X2D 100c files vs Z9/Z8 files

[JimKasson]

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.

 

[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.

Thanks again Jim.

I’m not seeing/reading anything compelling for the X2D.

And that’s not counting for the extra cost…

So why are there quite a few reviewers out there who rave about the X2D? (Even though your opinion weighs a lot more )

 

[JimKasson]

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.

Thanks again Jim.

I’m not seeing/reading anything compelling for the X2D.

And that’s not counting for the extra cost…

So why are there quite a few reviewers out there who rave about the X2D? (Even though your opinion weighs a lot more )

I think there are several reasons:

1. Free gear from Hasselblad
2. Leaf Shutters
3. Great industrial design

 

[SrMi]

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.

I would say better, but not miles. Z8, A1, R5II are miles ahead.

Anyway, the difference in AF is probably irrelevant to the kind of shots that the OP takes. The difference in MF, where X2D is better, probably matters more for the shots the OP shared.

 

[JimKasson]

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.

I would say better, but not miles. Z8, A1, R5II are miles ahead.

Kilometers ahead?

Anyway, the difference in AF is probably irrelevant to the kind of shots that the OP takes. The difference in MF, where X2D is better, probably matters more for the shots the OP shared.

 

[SrMi]

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.

I would say better, but not miles. Z8, A1, R5II are miles ahead.

Kilometers ahead?

yes, klicks ahead .

Anyway, the difference in AF is probably irrelevant to the kind of shots that the OP takes. The difference in MF, where X2D is better, probably matters more for the shots the OP shared.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[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.

Thanks again Jim.

I’m not seeing/reading anything compelling for the X2D.

And that’s not counting for the extra cost…

So why are there quite a few reviewers out there who rave about the X2D? (Even though your opinion weighs a lot more )

I think there are several reasons:

1. Free gear from Hasselblad
2. Leaf Shutters
3. Great industrial design

Would that mean Jim that your GFX is getting way more use than your X2D?

 

[JimKasson]

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.

Thanks again Jim.

I’m not seeing/reading anything compelling for the X2D.

And that’s not counting for the extra cost…

So why are there quite a few reviewers out there who rave about the X2D? (Even though your opinion weighs a lot more )

I think there are several reasons:

1. Free gear from Hasselblad
2. Leaf Shutters
3. Great industrial design

Would that mean Jim that your GFX is getting way more use than your X2D?

Yes.

 

[eliehbk]

I had the GFX50sii and X2d/X1dii. Sold all of them now as I do not need such a camera. I can confirm that the design of the X2d is great, however, I prefered the OOC output and colors of the Fujifilm over both Hasselblads. I would say the X2d has true-to-life look to it which I found boring for my needs. Different strokes for different folks. If I had to buy another medium format, it would surely be a Fuji.

PS: I also have quite few Leica M lenses which I loved using on the above cameras. The Hasselblads made the experience not as fun since the shutter with adapted lenses is electronic..

 

[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.

Thanks again Jim.

I’m not seeing/reading anything compelling for the X2D.

And that’s not counting for the extra cost…

So why are there quite a few reviewers out there who rave about the X2D? (Even though your opinion weighs a lot more )

I think there are several reasons:

1. Free gear from Hasselblad
2. Leaf Shutters
3. Great industrial design

Would that mean Jim that your GFX is getting way more use than your X2D?

Yes.

Thanks. That’s always a significant indication.

I guess this (interesting) review was not thorough enough.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

I have often read from internet guys that they went Hasselblad X2D as the colours were far superior to the Fujifilm 100S II /100 II .

I have found that my latest version of Capture One Pro and Studio Beta will not open Hasselblad files so I am unable to do a comparison at home , but would very much appreciate someone posting unmodified similar/same files from both to show this .

I do know that in the UK I bought my GF 20 - 35 f4 for £1650 new from a reputable supplier ! As for leaf shutters , yes outdoor flash is far nicer with these but I don't tend to use this for landscapes or much of the photography that I do. Professionally I managed with 35mm digital and the limits of around 60th sec for many years.

 

[SilverEagle1962]

I guess this (interesting) review was not thorough enough.

At 0.3 of a second hand held on a medium format with spectacular colors right out of the camera is crazy…..I hope you are not getting me into the Hassy instead of gfx100rf . I have now second thoughts about my choice.

 

[Last Mango]

I have owned several GFX cameras, 50s, 50r, and 100s, all with fantastic image quality. The 100s AF is significantly better then either of the 50's, and the 100s ii is another big step forward. I love the GFX system, but the lenses are a bit too big for me (granted, I did not try the 35-70mm). I decided to give the X2D + 55v a try mainly for the industrial design, ergos, and small fast primes (28p, 38v, 55v, 75p, 90v). I am primarily a landscape shooter and don't require much in the way of AF. I love everything about the X2D and 55v except for the price and lack of a joystick, although the touch screen is very good and works fine to move the AF point around once you get uses to it. The colors are next level and don't require much editing (only using Lightroom, and have not tried Phocus). To me, the X2D is a better experience than the GFX, but not sure it is worth the price tag. The GFX system is more well rounded with many more lens options at half the price of the X2D system.



Hope that helps.

Rod

 

[SrMi]

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.

Thanks again Jim.

I’m not seeing/reading anything compelling for the X2D.

X2D is much more enjoyable and has all the features I need. I don't need the %DR, lossy compressed files, video, gazillion JPEG settings, a gazillion AF settings, fake ISO bracketing, endless operational sound settings, etc. All those additional features get in my way when I want to use the camera.

By the way, I have been using Fuji cameras since the X-E2 and am very familiar with their menus and settings. But it still "hurts" when I have to use them. However, if cost were an issue, I would be using GFX instead of X2D. Sadly, cameras that are simple to use (Leica, Hasselblad) have to cost more.

And that’s not counting for the extra cost…

So why are there quite a few reviewers out there who rave about the X2D? (Even though your opinion weighs a lot more )

 

[SrMi]

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.

A tip for reliable AF in low light: turn exposure simulation off.

X2D without exposure simulation (M mode only) focuses much more reliably in low light (7 stops underexposed) than GFX100 II with exposure simulation on. The image's brightness under the focus point matters greatly for reliable focusing.

 

[JimKasson]

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.

A tip for reliable AF in low light: turn exposure simulation off.

X2D without exposure simulation (M mode only) focuses much more reliably in low light (7 stops underexposed) than GFX100 II with exposure simulation on. The image's brightness under the focus point matters greatly for reliable focusing.

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

 

[SdeGat]

X2D is much more enjoyable and has all the features I need. I don't need the %DR, lossy compressed files, video, gazillion JPEG settings, a gazillion AF settings, fake ISO bracketing, endless operational sound settings, etc. All those additional features get in my way when I want to use the camera.

By the way, I have been using Fuji cameras since the X-E2 and am very familiar with their menus and settings. But it still "hurts" when I have to use them. However, if cost were an issue, I would be using GFX instead of X2D. Sadly, cameras that are simple to use (Leica, Hasselblad) have to cost more.

« X2D is much more enjoyable » is interesting @SrMi. I do read that every now and then about cameras and find it hard to understand/assess without using the device in question.

I use the Sony A7CR with a single small prime when I travel and I remember reading that the « experience » was much better with something like the Leica Q3 for example.

Would you care to elaborate about the X2D enjoyability?

 

[SrMi]

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.

A tip for reliable AF in low light: turn exposure simulation off.

X2D without exposure simulation (M mode only) focuses much more reliably in low light (7 stops underexposed) than GFX100 II with exposure simulation on. The image's brightness under the focus point matters greatly for reliable focusing.

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

You cannot judge it from a live view, but you can judge it from an image review. The choice is either working focusing in low light or optimal exposure at first shot.

With GFX, you can assign a button to switch between exposure simulation on and off (needs several presses to rotate between modes). Turn it on to set exposure, turn it off to focus, and see the scene properly. All my Fuji cameras have one button reserved for that.

With X2D, I use the EV scale and experience to set the exposure and check the large RGB histogram to verify whether I need to adjust the exposure in any direction.

 

[Rich42]

I had the GFX50sii and X2d/X1dii. Sold all of them now as I do not need such a camera. I can confirm that the design of the X2d is great, however, I prefered the OOC output and colors of the Fujifilm over both Hasselblads. I would say the X2d has true-to-life look to it which I found boring for my needs. Different strokes for different folks. If I had to buy another medium format, it would surely be a Fuji.

I've never read an opinion about this topic expressed quite the way you have. I completely agree.

Whatever kind of subject matter I have ever shot, landscapes, portraits, product photography - for the image to look - "pleasing," "accurate," "lifelike," "compelling," "eye-catching," believable," riveting," - it is necessary to apply quite a lot of "correction," enhancement," color balancing, etc for the result to look give the viewer experience of looking at the original subject. Or, seeing it the way it looks "best." Whether digital or film processing.

And very often, the image colors have to be quite far from the original. When done right, that's what looks right.

The image is not the original thing. Absolutely replicating the colors in the image of what was in front of the lens does not alone make the image look the way the eye wants to see it. Not by a long shot. (No pun intended)

Hasselblad (to me) seems to be very focused (again no pun), on color by measurement primarily. I have no idea how they came up with the process they use, and would love to learn about all the factors that went into their "color science" decisions. I wonder at how many decision-making forks-in-the-road the functionality of the system was dependent on the seniority of one engineer over another. Or the influence of marketing. Or the crunch of manufacturing deadlines.

I read "reviewers" opinions of the "superiority of a particular brand's color science" as just more worthless Internet insistence on absolute rankings of everything. As though the quality of music from a symphony orchestra could be quantified on the basis of knowing the makers of any or all of the musicians' instruments.

PS: I also have quite few Leica M lenses which I loved using on the above cameras. The Hasselblads made the experience not as fun since the shutter with adapted lenses is electronic..

 

[JimKasson]

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.

A tip for reliable AF in low light: turn exposure simulation off.

X2D without exposure simulation (M mode only) focuses much more reliably in low light (7 stops underexposed) than GFX100 II with exposure simulation on. The image's brightness under the focus point matters greatly for reliable focusing.

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

You cannot judge it from a live view, but you can judge it from an image review. The choice is either working focusing in low light or optimal exposure at first shot.

Isn't that what MILCs were supposed to free us from?

With GFX, you can assign a button to switch between exposure simulation on and off (needs several presses to rotate between modes). Turn it on to set exposure, turn it off to focus, and see the scene properly. All my Fuji cameras have one button reserved for that.

With X2D, I use the EV scale and experience to set the exposure and check the large RGB histogram to verify whether I need to adjust the exposure in any direction.