X2D is real??

[Doppler9000]

IMO at this point, it would probably make more sense for Hasselblad to wait and gear up for the next upcoming generation of Sony sensors ....

Launching an X2D with the currently available 100MP sensor (June 2022?) could bring two significant improvements: better DR at high ISO (dual gain) and IBIS.

That's true--the ca. 2019 Sony 102 MP 44x33 sensor is a substantial upgrade from the ca. 2013 Sony 51 MP 44x33mm sensor. But then Hasselblad would have suffered three years of not offering the latest sensor while Fuji offered it (May 2019 to June 2022), followed by eight months of offering the latest sensor (June 2022 to say February 2023), followed by probably years of again not offering the latest sensor while Fuji would almost certainly offer it (say February 2023 until whenever). IMO that would be a notably-bad product planning decision for Hasselblad.

Developing the circuitry and thermal package to deal with a new, 150 MP sensor is a significant leap for a company that has struggled with buggy firmware on a 50 MP camera. As you said elsewhere, Hasselblad is a small company with limited resources.

A 100 MP camera that worked well would be much better than a 150 MP failure.

 

[David Mantripp]

This has been done with the GFX100s and GFX50s2, which are identical bodies but different sensor sizes. Both seem to sell well ( I have both).

The GFX (and X1D) sensor sizes are the same. Just the 50s and 100s sensor resolutions are different. The Hasselblad 100c is physically larger than the 44x33 sensors (53 x 40).

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

IMO at this point, it would probably make more sense for Hasselblad to wait and gear up for the next upcoming generation of Sony sensors ....

Launching an X2D with the currently available 100MP sensor (June 2022?) could bring two significant improvements: better DR at high ISO (dual gain) and IBIS.

That's true--the ca. 2019 Sony 102 MP 44x33 sensor is a substantial upgrade from the ca. 2013 Sony 51 MP 44x33mm sensor. But then Hasselblad would have suffered three years of not offering the latest sensor while Fuji offered it (May 2019 to June 2022), followed by eight months of offering the latest sensor (June 2022 to say February 2023), followed by probably years of again not offering the latest sensor while Fuji would almost certainly offer it (say February 2023 until whenever). IMO that would be a notably-bad product planning decision for Hasselblad.

Developing the circuitry and thermal package to deal with a new, 150 MP sensor is a significant leap for a company that has struggled with buggy firmware on a 50 MP camera. As you said elsewhere, Hasselblad is a small company with limited resources.

A 100 MP camera that worked well would be much better than a 150 MP failure.

If there is some major reason why Hasselblad could successfully design a good camera using the current 102 MP 44x33mm sensor, but could not successfully design a good camera using the anticipated 150 MP 44x33mm sensor, then I agree with you.

But that seems to me somewhat unlikely. Presumably Sony can and would provide Hasselblad with the basic parameters for sensors that will hit the market in the relatively near future, and Hasselblad could design a camera to accommodate them. I realize that Fuji probably needs less lead-time than Hasselblad does, and for any given new sensor or similar technology, Fuji can probably deliver functional products before Hasselblad can.

But realistically, Hasselblad has two choices, here and generally:

(1) skip alternating sensor generations, but timely introduce new models for every second sensor generation. This way Hasselblad customers will be able to buy 'current state-of-the-art' cameras half the time. I think this is a sustainable model for Hasselblad as a leading, albeit somewhat niche, professional brand.

versus

(2) Usually being a sensor generation behind. If Hasselblad has to basically accept always or usually being a step behind Fuji, then I think its days as a top-tier professional brand are over, and it will wither.

Also: if Hasselblad really struggles / struggled that long to make its 2016 camera (original X1D / lightly refreshed X1D II) using a 2013 sensor (the original Sony 44x33mm 51 MP CMOS) into a highly-functional camera, what reason is there to believe that a new camera using the current 102 MP sensor will be highly functional any time soon?

So yes, Hasselblad needs to balance what it thinks it can do well with what it thinks its customers will demand. I know that often doing so with limited resources is challenging. I wish Hasselblad well.

All JMO, of course.

 

[SrMi]

Any update on this? Just bought a 907x and I love it, but pretty sure I'm going to return it (B&H) with an imminent update looming.

What imminent update?

I was referring to the multiple posters in this thread claiming knowledge of a pending release.
Obviously I have no way of verifying any of that info, but seems if Hasselblad is going to stay in the medium format business an updated X with the 100mp sensor would have to on offer in the near term.

IMO at this point, it would probably make more sense for Hasselblad to wait and gear up for the next upcoming generation of Sony sensors, which people seem to think / rumors seem to suggest will arrive late this year. The suppositions vary somewhat, but IMO the most plausible development would be a shared architecture for a FF sensor of about 90 MP for the A7R V, followed quickly by a 44x33mm sensor of about 150 MP.

If this basic sensor development path and timeline are roughly correct, then for Hasselblad (or Pentax) to introduce a 102 MP camera now would be terrible timing. Recent history suggests that Fuji would quickly introduce a GFX 150 or whatever. Hasseblad probably needs to aim for the X2D following not too long after that, with the same 150 MP sensor.

The latest rumor for an a7RV sensor is a redesigned 60MP sensor. The 90MP rumor seems to be unsubstantiated,

 

[steveashd]

To be honest, I’d be happiest with a redesigned 50mp sensor. I can’t really fault the image quality. I’d just like phase detect AF and IBIS. Low noise, high dynamic range and smooth graduations than more pixels.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

To be honest, I’d be happiest with a redesigned 50mp sensor. I can’t really fault the image quality. I’d just like phase detect AF and IBIS. Low noise, high dynamic range and smooth graduations than more pixels.

Well, Fujifilm has added IBIS on the GFX 50SII.

PDAF is much more difficult, the 50 MP sensor has been around for at least 8 years, Sony would added PDAF during that time, would it have been practical.

The present 102 MP sensor has both PDAF. It is a new, back side illuminated, design. BSI moves wiring behind the photodiodes.

Noise levels depend essentially on sensor size. It doesn't really matter if you split the sensor in 50 or 100 million pixels. Making the pixels smaller will increase pixel level noise, but once you combine those pixels into an image the result will be the same.

Smoothness of gradiations is just about SNR. So, there will be no advantage of making the pixels larger.

Dynamic range is a bit more complex, as readout noise adds in quadrature. So, making pixels larger may have some positive effect on DR.

This can to some extent be observed on some older CCD sensors. Phase One developed a technology called 'Sensor+' that binned four pixels into one in hardware at high ISO settings.

Tonal range in 'screen mode' shows the number of discrete tones the sensor can separate per pixel. Activating Sensor + at 800 ISO improves tonal separation at the pixel level. So you gain something throwing away 75% of the pixels and pixel peeping at actual pixels.

Looking at the image at a fixed size, like making a print, the effect of Sensor+ is hardly noticeable. So no real gain throwing away all that resolution.

Looking at DR:

Looking at DR Sensor+ has a significant effect per pixel. But note that the X1D has much higher DR than than the much larger and much more expensive Phase One IQ180 had. That is because Sony has much less readout noise than CCD sensors used to have.

Switching to same print size, there is some positive effect of Sensor+ on DR, but is hardly noticeable.

In all probability, 80 MP will be able to carry more info than 20 MP. So these examples show that increasing pixel sizes have near zero benefits.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

 

[Doppler9000]

Any update on this? Just bought a 907x and I love it, but pretty sure I'm going to return it (B&H) with an imminent update looming.

What imminent update?

I was referring to the multiple posters in this thread claiming knowledge of a pending release.
Obviously I have no way of verifying any of that info, but seems if Hasselblad is going to stay in the medium format business an updated X with the 100mp sensor would have to on offer in the near term.

IMO at this point, it would probably make more sense for Hasselblad to wait and gear up for the next upcoming generation of Sony sensors, which people seem to think / rumors seem to suggest will arrive late this year. The suppositions vary somewhat, but IMO the most plausible development would be a shared architecture for a FF sensor of about 90 MP for the A7R V, followed quickly by a 44x33mm sensor of about 150 MP.

If this basic sensor development path and timeline are roughly correct, then for Hasselblad (or Pentax) to introduce a 102 MP camera now would be terrible timing. Recent history suggests that Fuji would quickly introduce a GFX 150 or whatever. Hasseblad probably needs to aim for the X2D following not too long after that, with the same 150 MP sensor.

The latest rumor for an a7RV sensor is a redesigned 60MP sensor. The 90MP rumor seems to be unsubstantiated,

They seemed to have focused on video, where higher MP is not so helpful.

Is this the end of the stills-focused Sony?

If so, will this slow or stop their development of higher MP sensors, outside industrial markets?

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

Any update on this? Just bought a 907x and I love it, but pretty sure I'm going to return it (B&H) with an imminent update looming.

What imminent update?

I was referring to the multiple posters in this thread claiming knowledge of a pending release.
Obviously I have no way of verifying any of that info, but seems if Hasselblad is going to stay in the medium format business an updated X with the 100mp sensor would have to on offer in the near term.

IMO at this point, it would probably make more sense for Hasselblad to wait and gear up for the next upcoming generation of Sony sensors, which people seem to think / rumors seem to suggest will arrive late this year. The suppositions vary somewhat, but IMO the most plausible development would be a shared architecture for a FF sensor of about 90 MP for the A7R V, followed quickly by a 44x33mm sensor of about 150 MP.

If this basic sensor development path and timeline are roughly correct, then for Hasselblad (or Pentax) to introduce a 102 MP camera now would be terrible timing. Recent history suggests that Fuji would quickly introduce a GFX 150 or whatever. Hasseblad probably needs to aim for the X2D following not too long after that, with the same 150 MP sensor.

The latest rumor for an a7RV sensor is a redesigned 60MP sensor. The 90MP rumor seems to be unsubstantiated,

They seemed to have focused on video, where higher MP is not so helpful.

Is this the end of the stills-focused Sony?

If so, will this slow or stop their development of higher MP sensors, outside industrial markets?

Hi,
Yes, Sony A7rIV is the high res model, at 60 MP.

Top model is a master of all trades at 50 MP. It can shoot like 30 FPS full resolution and handle 8K video.

There is also a baseline model at 30 MP and a video camera that 12 MP using a quad pixel sensor, so it could be 48 MP capable.

By and large, I would guess that Sony is on a four year sensor development cycle.

With regard to sensor resolution, they are the leader of the pack. Would Canon release a 90 MP sensor, I would think that Sony would need to respond.

But, I think that video is considered to be important today. So, I think that video features and tings like rolling shutter are taken into consideration with modern sensor design.

From where I stand, I think the A7rIV sensor is pretty good. It is also available in different sizes. So, if 100 MP is needed, we can go Fujifilm GFX 100S. Are 26 MP enough, the Fujifilm XT4 is around.

Personally, I think that the A7rIV sensor is pretty OK. Combined with a good lens and used at near optimal apertures, it will produce excellent images. I still see some aliasing with the A7rIV sensor, but much less than on the A7rII.

In the sum, going from the A7rII to the A7rIV was a worthwhile upgrade. The camera is just better in every sense. The A7rII was good enough, until I started using very high quality primes.

In the end, it is also a question, how much IQ do we really need? IMHO 24 MP is quite enough for printing A2 size and that is what desktop printers deliver.

Shooting at high resolution and using high end primes and viewing at actual pixels can be impressive.

But, zoom lenses may deliver good enough results and avoid cropping.

Also, I would think that the limiting factor may be the photographer. Making best use of all the pixels makes a demand on the person handling the camera.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

 

[steveashd]

To be honest, I’d be happiest with a redesigned 50mp sensor. I can’t really fault the image quality. I’d just like phase detect AF and IBIS. Low noise, high dynamic range and smooth graduations than more pixels.

Well, Fujifilm has added IBIS on the GFX 50SII.

PDAF is much more difficult, the 50 MP sensor has been around for at least 8 years, Sony would added PDAF during that time, would it have been practical.

The present 102 MP sensor has both PDAF. It is a new, back side illuminated, design. BSI moves wiring behind the photodiodes.

Noise levels depend essentially on sensor size. It doesn't really matter if you split the sensor in 50 or 100 million pixels. Making the pixels smaller will increase pixel level noise, but once you combine those pixels into an image the result will be the same.

Smoothness of gradiations is just about SNR. So, there will be no advantage of making the pixels larger.

Dynamic range is a bit more complex, as readout noise adds in quadrature. So, making pixels larger may have some positive effect on DR.

This can to some extent be observed on some older CCD sensors. Phase One developed a technology called 'Sensor+' that binned four pixels into one in hardware at high ISO settings.

Tonal range in 'screen mode' shows the number of discrete tones the sensor can separate per pixel. Activating Sensor + at 800 ISO improves tonal separation at the pixel level. So you gain something throwing away 75% of the pixels and pixel peeping at actual pixels.

Looking at the image at a fixed size, like making a print, the effect of Sensor+ is hardly noticeable. So no real gain throwing away all that resolution.

Looking at DR:

Looking at DR Sensor+ has a significant effect per pixel. But note that the X1D has much higher DR than than the much larger and much more expensive Phase One IQ180 had. That is because Sony has much less readout noise than CCD sensors used to have.

Switching to same print size, there is some positive effect of Sensor+ on DR, but is hardly noticeable.

In all probability, 80 MP will be able to carry more info than 20 MP. So these examples show that increasing pixel sizes have near zero benefits.
Best regards

Erik

Still, I don't need more pixels for my work. It isn't the thing that would make me buy a new camera. Camera specs however, are usually dictated by what gets people excited rather than the boring stuff they actually need!

 

[JimKasson]

Still, I don't need more pixels for my work. It isn't the thing that would make me buy a new camera. Camera specs however, are usually dictated by what gets people excited rather than the boring stuff they actually need!

Let me come at it from personal experience and no numbers. When the GFX 50S first came out, I bought one. Within three months, I'd sold all my H-series Hasselblads, which were al CCD, and all of my H-series lenses. It wasn't a hard decision.

My medium format photography took a huge step forward.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

To be honest, I’d be happiest with a redesigned 50mp sensor. I can’t really fault the image quality. I’d just like phase detect AF and IBIS. Low noise, high dynamic range and smooth graduations than more pixels.

Well, Fujifilm has added IBIS on the GFX 50SII.

PDAF is much more difficult, the 50 MP sensor has been around for at least 8 years, Sony would added PDAF during that time, would it have been practical.

The present 102 MP sensor has both PDAF. It is a new, back side illuminated, design. BSI moves wiring behind the photodiodes.

Noise levels depend essentially on sensor size. It doesn't really matter if you split the sensor in 50 or 100 million pixels. Making the pixels smaller will increase pixel level noise, but once you combine those pixels into an image the result will be the same.

Smoothness of gradiations is just about SNR. So, there will be no advantage of making the pixels larger.

Dynamic range is a bit more complex, as readout noise adds in quadrature. So, making pixels larger may have some positive effect on DR.

This can to some extent be observed on some older CCD sensors. Phase One developed a technology called 'Sensor+' that binned four pixels into one in hardware at high ISO settings.

Tonal range in 'screen mode' shows the number of discrete tones the sensor can separate per pixel. Activating Sensor + at 800 ISO improves tonal separation at the pixel level. So you gain something throwing away 75% of the pixels and pixel peeping at actual pixels.

Looking at the image at a fixed size, like making a print, the effect of Sensor+ is hardly noticeable. So no real gain throwing away all that resolution.

Looking at DR:

Looking at DR Sensor+ has a significant effect per pixel. But note that the X1D has much higher DR than than the much larger and much more expensive Phase One IQ180 had. That is because Sony has much less readout noise than CCD sensors used to have.

Switching to same print size, there is some positive effect of Sensor+ on DR, but is hardly noticeable.

In all probability, 80 MP will be able to carry more info than 20 MP. So these examples show that increasing pixel sizes have near zero benefits.
Best regards

Erik

Still, I don't need more pixels for my work. It isn't the thing that would make me buy a new camera. Camera specs however, are usually dictated by what gets people excited rather than the boring stuff they actually need!

Have you ever considered that you may be fundamentally wrong?

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

 

[steveashd]

To be honest, I’d be happiest with a redesigned 50mp sensor. I can’t really fault the image quality. I’d just like phase detect AF and IBIS. Low noise, high dynamic range and smooth graduations than more pixels.

Well, Fujifilm has added IBIS on the GFX 50SII.

PDAF is much more difficult, the 50 MP sensor has been around for at least 8 years, Sony would added PDAF during that time, would it have been practical.

The present 102 MP sensor has both PDAF. It is a new, back side illuminated, design. BSI moves wiring behind the photodiodes.

Noise levels depend essentially on sensor size. It doesn't really matter if you split the sensor in 50 or 100 million pixels. Making the pixels smaller will increase pixel level noise, but once you combine those pixels into an image the result will be the same.

Smoothness of gradiations is just about SNR. So, there will be no advantage of making the pixels larger.

Dynamic range is a bit more complex, as readout noise adds in quadrature. So, making pixels larger may have some positive effect on DR.

This can to some extent be observed on some older CCD sensors. Phase One developed a technology called 'Sensor+' that binned four pixels into one in hardware at high ISO settings.

Tonal range in 'screen mode' shows the number of discrete tones the sensor can separate per pixel. Activating Sensor + at 800 ISO improves tonal separation at the pixel level. So you gain something throwing away 75% of the pixels and pixel peeping at actual pixels.

Looking at the image at a fixed size, like making a print, the effect of Sensor+ is hardly noticeable. So no real gain throwing away all that resolution.

Looking at DR:

Looking at DR Sensor+ has a significant effect per pixel. But note that the X1D has much higher DR than than the much larger and much more expensive Phase One IQ180 had. That is because Sony has much less readout noise than CCD sensors used to have.

Switching to same print size, there is some positive effect of Sensor+ on DR, but is hardly noticeable.

In all probability, 80 MP will be able to carry more info than 20 MP. So these examples show that increasing pixel sizes have near zero benefits.
Best regards

Erik

Still, I don't need more pixels for my work. It isn't the thing that would make me buy a new camera. Camera specs however, are usually dictated by what gets people excited rather than the boring stuff they actually need!

Have you ever considered that you may be fundamentally wrong?

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

In what way? Im only saying I don’t need more megapixels but I would like better autofocus. I will happily buy a camera with more megapixels and Im not saying that would make it inferior. I just don’t have the need for the greater resolution.

I’m perhaps not explaining myself clearly. I don’t think that low resolution sensors are somehow better than those with higher resolution or vice versa. Every sensor can be judged on its own merits and in general the newest ones have superior technology to the older ones. But as a photographer I am not really interested in the technology or specifications. I only care about subjective things like the way an image looks and feels.

 

[thyl]

Slightly (but only a little so) off topic: It apears that Sony no longer actively advertises the IXM161 sensor used in the X1D (and all the other cameras that employ it):

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/camera/product.html

Further, I tried to get information on its manufacturing state, but failed. Acutally, no information whatever, it looks as if it completely vanished from existence. It seems as if its days are numbered.

 

[Erik Kaffehr]

Slightly (but only a little so) off topic: It apears that Sony no longer actively advertises the IXM161 sensor used in the X1D (and all the other cameras that employ it):

https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/camera/product.html

Further, I tried to get information on its manufacturing state, but failed. Acutally, no information whatever, it looks as if it completely vanished from existence. It seems as if its days are numbered.

It has been suggested all those sensor were made.

We know very little about sensor manufacture.

But we know it is a long and elaborate process and we also know that 'fab' capacities are limited.

It may have been the case that Sony made a few large batches of that sensor and they are not any longer made.

In all probability, Sony would be able to make new batches, if someone would pay for them. But, that would be paying a lot for a sensor that sells at low margins.

My understanding is that it takes like 3-4 months to make a sensor. Setting up production does take significant effort and there is a need to make initial samples and do evaluations.

We need also keep in mind that making 33x44 sensors means making less of some other sensor, that may be more profitable.

Best regards

Erik

 

[Opera207]

X2D100C

 

[JimKasson]

X2D100C

Source? What's going on with that lens? DOF markings but no distance scale. I am suspicious.

--

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

 

[Opera207]

X2D100C

Source? What's going on with that lens? DOF markings but no distance scale. I am suspicious.

Someone sells the prototype on a Chinese online market.

 

[gameshoes3003]

Someone sells the prototype on a Chinese online market.

Neat. I wonder what's up with that lens though.

 

[Opera207]

A prototype lens?

 

[gameshoes3003]

A prototype lens?

Well those pictures certainly help. A 30mm full frame equivalent lens. How interesting.