GFX50R vs X1DII comparison

amateurphotographer · Oct 7, 2024

Hi Yogi4fitness,

Many thanks for taking time doing this.

I wonder if you could shoot a colour chart so we can see the difference if any.

i'm particularly interested if any difference in the reds, even if it is subtle.

Many thanks

Rodenmg · Oct 8, 2024

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

top right

I generally find Lr & Ps default sharpening to be too much. I think for most camera profiles it starts at 45. For both my Fuji and Nikons I’ve changed the default to 25,1,0.

--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod.

... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

yogi4fitness · Oct 8, 2024

Rodenmg 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

top right

Click to expand...

I generally find Lr & Ps default sharpening to be too much. I think for most camera profiles it starts at 45. For both my Fuji and Nikons I’ve changed the default to 25,1,0.

My confusion was from the fact that you saw the Fiji image to be sharper than the Hassie image when sharpening was turned on (default, 40, 1, 0) while I found the other way around with sharpening turned off. Which made me wonder if sharpening favored one RAW file vs the other.

Rodenmg said:
--
... Mike, formerly known as Rod.
... https://www.flickr.com/photos/198581502@N02/

I_love_tacos · Oct 8, 2024

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

--
“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” —Albert Einstein

yogi4fitness · Oct 8, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

amateurphotographer · Oct 8, 2024

yogi4fitness said:
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.

I think as we have not seen the artworks in person, we can't, except yogi4fitness, say what is accurate colours. I suggested taking photos of the Calibrite colour chart passport, which I think many here use, we could have a better idea of the colours and maybe the text on the chart will help assessing the sharpness. Just a suggestion.

Macro guy · Oct 9, 2024

yogi4fitness said:
I_love_tacos said:

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

Click to expand...

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

Unless you create a profile for each camera, you'll always be comparing software to some extent.

Noddemix · Oct 9, 2024

JimKasson said:
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.

I went back to him to ask if he had any more info and he said as far as he's aware there are no resources assigned to developing it, but that could change in the future. He speculated that the Mac version probably gets many more downloads, which makes sense given the target demographic. I've asked Hasselblad directly, several times, and never received a response beyond "I'll ask my colleagues". This was one of the reasons I divested myself of the system (along with lens availability and cost of lenses relative to performance).

I_love_tacos · Oct 9, 2024

yogi4fitness said:
I_love_tacos said:

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

Click to expand...

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

I think in order to compare the hardware you need to use the software designed for that hardware. Processing a Hasselblad raw file using Hasselblad software, but using Lightroom to process a Fuji raw file instead of Fuji software, is not fairly comparing hardware because one is using software made for their hardware and the other is not.

yogi4fitness · Oct 9, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
yogi4fitness said:

I_love_tacos said:

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

Click to expand...

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

Click to expand...

I think in order to compare the hardware you need to use the software designed for that hardware. Processing a Hasselblad raw file using Hasselblad software, but using Lightroom to process a Fuji raw file instead of Fuji software, is not fairly comparing hardware because one is using software made for their hardware and the other is not.

So how about using LR as a common developer since it isn't optimized for either hardware?

Member said:
--
“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” —Albert Einstein

I_love_tacos · Oct 9, 2024

yogi4fitness said:
I_love_tacos said:

yogi4fitness said:

I_love_tacos said:

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

Click to expand...

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

Click to expand...

I think in order to compare the hardware you need to use the software designed for that hardware. Processing a Hasselblad raw file using Hasselblad software, but using Lightroom to process a Fuji raw file instead of Fuji software, is not fairly comparing hardware because one is using software made for their hardware and the other is not.

Click to expand...

So how about using LR as a common developer since it isn't optimized for either hardware?

Yes, that would eliminate a variable. However, doing so presumes that Lightroom would process each file in the same manner and won't take advantage of any "secret sauce" between the hardware and software. I never process photos with Lightroom, I always use the manufacturer's raw developer. After all, I'm paying for Fujifilm colors and I want them to be 100% correct out of the gate. Lightroom is Adobe's best guess at how a particular file should be handled. It's not necessarily how Fuji or Hasselblad would have it.

--
“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” —Albert Einstein

Rodenmg · Oct 9, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
yogi4fitness said:

I_love_tacos said:

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

Click to expand...

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

Click to expand...

I think in order to compare the hardware you need to use the software designed for that hardware. Processing a Hasselblad raw file using Hasselblad software, but using Lightroom to process a Fuji raw file instead of Fuji software, is not fairly comparing hardware because one is using software made for their hardware and the other is not.

JimKasson · Oct 9, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
yogi4fitness said:

I_love_tacos said:

yogi4fitness said:

I_love_tacos said:

Have you tried doing the raw processing in Fuji's X Raw Studio? Fuji's dedicated application, purpose-built to process Fujifilm's proprietary RAW format, will likely have a much more accurate and true conversion versus Lightroom that is a one-size-fits-all platform.

I think a more proper comparison would be to process each image using each company's preferred RAW conversion platform and then compare the outputs to each other. Perform the exposure adjustments in the raw conversion software as well, not after the fact in LR.

Click to expand...

But wouldnt that be comparing the RAW developers instead of the hardware?

Click to expand...

I think in order to compare the hardware you need to use the software designed for that hardware. Processing a Hasselblad raw file using Hasselblad software, but using Lightroom to process a Fuji raw file instead of Fuji software, is not fairly comparing hardware because one is using software made for their hardware and the other is not.

Click to expand...

So how about using LR as a common developer since it isn't optimized for either hardware?

Click to expand...

Yes, that would eliminate a variable. However, doing so presumes that Lightroom would process each file in the same manner and won't take advantage of any "secret sauce" between the hardware and software. I never process photos with Lightroom, I always use the manufacturer's raw developer. After all, I'm paying for Fujifilm colors and I want them to be 100% correct out of the gate.

What makes you think that Fuji's color assignments are more accurate than Adobe's? That's not my experience.

Member said:
Lightroom is Adobe's best guess at how a particular file should be handled. It's not necessarily how Fuji or Hasselblad would have it.

I_love_tacos · Oct 10, 2024

JimKasson said:
What makes you think that Fuji's color assignments are more accurate than Adobe's?

What makes you think that they aren't? I'd love to understand your logic behind Adobe knowing more about Fuji's sensors and color science than Fuji. For example, Nikon's software, 100% of the time, produced a higher quality, truer color, and less noisy image for me than either Lightroom, Capture One, On1, and DxO.

If I want images true to what the manufacturer intended, especially when using film simulations, I'm always going to trust the manufacturer's software rather than a 3rd party, one-size-fits-all solution.

JimKasson · Oct 10, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
JimKasson said:

What makes you think that Fuji's color assignments are more accurate than Adobe's?

Click to expand...

What makes you think that they aren't?

Testing.

Member said:
I'd love to understand your logic behind Adobe knowing more about Fuji's sensors and color science than Fuji. For example, Nikon's software, 100% of the time, produced a higher quality, truer color, and less noisy image for me than either Lightroom, Capture One, On1, and DxO.

If I want images true to what the manufacturer intended, especially when using film simulations, I'm always going to trust the manufacturer's software rather than a 3rd party, one-size-fits-all solution.

JimKasson · Oct 10, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
JimKasson said:

What makes you think that Fuji's color assignments are more accurate than Adobe's?

Click to expand...

What makes you think that they aren't? I'd love to understand your logic behind Adobe knowing more about Fuji's sensors and color science than Fuji. For example, Nikon's software, 100% of the time, produced a higher quality, truer color, and less noisy image for me than either Lightroom, Capture One, On1, and DxO.

If I want images true to what the manufacturer intended, especially when using film simulations, I'm always going to trust the manufacturer's software rather than a 3rd party, one-size-fits-all solution.

2970d29dc24c4a068ad6ac9878e5e5ba.jpg.png

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

JimKasson · Oct 10, 2024

I_love_tacos said:
JimKasson said:

What makes you think that Fuji's color assignments are more accurate than Adobe's?

Click to expand...

What makes you think that they aren't? I'd love to understand your logic behind Adobe knowing more about Fuji's sensors and color science than Fuji.

There is no hidden magic wrt the camera in developing color profiles at a professional level. You just need to measure the spectral response of each of the four raw channels. That takes some specialized equipment, such as a monochromator, but it's a routine operation.

Once you have the spectral responses, then you can build a profile. That takes judgement, but you have all of the relevant information if you've done the measurements correctly.

Paul2600 · Oct 10, 2024

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.

I would disagree on Phocus vs Lr and results being marginal Phocus does produce the best color for Hasselblad raw, along with overall better tonality, shadow push and sharpening (Lr tends to block shadows too dark and seems to be more crunched in sharpness)

Is a real shame Hasselblad feels that the best they can do is offer the current iteration of Phocus. It lacks a modern toolset, is slow even on a fast M1 MacBook, and tends to big down on refreshing the view of the image. Hasselblad has plenty of resources to pull from to refresh the software to a more modern look.

That they feel it’s not important to upgrade the PC version is a huge error on their part. The PC version has no current lens updates for most of the V glass.

Paul

marco1974 · Oct 10, 2024

yogi4fitness said:
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

Why not expose the images properly to begin with?

--
Marco

Galleries by Marco Raugei

pbase.com

JimKasson · Oct 11, 2024

marco1974 said:
Why not expose the images properly to begin with?

There is a long-established photographic testing methodology that involves intentional underexposure. Modern cameras have such great dynamic range that low-contrast ETTR images have a tendency to look similar to each other, color issues aside. But by underexposing from ETTR, we get a chance to see how the camera does when some post-production pushing is employed. If there is any problem with tonal smoothness, this will make it more apparent.

Jim

GFX50R vs X1DII comparison

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

I_love_tacos

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

I_love_tacos

Guest

Senior Member

I_love_tacos

Guest

Veteran Member

Community Leader

I_love_tacos

Guest

Community Leader

Community Leader

Community Leader

Well-known member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts