Reading mode: Light Dark

GFX50R vs X1DII comparison

Go to last post
yogi4fitness

yogi4fitness

Senior Member
Messages
2,520
Reaction score
1,556
Location
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA, US
Both images taken right after one another. Kept everything the same between the two shots. Its a comparison of subjective IQ and not a comparison of lens sharpness because both were shot handheld. The X1DII RAW image was run through Phocus with default settings (no adjustments) and the TIFF was processed in LR with +2EV exposure. The 50R image was run through LR with a +2EV exp push. Nothing else changed between the two.

The third one is processed directly in Adobe standard LR without going through Phocus.

Which one do you prefer?

View attachment c29ac9403d304c268dd7f6c52a134676.jpg

View attachment 812f10f860684902953928d6141d9b09.jpg



View attachment e1615c8bbee44410986222d8ba539b4e.jpg
 
Last edited:
Aside from the slight white balance issue,there's not much between them
 
Macro guy said:
Aside from the slight white balance issue,there's not much between them
Click to expand...
Agreed. To my eyes, the Hassleblad is slightly warmer and the Fuji, slightly cooler. Within the Hasselblad system I like the Phocus processing slightly better than the Adobe standard but again even that is minor WB and contrast difference.
 
This is interesting. What I see when I load them into Ps and view side-by-side is this. The Fuji image has more contrast. When I view at high magnification I see more subtle tonal gradations in the Fuji image, especially in the lighter areas. Of the two Hasselblad images the one run through Phocus looks closer to the Fuji than the Adobe only conversion. It also looks to have had some noise reduction applied.

Overall, in this example I prefer the Fuji image.



b90bfd652d7d4ae896b9da181c9a83e9.jpg



--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod. :)
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
 
Rodenmg said:
This is interesting. What I see when I load them into Ps and view side-by-side is this. The Fuji image has more contrast. When I view at high magnification I see more subtle tonal gradations in the Fuji image, especially in the lighter areas.
Click to expand...
You are looking at a corner section. Could it be that the GF lens has less vignetting, therefore shows more tonal gradations?

How about the center?
Rodenmg said:
Of the two Hasselblad images the one run through Phocus looks closer to the Fuji than the Adobe only conversion. It also looks to have had some noise reduction applied.
Click to expand...
I am still getting familiar with Phocus. Perhaps default setting has NR applied.
Rodenmg said:
Overall, in this example I prefer the Fuji image.

b90bfd652d7d4ae896b9da181c9a83e9.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I see very little to choose from here. Hassy1 is the Phocus image. The difference in tonality I see here could be just a slight exposure difference. The biggest difference I see is the Phocus image is flatter and less sharp. The Fuji and Hassey2 image processed in Lr look a little over-sharpened. But this is really pixel peeping.



f52787b04fa94c8aafaf37108d3536f7.jpg



--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod. :)
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
 
Last edited:
I went through this myself a while ago. There's little to nothing in it, so it came down to speed of operation (which GFX wins hands down), and the GF lenses which in general strike me as preferable to the HB alternatives. There's also a lot of chat about colour science in relation to Phocus but the difference between files processed in Phocus and LR is absolutely marginal, and Phocus on PC is now well over a year out-of-date with no updates likely according to my contact at HB.
 
Here is another take at processing these files. This time I turned off everything in Phocus (NR, CA, and Sharpening and Lens Correction) and I only applied Lens Correction in LR (no sharpening) since thats the final output for both cameras. First one is Fuji thru LR, second one is Hassie through Phocus then LR, and third one is Hassie thru LR only.

what about the differences now?

View attachment 42e8b3b8ba0c4ded9bd33ff494c49232.jpg

View attachment 14820840b9254c19bb23293467a4274a.jpg

View attachment 0298c6bade29474384305bfec95082a0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Rodenmg said:
I see very little to choose from here. Hassy1 is the Phocus image. The difference in tonality I see here could be just a slight exposure difference. The biggest difference I see is the Phocus image is flatter and less sharp. The Fuji and Hassey2 image processed in Lr look a little over-sharpened. But this is really pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
How much of the difference is attributable to glass (if exposures were normalized)?
Rodenmg said:
f52787b04fa94c8aafaf37108d3536f7.jpg
Click to expand...
 
yogi4fitness said:
Rodenmg said:
I see very little to choose from here. Hassy1 is the Phocus image. The difference in tonality I see here could be just a slight exposure difference. The biggest difference I see is the Phocus image is flatter and less sharp. The Fuji and Hassey2 image processed in Lr look a little over-sharpened. But this is really pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
How much of the difference is attributable to glass (if exposures were normalized)?
yogi4fitness said:
f52787b04fa94c8aafaf37108d3536f7.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I have zero experience with Hasselblad so have no idea. I only know what I’ve read on this forum. I would say the difference between the two processed in Lr is so small as to be insignificant. If I had only seen the one processed in Phocus I would have probably been blaming the lens for being so soft. :)

--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod. :)
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/
 
Noddemix said:
...and Phocus on PC is now well over a year out-of-date with no updates likely according to my contact at HB.
Click to expand...
Really bad news, if accurate.
 
Noddemix said:
I went through this myself a while ago. There's little to nothing in it, so it came down to speed of operation (which GFX wins hands down), and the GF lenses which in general strike me as preferable to the HB alternatives. There's also a lot of chat about colour science in relation to Phocus but the difference between files processed in Phocus and LR is absolutely marginal, and Phocus on PC is now well over a year out-of-date with no updates likely according to my contact at HB.
Click to expand...
Had the same experience. Going through Phocus just didn’t seem worth the extra work, as the color differences are so minuscule and I could never see anything special in Hasselblad colors anyway. Their glass is not really consistent within the XCD series let alone HC lenses mixed with XCD lenses.

The results look great on its own though, I mostly use the Hasselblad system purely for the ergonomics and UI. The glass was no reason for me to add it to my collection, nor was it anything about color. Considering the lens prices their performance struck me as underwhelming often.
 
Ben_Bro said:
The glass was no reason for me to add it to my collection, nor was it anything about color. Considering the lens prices their performance struck me as underwhelming often.
Click to expand...
This has always been the case with HB lenses even back in the film days
 
Macro guy said:
Ben_Bro said:
The glass was no reason for me to add it to my collection, nor was it anything about color. Considering the lens prices their performance struck me as underwhelming often.
Click to expand...
This has always been the case with HB lenses even back in the film days
Click to expand...
That was not my experience with the Zeiss lenses for the V-series cameras. There were few duds, and some spectacular ones light the last 40mm lens and the SA lenses. I also liked the 150. I did find the 500 Apo underwhelming.
 
Ben_Bro said:
Noddemix said:
I went through this myself a while ago. There's little to nothing in it, so it came down to speed of operation (which GFX wins hands down), and the GF lenses which in general strike me as preferable to the HB alternatives. There's also a lot of chat about colour science in relation to Phocus but the difference between files processed in Phocus and LR is absolutely marginal, and Phocus on PC is now well over a year out-of-date with no updates likely according to my contact at HB.
Click to expand...
Had the same experience. Going through Phocus just didn’t seem worth the extra work, as the color differences are so minuscule and I could never see anything special in Hasselblad colors anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah the color differences are miniscule and not worth fretting over.
Ben_Bro said:
Their glass is not really consistent within the XCD series let alone HC lenses mixed with XCD lenses.

The results look great on its own though, I mostly use the Hasselblad system purely for the ergonomics and UI.
Click to expand...
I am loving the ergos and the UI. The system is a pleasure to use for sure. Every button press and knob turn screams premium. I finally see what the Hasselblad users have been saying all along about using the system. I could fondle it all day. :-)
Ben_Bro said:
The glass was no reason for me to add it to my collection, nor was it anything about color. Considering the lens prices their performance struck me as underwhelming often.
Click to expand...
The 45P is an excellent lens for the price. But I can see why the high prices of the other XCD lenses (esp the newer breed) could be underwhelming. I plan to get the XCD 21/4 along with the X2D in the future for landscape duties only. And i will keep the X1DII+45P for EDC.
 
JimKasson said:
Macro guy said:
Ben_Bro said:
The glass was no reason for me to add it to my collection, nor was it anything about color. Considering the lens prices their performance struck me as underwhelming often.
Click to expand...
This has always been the case with HB lenses even back in the film days
Click to expand...
That was not my experience with the Zeiss lenses for the V-series cameras. There were few duds, and some spectacular ones light the last 40mm lens and the SA lenses. I also liked the 150. I did find the 500 Apo underwhelming.
Click to expand...
I always found Bronica SQ lenses consistently better in corner sharpness and flare resistance. The same goes for Mamia RZ and Bronica GS
 
Ok I compared the Hassie (left) to the Fuji (right) directly in LR (no Phocus involvement) with no sharpening or NR and only lens correction applied and I am finding the Hassie consistently sharper than the Fuji, both in the center and in the upper right corner and everywhere else. Take this with a grain of salt tho because like I said these were shot handheld because I only wanted to compare subjective IQ (mostly color and rendering). Ideally I should do this comparison on a tripod, so take it FWIW.

Could it be that the default sharpening in LR favors Fuji files more than Hassie files? Could that explain what Rod got in his comparison?

I am confused.

Center
Center

dfbeae6587fa4d199e5ca14b2d764abb.jpg.png

top right
 
Last edited:
yogi4fitness said:
Ok I compared the Hassie (left) to the Fuji (right) directly in LR (no Phocus involvement) with no sharpening or NR and only lens correction applied and I am finding the Hassie consistently sharper than the Fuji, both in the center and in the upper right corner and everywhere else. Take this with a grain of salt tho because like I said these were shot handheld because I only wanted to compare subjective IQ (mostly color and rendering). Ideally I should do this comparison on a tripod, so take it FWIW.

Could it be that the default sharpening in LR favors Fuji files more than Hassie files? Could that explain what Rod got in his comparison?

I am confused.

Center
Center

dfbeae6587fa4d199e5ca14b2d764abb.jpg.png

top right
Click to expand...
In the upper images, the Hasselblad seems like it has some (more) aliasing?

I wonder if the Hasselblad is focused a little more accurately.
 
Doppler9000 said:
yogi4fitness said:
Ok I compared the Hassie (left) to the Fuji (right) directly in LR (no Phocus involvement) with no sharpening or NR and only lens correction applied and I am finding the Hassie consistently sharper than the Fuji, both in the center and in the upper right corner and everywhere else. Take this with a grain of salt tho because like I said these were shot handheld because I only wanted to compare subjective IQ (mostly color and rendering). Ideally I should do this comparison on a tripod, so take it FWIW.

Could it be that the default sharpening in LR favors Fuji files more than Hassie files? Could that explain what Rod got in his comparison?

I am confused.

Center
Center

dfbeae6587fa4d199e5ca14b2d764abb.jpg.png

top right
Click to expand...
In the upper images, the Hasselblad seems like it has some (more) aliasing?

I wonder if the Hasselblad is focused a little more accurately.
Click to expand...
That's entirely possible given they were both shot handheld. I need to repeat this test on a tripod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top