim Kasson and Chamber Lloyds both report image quality degradation caused by on-sensor phase-detection of GFX 100. OSPDAF is probably the best solution for full frame cameras but I am not certain it should be a requirement for MF cameras.

I hope that Hasselblad refrains from adding OSPDAF or even better start using Panasonic's style of CDAF (DFD).

[TechTalk]

OSPDAF is in a way both a curse and a blessing. Jim Kasson and Chamber Lloyds both report image quality degradation caused by on-sensor phase-detection of GFX 100. OSPDAF is probably the best solution for full frame cameras but I am not certain it should be a requirement for MF cameras.

I hope that Hasselblad refrains from adding OSPDAF or even better start using Panasonic's style of CDAF (DFD).

For a really great overview and comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the various autofocus options available today, I highly recommend this video. It's 18 minutes long, but worth the time.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaJFOH_gmGM

[Paul2660]

OSPDAF is in a way both a curse and a blessing. Jim Kasson and Chamber Lloyds both report image quality degradation caused by on-sensor phase-detection of GFX 100. OSPDAF is probably the best solution for full frame cameras but I am not certain it should be a requirement for MF cameras.

I hope that Hasselblad refrains from adding OSPDAF or even better start using Panasonic's style of CDAF (DFD).

One has to work really hard to see any real image degradation from this. But I am sure to some it will matter.   Capture One. 12.1 seems to have an excellent handle on the files I have been able to download and push the shadows over 2 stops.

Paul C

[SELPHICK]

XF with leaf shutters is great, the caveat is the FP shutter in XF
Expected life in version one is a few as 25K exposure before replacement at $750 USD
HAP 11 versions may be good for  50K or much more.
 Look for  a HAP11 body,  IQ180  is a great chip for studio and 35-200 ISO
CMOS  for is required  for higher ISO, Trichromatic is lovely, but does it transfer to CMYK better than the regular 1Q100 is the question as I expect some of the colour fidelity is out Gamut for press with the exception of 11 colour Heidelbergs with lots of specials.
my 2 cents

I own and  use Phase one h20, P45, IQ180 CANON 6CD, AND 5DSR
XF  and Hassie  V series, Cambo Tech Cam, Fuji GX680
 

[Steve Hendrix]

XF with leaf shutters is great, the caveat is the FP shutter in XF
Expected life in version one is a few as 25K exposure before replacement at $750 USD
HAP 11 versions may be good for  50K or much more.
 Look for  a HAP11 body,  IQ180  is a great chip for studio and 35-200 ISO
CMOS  for is required  for higher ISO, Trichromatic is lovely, but does it transfer to CMYK better than the regular 1Q100 is the question as I expect some of the colour fidelity is out Gamut for press with the exception of 11 colour Heidelbergs with lots of specials.
my 2 cents

I own and  use Phase one h20, P45, IQ180 CANON 6CD, AND 5DSR
XF  and Hassie  V series, Cambo Tech Cam, Fuji GX680

As with all shutters, YMMV.

It's nowhere near the reliability of say, a Canon 1DX, for example.

But the P1 focal plane shutters are rated for up to 100k actuations (which technically, would be what the "expected" life would be), anything past that is certainly a bonus. On the flip side, yes, you can encounter failures before that. We approach shutter failures case by case for our clients, and if you encounter a shutter failure at a count of 25k, I would recommend you take this up with your dealer.

Regarding HAP I and HAP II, to my knowledge this refers only to the replacement of the auto focus sensor and has absolutely nothing to do with the focal plane shutter. A focal plane shutter in a HAP II body would have no advantage over the focal plane shutter in a HAP I body - because they are identical (other than one may have more or less mileage than another).


Steve Hendrix/CI

[matto]

I have been using a Hasselblad H5D-60 with two lenses, the HC150 N and the Hc 50 II for quite a while now. I print very large, using an Epson SC-P9000 and 44" rolls of "Museo Max" print media. The H5D-60 has a large CCD sensor with 60 MPix. The CCD sensor produces for ISO's up to 200 (ideally the native lowest which is 80) an incredible richness of details, extremely smooth color transitions and outstanding sharpness. The HC lenses - especially the HC-50 II - are both of outstanding optical quality. The HC-50 is even fully opened (3.5) extremely sharp, no stopping-down needed at all. I used the H5D in very harsh conditions in Iceland and it worked just perfectly fine - as I expect it from a professional tool.

The weak point of the Hasselblad H system is its raw converter "Phocus" - here comes the main advantage of Phase. Capture One is by far the best raw converter on the market. Fuji made an extremely smart (though probably VERY expensive) move to have their "small medium-format"-cameras accepted by PhaseOne to convert their raw files with Capture One). The best sensor, the greatest lenses and the most ergonomic body will NOT produce the highest quality files if the first and most important step - the raw conversion - is less than ideal.

I am really sad that Hasselblad is about to give up the H system (which is quite obvious - where is the H7D?) as these are great cameras for professionals requiring the highest possible (printable) quality. The "small medium format" of Fuji GF or the X1D or the Pentax 645z can never ever compete with the larger sensor of a PhaseOne or the Hasselblad H5D-60 ot H6D-100 although they are certainly fine cameras and by themselves much better than even the most advanced "Full Frame" DSLR.

I still prefer an optical viewfinder to even the highest resolution EVF (consuming lots of battery power) - photography is an emotional experience and I prefer looking through a real (clear of any information) window than through any kind of "electronic screen".

Also, I prefer a CCD sensor. It may be very limited when it comes to high ISO but at its native ISO (H5D-60 = 80) it is unmatched by ANY CMOS sensor when it comes to smoothest color transitions. The industry knows that very well - but CMOS sensors are much cheaper to produce …

Finally, have you ever changed a lense on a mirrorless camera body in a storm of wind and rain? I have and I must say that I largely prefer the protection of my sensor by the mirror in front of it - so even here "mirrorless" does not equal "better" in every respect.

I know, the highest-end market is very small. This is why I do not understand why Hasselblad and PhaseOne do not MERGE to one company! Together, they would be unbeatable. Hasselblads body and lenses, PhaseOnes backs and raw converter - "better do it quickly or you will both disappear" - that is what I am afraid of ...

[TechTalk]

The Internet. So many assertions. So little time.

assertion - noun: a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason.