X2D 100c files vs Z9/Z8 files

[kciuk aka Ken60]

…we were not allowed to get in any lens to a certain dimension including zooms so I had to do with 17 mm

As an " outsider" I am amazed by this comment . You mean they have people lens checking and removing anyone with say a 24mm - 70 mm , which for many is their standard lens.

 

[SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany]

I attached an image I took with my Em1-mark III and my zuiko 17 mm 1.2 from my daughter's high school graduation, I stitched about 16 images taken in a portrait orientation in LR/PS

View attachment 708898e0e2df479aa773a4bc2d7d704c.jpg

I downgraded resolution for easy upload.

I printed it in a local print shop filling the wall of living room , pleasure to look at it with the details …yes …Printing is what bring those images to life.

My favourite either yawning or hollering.

Reading on line various digital cameras do sweep panorama in camera, no external computer software, some m4/3 cameras such as E-Pl9.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

 

[SilverEagle1962]

…we were not allowed to get in any lens to a certain dimension including zooms so I had to do with 17 mm

As an " outsider" I am amazed by this comment . You mean they have people lens checking and removing anyone with say a 24mm - 70 mm , which for many is their standard lens.

was clearly mentioned in the graduation pamphlet instructions on line from the school's website so we followed instructions.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

How obedient , hope no one used the tele lens on their phone !

 

[SilverEagle1962]

How obedient , hope no one used the tele lens on their phone !

I am respectful to rules , this is how I was raised.

 

[SilverEagle1962]

Aside from equipment cost, available lenses, extra features, weight /bulk, handling, and operational speed, would someone with direct personal experience with both cameras please share with me their views contrasting the files achieved with both systems?

My subject material will largely be stuff that doesn't move very much, something in the nature of the image below, although probably not a pano, not much interior, and likely handheld with lenses from 40ish to likely 90 or so. I also like to use smaller primes and crop a lot. I am a modestly competent Photoshop user and around 60 years of photography experience (or one year of experience 60 times, depending on the observer )

I have some rental stuff in-route from Lensrentals, but would enjoy hearing from others in addition to forming my own opinion.

Thanx in advance - SC

View attachment 673301c4ca724e30816a1b005ecb03ef.jpg

Have you tried X1d?

--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/151760793@N02/

 

[Ramon Vaquero]

JimKasson

If you turn off exposure simulation, you can't use the histogram to judge exposure.

Some can live -and correctly expose- without it.

 

[JimKasson]

JimKasson

If you turn off exposure simulation, you can't use the histogram to judge exposure.

Some can live -and correctly expose- without it.

I can, too, but that live histogram is for me one of the most compelling reasons for MILCs.

 

[SrMi]

JimKasson

If you turn off exposure simulation, you can't use the histogram to judge exposure.

Some can live -and correctly expose- without it.

I can, too, but that live histogram is for me one of the most compelling reasons for MILCs.

Live histogram is available in DSLRs, though not in the viewfinder. However, the reduction in weight and size is unique. And OSPDAF.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[JimKasson]

JimKasson

If you turn off exposure simulation, you can't use the histogram to judge exposure.

Some can live -and correctly expose- without it.

I can, too, but that live histogram is for me one of the most compelling reasons for MILCs.

Live histogram is available in DSLRs, though not in the viewfinder.

Where, then? You're not talking about live view, which turns a DSLR into kind of a maximally impaired MILC, are you?

However, the reduction in weight and size is unique. And OSPDAF.

 

[SrMi]

JimKasson

If you turn off exposure simulation, you can't use the histogram to judge exposure.

Some can live -and correctly expose- without it.

I can, too, but that live histogram is for me one of the most compelling reasons for MILCs.

Live histogram is available in DSLRs, though not in the viewfinder.

Where, then? You're not talking about live view, which turns a DSLR into kind of a maximally impaired MILC, are you?

When working on a tripod, the live view on the rear LCD is often used. One can use the rear LCD to set exposure manually and then continue shooting with the OVF without a histogram. In-viewfinder histogram is quicker with automatic exposure. MILC made the live histogram more convenient, but it was there before MILCs.

However, the reduction in weight and size is unique. And OSPDAF.

 

[JimKasson]

JimKasson

If you turn off exposure simulation, you can't use the histogram to judge exposure.

Some can live -and correctly expose- without it.

I can, too, but that live histogram is for me one of the most compelling reasons for MILCs.

Live histogram is available in DSLRs, though not in the viewfinder.

Where, then? You're not talking about live view, which turns a DSLR into kind of a maximally impaired MILC, are you?

When working on a tripod, the live view on the rear LCD is often used. One can use the rear LCD to set exposure manually and then continue shooting with the OVF without a histogram. In-viewfinder histogram is quicker with automatic exposure. MILC made the live histogram more convenient, but it was there before MILCs.

I don't disagree with the history, but live histogram is, IMHO, the best exposure tool for raw there is at this point (except for Betterlight and Magic Lantern), and I don't want to have to give it up to compensate for AF difficulties.

 

[o2mpx]

Aside from equipment cost, available lenses, extra features, weight /bulk, handling, and operational speed, would someone with direct personal experience with both cameras please share with me their views contrasting the files achieved with both systems?

My subject material will largely be stuff that doesn't move very much, something in the nature of the image below, although probably not a pano, not much interior, and likely handheld with lenses from 40ish to likely 90 or so. I also like to use smaller primes and crop a lot. I am a modestly competent Photoshop user and around 60 years of photography experience (or one year of experience 60 times, depending on the observer )

I have some rental stuff in-route from Lensrentals, but would enjoy hearing from others in addition to forming my own opinion.

Thanx in advance - SC

View attachment 673301c4ca724e30816a1b005ecb03ef.jpg

The responses made me think it’s not just the gear, but neither just the image. For many it’s the image and what’s used to take it and what’s used to finalize it.

With travel landscapes, not the stationary waiting for best light with a tripod kind, but being part of a tour/cruise excursion always on the move (always need to crop) kind, the X2D with its color, tonality, dynamic range and resolution ranked top for me; but the weight and bulk ranked bottom. I also use the M10-R or the SL-2, but the image part isn’t better, although size and bulk definitely is (barely if SL-2). For lighter weight carry have ventured and exited the Fuji X-Pro3 and XH-2, really disliked the menus and build. Changed to Sony A7CR, didn’t like the lower resolution finder and screen but liked the sensor and now improved Sony colors. Moved to A7RIV to retain the resolution and preferred menu over the A7RV, and have now become the lightweight carry.

Despite these are great times to have many high quality choices, but personally, still waiting for a system with 100mp, ibis, tactile XD-2 or Leica user experience and image quality, but reduced weight and bulk. The GFX-100RF is close, perhaps version 2…

 

[Schrodingers cat]

Thank you for your post. my experiences, seem to be quite similar to your own.

 

[yogi4fitness]

I have all three cameras. THe X2D files are more detailed. I don't think that should be a surprise. But the X2D AF is, in a word, pathetic in fluid situations.

How about the GFX100/100s Jim?
Does it compare favorably to the X2D?

The AF on the GFX 100x is miles ahead of the AF on the X2D.

Thanks Jim. Interesting.

How about image quality and « color science »?
I’ve read that X2D colors, as well as menus, are the best.

The X2D meus are minimalist, which is great until you want to access missing features. They achieved those short menus by eliminating function.

The Hasselblad color processing, as performed in Phocus, is quite good, but you then need to deal with the rest of the Phocus program, which I categorize as no fun at all.

Hasselblad colors are slightly (and discernibly) more accurate than GFX colors, but as Jim mentioned you have to go through Phocus, which is an additional hassle. So what Hasselblad gains in ease of use via simplified menus is lost in post processing due to the Phocus and LR/C1 work flow. So the "Hasselblad is easier to use" is a myth that doesn't substantiate in the real world. Its a wash IMO.

And if you consider the image fidelity of GF glass over the newer XCD glass, Hasselblad loses by a good margin (esp in vignetting and corner sharpness). So what little you gain in Hassleblad color science is lost (and some more) in image fidelity.

Where Hasselblad shines is in industrial design and handling and the X cameras are a joy to handle and use. I always pick my X1D2 whenever I am shooting for my personal reasons. Its my fun camera. But when it comes to serious (and sometimes paid) work in the field its always the GFX system. A big reason for that is the AF system, which Jim noticed is miles ahead on the GFX. I would hate to miss focus on action and shots of people where there is any motion. In a studio with static models and strobes the Hasselblad will shine with its LS lenses but out in the field where there is any subject motion I wouldn't trust a Hasselblad to get the job done reliably.

Long story short: in the field, Hasselblad is a fun hobbyist camera. GFX is a serious professional camera.

I love both for different reasons.

 

[SilverEagle1962]

I have all three cameras. THe X2D files are more detailed. I don't think that should be a surprise. But the X2D AF is, in a word, pathetic in fluid situations.

How about the GFX100/100s Jim?
Does it compare favorably to the X2D?

The AF on the GFX 100x is miles ahead of the AF on the X2D.

Thanks Jim. Interesting.

How about image quality and « color science »?
I’ve read that X2D colors, as well as menus, are the best.

The X2D meus are minimalist, which is great until you want to access missing features. They achieved those short menus by eliminating function.

The Hasselblad color processing, as performed in Phocus, is quite good, but you then need to deal with the rest of the Phocus program, which I categorize as no fun at all.

Hasselblad colors are slightly (and discernibly) more accurate than GFX colors, but as Jim mentioned you have to go through Phocus, which is an additional hassle. So what Hasselblad gains in ease of use via simplified menus is lost in post processing due to the Phocus and LR/C1 work flow. So the "Hasselblad is easier to use" is a myth that doesn't substantiate in the real world. Its a wash IMO.

And if you consider the image fidelity of GF glass over the newer XCD glass, Hasselblad loses by a good margin (esp in vignetting and corner sharpness). So what little you gain in Hassleblad color science is lost (and some more) in image fidelity.

Where Hasselblad shines is in industrial design and handling and the X cameras are a joy to handle and use. I always pick my X1D2 whenever I am shooting for my personal reasons. Its my fun camera. But when it comes to serious (and sometimes paid) work in the field its always the GFX system. A big reason for that is the AF system, which Jim noticed is miles ahead on the GFX. I would hate to miss focus on action and shots of people where there is any motion. In a studio with static models and strobes the Hasselblad will shine with its LS lenses but out in the field where there is any subject motion I wouldn't trust a Hasselblad to get the job done reliably.

Long story short: in the field, Hasselblad is a fun hobbyist camera. GFX is a serious professional camera.

I love both for different reasons.

If Dean Collins still alive I bet he will shoot Hasselblad digital the way he shot it film, he was fun but damn sure not hobbyist.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/151760793@N02/

 

[SdeGat]

I have all three cameras. THe X2D files are more detailed. I don't think that should be a surprise. But the X2D AF is, in a word, pathetic in fluid situations.

How about the GFX100/100s Jim?
Does it compare favorably to the X2D?

The AF on the GFX 100x is miles ahead of the AF on the X2D.

Thanks Jim. Interesting.

How about image quality and « color science »?
I’ve read that X2D colors, as well as menus, are the best.

The X2D meus are minimalist, which is great until you want to access missing features. They achieved those short menus by eliminating function.

The Hasselblad color processing, as performed in Phocus, is quite good, but you then need to deal with the rest of the Phocus program, which I categorize as no fun at all.

(…)

Where Hasselblad shines is in industrial design and handling and the X cameras are a joy to handle and use. I always pick my X1D2 whenever I am shooting for my personal reasons. Its my fun camera. (…)

Interesting post yogi4fitness.

Others have mentioned things like «the experience» with Hasselblad and Leicas for example but that concept eludes me. Some say I would have to try one of those cameras to understand but I cannot rent those in my area. So I’ve been stuck with cameras that work well but likely don’t have that « experience » feeling.