One difference is that you're limited in your selection of strobes to those offering HSS. Leaf shutter only requires basic X-sync which means you have a variety of options available to you which can sync above 1/125.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
X2D or GFX 100s for landscape
- Thread starter hf3
- Start date
Not all strobes are fast enough to avoid wasting light when used with leaf shutter speeds of 1/2000 second. The standard Godox studio strobes waste 90% of their light at full power at that shutter speed.
Sure. That will vary depending on the strobe system.
With the AD 600, you can turn the power from full to 1/8 and, at 1/2000 second with a leaf shutter, not lose much light at all.
You can get 75 joules/watt-seconds of power output (1/8 power) from a Godox AD600 with about 1/2420 t0.1 flash duration. You can get 300 joules/watt-seconds of power output from a Broncolor Move 1200L in speed mode with about 1/1960 t0.1 flash duration.
Flash duration and power output can vary significantly depending on the strobe system, power setting, mode, and type of flash head used. This is only one example.
Some sample flash durations at different power levels
Here are some flash duration measurements for various strobes available online
http://www.thebroketographers.com/blog/2017/4/13/flash-duration-analysis-with-the-sekonic-l858d-u
https://www.konsul-instruments.com/en/flash-duration-gallery
Flash duration meters can be rented or purchased from a variety of sources for measurement and analysis of duration.
Of course, HSS (High Speed Sync) or HyperSync works differently from conventional strobes. They will have to produce effectively continuous light of consistent brightness over approximately the same length of time required for your cameras conventional X-sync shutter speed (1/125 for GFX cameras) to allow for the full length of time that the focal-plane shutter is actually traveling.
The actual shutter travel time is longer than the shutter speed selected when set above the X-sync speed. "Speed" is being regulated by varying the opening of the slit rolling past the focal-plane at that point.
https://wiki.pocketwizard.com/Understanding_HyperSync_and_High_Speed_Sync
Last edited:
In this darn age, everything does HSS. If not upgrade. Much cheaper than any LS lens. Now I would still like LS lenses so I can save on weight.
HSS is less efficient, but if it works for your needs that's what matters. There's no single solution that's right for everyone.
Last edited:
I care less for efficiency. Weight is the only problem and even being handicapped I can manage 2 600ws strobes. A wheeled mathews with 2 AD600 on the bottom does it. I am glad Godox offers extension heads. No need for any sand bags. A single shoot I don't need for more than 200-300 shots and these AD600 last that many when shooting outside.
Like I said I still would like Fuji to offer LS lenses. I will happily buy one.
Last edited:
yogi4fitness
Senior Member
I agree, Fuji should offer some LS lenses to capture the studio and strobe users market. But I am assuming strobe users aren't that big of a market because otherwise more camera companies would be making LS lenses.
The only LS lens I have experience with is the RX1R and it is very handy when shooting against the sun even with its wimpy built in flash. I believe it also syncs up to 1/2000s.
It's great you have a setup that works for you. I'm sure the results are rewarding which is what we all want and find our own way of producing.
No one is "forced" to do any "cropping in X-Pan to avoid vignetting" with the XCD 28P and no one should believe that's true.
Vignetting with the XCD 28P lens is automatically corrected in Phocus 3.7.5 or current Adobe software (Camera Raw 16.0 / Lightroom 7.0 / Lightroom Classic 17.0).
For other raw conversion programs, check the lenses supported. You can also manually control the amount of vignetting correction you want to apply in many programs.
You can get a reasonable introduction to the XCD 28P here.
Adobe Support for Hasselblad XCD 4/28P lens - Minimum Versions Required
Last edited:
I think it's always worthwhile to test any lens yourself in which you have an interest. You can evaluate how a lens handles and performs and how well it fits your individual preferences and needs by using it and looking at your own images better than you can thru reading comments online.Gandolphi wrote: Don’t know anything about the Fuji questions but these are a couple of shots taken with my. 38mm. Hope they help.
About the newly introduced xcd 38mm f2.5 v I read that it suffer from weak corner performance. Can someone confirm this?
Thanks in advance.
Heinz
yogi4fitness
Senior Member
Some actual user observations (verbatim) about the XCD 28P:
"Strong Vignette even at F8"
"I think this will be my new "XPan" lens - I think it lends itself ideally to that crop size."
I agree no one is forced to do anything but people will choose the best way to use the lens given its "shortcomings". More power to them.
Its ironic that people that criticize the use of software algorithms to improve AF performance or to implement human/animal eye tracking in cameras are the same people that will extoll the use of software to correct for lens distortion and vignetting in sub-optimal lens designs.
One system that uses SW technology becomes a kitchen sink computer and the other system that uses SW technology becomes a finely tuned beautifully crafted musical instrument. Sorry but I find that ironic and hypocritical.
Users have two choices:
A) A kitchen sink computer brick that uses SW to improve AF performance with an optimal but bulky/ugly lens design that doesn't rely heavily on SW corrections to produce images with high fidelity.
B) A beautiful handcrafted work of art with poor AF performance and sub-optimal but equally aesthetic/light lens design that relies heavily on SW corrections to produce images with compromised edge DR or mechanical vignetting artifacts that aren't correctible via SW.
For me its choice A) all the way, every day. For others it might be choice B). And we are all right for our own reasons. Amen to that!
No thanks! one uncorrected RAW image is worth a thousand monetized YouTube videos.
Peace out.
P.S. for the record, an X2D with the older XCD 21 is in my future for landscape duties. I believe the older XCD lenses are optically superior to the newer XCD lenses. So contrary to popular opinion I am not anti-Hasselblad. And you bet I'll be posting pics here.
Adobe Support for Hasselblad XCD 4/28P lens - Minimum Versions Required
Last edited:
I'll provide the link to the post from which you're quoting. It includes both the images and the full quote:
"1.) Strong Vignette even at F8
2.) The lens is sharp
3.) Need to dial in (more) postive exposure compensation next time in early morning light
4.) Sunstars are possible, but not great
5.) I think this will be my new "XPan" lens - I think it lends itself ideally to that crop size. Need to experiment more on this soon. I was looking for a small light unobtrusive lens like that for a while. It's a keeper for me, despite some shortcomings.
All shots below OOC JPEGs (mostly cropped)"
* Note: OOC JPEGs have no corrections applied of any kind. XCD 4/28P - FAQ: "Distortions can be corrected in Phocus or other image-processing software for more accurate optical effects. The camera itself does not support lens correction."
JPEG images straight from the camera have no corrections and will show vignetting. To remove the vignetting, you apply the corrections in software and then you see the image the way the lens was actually designed to produce images — with corrections applied.
What you call "atrocious" vignetting, the very same person whose "actual user observations (verbatim) about the XCD 28P" you cite calls moderate vignetting in the Re-Discovering XPan thread which he started: "Some scenes lend themselves better to XPan than others, and I think it's an ideal use case for the compact and wide 28P with it's moderate vignetting."
So is it "atrocious" as you describe it or "moderate" like the "actual user observations (verbatim)" you cite? I think readers can decide for themselves without any additional assistance.
I think most will choose to apply the lens corrections, as would be expected with modern lenses, because the lens was designed with those corrections as an inherent part of the design. That would make sense, as it's the way the lens was actually designed to produce images.
By the way, the original XPan included center filters for the 30 and 45 mm lenses to control vignetting on the film image. Today that's generally done thru software lens correction.
A controlled degree of under corrected vignetting in wide-angle lens design has traditionally been used to improve their overall optical resolution.
Handbook of Optics Volume 1 – 3rd Edition / The Optical Society of America
Components - Chapter 17.15
It should be noted that vignetting is often used in these and other lens types to control the higher-order aberrations that are often observed at large field angles. Although a loss in illumination occurs, the gain in resolution is often worthwhile.
Zemax blog article:
https://www.zemax.com/blogs/news/Vignetting as a powerful tool in lens design
Vignetting factors are a powerful tool in lens design that are underused today. Using vignetting, lenses can be made smaller and lighter, and can have better performance over a wider field of view.
In a vignetted system, apertures trim the optical beam at wide field angles. This typically causes the final image to be darker at the corners than at the center, which is undesirable. But it also improves the quality of the image in those regions by trimming away some of the aberrations in the beam.
Lens design has always been a balancing act with trade-offs and compromises to achieve a specific set of goals. The optical engineers, who design our lenses, balance many considerations including (but not limited to): performance, size, weight, cost, and the numerous and complex individual aberrations which each element introduces into the optical system; to produce lenses which work well for their (and our) intended use.
Personally, I think they've done a great job of giving us a variety of excellent lens options from which to choose to meet our individual needs... better than some online critics would have you believe.
Last edited:
yogi4fitness
Senior Member
Vignetting wide open is one thing and vignetting at f/8 is something else. I consider it “atrocious” if you have to resort to cropping or rely on kitchen sink computer SW to fix it.
Exactly my point!
I am glad you finally see that no one needs additional assistance in deciding what system to invest in. Especially not theoretical dissertations and analyses. Providing practical examples and/or data is invaluable in decision making and the OP has already made their decision based on that.
I am glad we finally agree on something.
yogi4fitness
Senior Member
Thanks for the rant. The OP has made their decision. And as you noted in your prior rant a few minutes ago, they might not need any additional help.
Peace out.
I'm certain that you would rather see uncorrected images from Hasselblad lenses (especially the latest lenses to ship, which have compact and/or fast designs incorporating varying degrees of software correction along with complex optical design to balance performance with size, weight, and speed) and to talk about those, rather than the corrected images the lenses were designed to produce. Your past posts have made that desire very clear.
To quote DP Review's article on lens corrections from Richard Butler: "...modern lenses are designed with mathematical correction as one of their fundamental elements, with the rest of the optical formula planned around that."
"...none of this justifies giving excessive prominence to uncorrected images. In our opinion it doesn't make any more sense to circumvent the digital element of a lens's design than it would to decide we didn't approve of aspheric glass and show the results for lenses with all those elements taken out."
Last edited:
yogi4fitness
Senior Member
It seems like you cant follow your own advice and stop giving additional help when the OP has made their decision.
I am not sure who are you trying so hard to convince?
SrMi
Veteran Member
+100 based on mine and almost every other 28p owner experience that I have seen online.
Vignetting with the XCD 28P lens is automatically corrected in Phocus 3.7.5 or current Adobe software (Camera Raw 16.0 / Lightroom 7.0 / Lightroom Classic 17.0).
For other raw conversion programs, check the lenses supported. You can also manually control the amount of vignetting correction you want to apply in many programs.
You can get a reasonable introduction to the XCD 28P here.
Adobe Support for Hasselblad XCD 4/28P lens - Minimum Versions Required
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum