Hasselblad X1D-50c Review: Take the studio wherever you go

There's a potential 1 1/3 EV light gathering advantage to FF over APS-C, which is twice the difference as between FF and 44 x 33mm Medium Format.

Also, most of the 44 x 33mm systems currently don't have many lenses that are as bright (in equivalent terms) as those for full frame, which eliminates that gap in certain circumstances.

If you then have a FF camera with a base ISO 2/3EV lower than the larger sensor cameras, the difference essentially disappears.

All formats are a compromise, all are a personal choice of size/price/IQ but without faster lenses or some way to match the Nikon ISO 64 mode, this camera risks offering more size but with comparable IQ.

2 days agopermalink

Last time I checked, cameras needed lenses as well as sensors - and MF lenses out-class their FF cousins easily.

The focus on sensor performance is just one piece of the system - the complete system has MF benefitting from better optics, and delivering a far better result.

2 days agopermalink

I quite agree that lenses are part of the bigger picture. In Rishi's full article it acknowledges that it's easier to build a lens that can out-resolve 50MP if you're building for a larger sensor.

Similarly, the lenses for this Hasselblad cost a lot more than, say, one of the Sigma Art series, which should be good news in terms of factors such as alignment and consistency.

The review only says that the D850 as a camera body, should be able to be competitive in terms of IQ rather than saying it was as good, intentionally leaving room to consider the impact of lens choices.

However, my comment above is purely highlighting why it isn't a double-standard to point out that FF can have advantages over APS-C and yet can also be competitive with 44 x 33mm Medium Format.

2 days ago*permalink

Picturenaut

44mm x 33mm is small compared with classic medium format. I have e.g. a New Mamiya 6 with 60mm x 60mm, and it would be very interesting to have such a big sensor format with moderate (for this size) 50 MP. If done properly, such a camera with good lenses would be capable deliver a real leap of image quality for large prints. Or think about a digital Fuji GW690 with a 60mm x 90mm sensor - gorgeous e.g. for landscape or cityscape shot with small apertures. But I guess the market would be ways too small for developing such a product.

So far, the Pentax 645 is the only real classic medium format camera listed as competition in this review here. For digital photography I'd prefer a good FF camera over such "micro MF" cameras, because they are technically much more advanced, in particular their AF systems.

2 days ago*permalink

@Richard Butler
What the article says, and what you say was intended, may be two different things - it says 'the DSLR can compete pretty directly with the Hasselblad' - that's a positioning statement, and there are no qualifiers attached to that. 'Pretty directly' is wooly enough to suggest wiggle room, but it's left completely undefined.

You had the opportunity right there to spell out that the OE lenses from the MF system will likely negate any/all comparison with the FF DSLR for final IQ, but instead you double-down on the AF speed and wider range of available lenses for the DSLR.

I think the whole comparison will mislead people into thinking that they can buy a FF Nikon system, and that it will compete with a Hasselblad MF for final IQ, as a system.

1 day agopermalink

I don't think the difference is anything like as cut-and-dried as you imply. Depending on what properties you're looking for from a lens and which lenses you're looking at, I wouldn't state outright that the Hasselblad lenses are automatically better (even without factoring in whether they're better in proportion to their price).

I don't think it's misleading to think that "they can buy a FF Nikon system, and that it will compete with a Hasselblad MF for final IQ, as a system."

1 day agopermalink

@Richard Butler

Yep, I got that from the review.

1 day agopermalink

jfountain

I got this camera recently and I think this review is accurate for most photographers. But for me this camera is more like a 95% rating. I do fine art, landscape, a little studio work so if this is your profile you will love it.

For perspective: I also shoot 4x5, Medium Format and print up to 40"x50" prints. I had an aging basic Canon kit, went out and rented several FF cameras and had settled on the Sony A7R III. Then, just for fun, I rented the X1D and there was no contest after that.

The image quality was just incredible (in my tests the Sony with Pixel Shift is very very close though). So far I'm really happy with the camera.

5 days ago*permalink

RingoMan

Well, nobody asked an established professional wedding and portrait photographer if it would work for them.
Looking back to the 500C or CM this camera is much the same.
The sync with leaf shutters was always greatly superior and easy to apply on its LV (light value) indicates lenses. Just couple the two and sync for that bridal shot under the trees with flash is simple and requires no relearning!
Has any of you ever heard of Monte Zucker? No?
Back to school for the entire dpreview crew!
PPofA members are trained with this type of equipment that is so much like a roll film camera!
Shame on you for deliberately leaving out what it was made for!

5 days agopermalink

(unknown member)

This is a great camera period. The review does not add up. We use this on movie sets now for stills its truly amazing. The RAW image quality is probably the best I have ever worked on. Crystal clear when on the Eizo CG-318-4K monitors. Low light performance is much better than stated here in the review. Get the XCD 4/21lens!

5 days ago*permalink

Rotodpreview

Not clear to me what it does that smaller mirrorless cameras already offer. It used to be the larger viewfinder. That's no longer the case. And lens are fewer and farther between and its rather slow, as noted. So my answer is I don't need this. I follow the technology trend of really great smaller pro cameras.

5 days agopermalink

That's nice.

5 days agopermalink

Alphabart

No legacy lenses can be adapted? It has no shutter? I wonder who this is for.

5 days agopermalink

eastwestphoto

If I win the powerball, I am getting one!

5 days agopermalink

Cocktail Time

The moire in the Studio Scene image is significant. Though I don't see any in the sample galleries I would be very hesitant to use the camera for product photography.

6 days agopermalink

It can definitely appear in real world photos.

2 days agopermalink

odpisan

Pentax 645Z, K-1, K-1 II are better.

6 days agopermalink

Ipkiss2nd

I think NASA picked a Hasselblad when they did the moon landings :)
- Only camera brand in the world that has been on the moon.... just think about that ! :)

1 week ago*permalink

RCA and Westinghouse cameras were also used on the Moon - how do you think you got to see the footage of the astronauts on the surface?

1 week ago*permalink

milkod2001

Wonder if that picture about landing with (waving flag on the moon????) was also done with Hassy.

6 days agopermalink

kodachromeguy

The moon cameras were Hasselblad motorized cameras using Ektachrome film. They were modified with big buttons and other features for use with bulky gloves. Unfortunately, there is no lineage between those film bodies and these new digital units other than the name. However, you can buy a 500 series film camera for 120 film and have a very similar unit to the moon cameras. A film Hasselblad is an excellent photographic learning tool - highly recommended!

5 days agopermalink

Picturenaut

I can really recommend Michael Light's "Full Moon" book showing a nice selection of Apollo mission images that were nearly lost in NASA's huge archives. Some of the images shot with the Moon Hassi's are gorgeous, the lack of atmosphere of course makes them very special.

2 days agopermalink

ZurichPhoto

The X1D-50 is to photography what the DeLorean was to cars when it launched.

Cool as hell
Rushed to market
Overpriced
Buggy
Slow

And yet ... just like the DeLorean I really like it and want(ed) one ....

1 week ago*permalink

Zeee

I'm a little surprised that it only has 50MP. You can get excellent IQ with the current 50MP FF bodies.

1 week agopermalink

But not the lens quality - because apparently cameras need lenses and not just sensors.

And MF lenses are typical next level compared to even the best FF lenses.

1 week agopermalink

Marko2

And to make things worse for FF, it needs a sharper lens, with less aberrations, just break even with MF. The smaller the sensor, the larger the magnification given the same print size, which also magnifies all the lens flaws.

1 week ago*permalink

I wonder how many people got killed walking aournd with $10k in in their bare hand

1 week agopermalink

FrithjofA

All people who use a Leica M as their main camera. ;-)

1 week agopermalink

Bashir Lunat

So far I saw no news bulletin about anyone got killed carrying a X1D or a Leica.

1 week agopermalink

Mister J

Love the styling, which pleasingly leaves the pentaprism-look behind.

1 week agopermalink

Mateus1

X-1D 100iso shows more details and resolution compared fo GFX, but suprisingly D850 64iso is very close to X1D and better then GFX. Wow!
If new Nikon mirrorless brings 50iso base it will be a true killer for all current MF 50mp.

1 week agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=hasselblad_x1d50c&attr13_1=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_2=nikon_d850&attr13_3=sony_a7riii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=64&attr16_3=100&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.0063850540216087385&y=0.27768066651768264

OMG you're right, Nikon mirrorless can go below ISO100. For me nowadays it's the most interesting feature of new camera tech (unlike ISO256000 or weather sealing which are advertised like it's the second coming)

1 week agopermalink

Mateus1

For me 50iso and clean 6400iso is all I need.

1 week agopermalink

left eye

1 week agopermalink

User9362470513

If you want a camera that is perfect for hi-res stills of stationary or slow moving objects, you'd be as well off with a Sigma DP Quattro camera. Use the comparison tool and look at the etchings - the Sigma DP2 Q gives incredible clarity and sharpness and none of the horrendous colour moire and costs about £600 on eBay....

1 week agopermalink

srados

""Without anti-aliasing filters, both cameras exhibit stair stepping and a host of other artifacts if you look closely. This can be present in real-world shooting, with significant moiré appearing if you shoot the wrong texture. This can, to a degree, be processed-out but that requires careful and time-consuming image-by-image editing'''"

1 week agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison

The sigma is sharp but vs the X1D.....

The bit-depth / color is worse
The medium iso is worse
The high iso is worse
The shadow detail is worse
The roll off from shadows to mid tones is worse
The roll off from mid tones to high lights is worse
The highlight detail is worse

.... So that's a pretty big difference.

1 week agopermalink

Roland Karlsson

The Hasselblad is a real camera - the Sigma is a specialty tool. Just as Thematic says, the Sigma has several drawbacks. It also has rather bad dynamic range.

That said, the Sigma gives you fantastic resolution for the money and, for some scenes, gives you a surprisingly crisp image. It has a kind of built in acutance enhancer that looks just fantastic for American red rock.

1 week agopermalink

User9362470513

Why only the option to compare with one other camera at a time using the studio comparison tool?

1 week agopermalink

left eye

...yes this is unnecessarily restrictive, as clearly a 2 x 2 approach works well...

1 week agopermalink

This article may have been published Aug 1 but it appears to have been written much earlier. The current MSRP is $6495 not $9000. Advice to DPR: when a camera costs over $3500, drop the price metric from your reviews. People in this market could care way less about price and way more about operational and image quality features.

To that point, I see that DPR could not resist throwing a FF camera into the article. I guess it's replaced the Sony models as the favored FF alternative DPR thinks is necessary to include in medium format reviews. Hasn't the operational differentiation in the formats existed since the introduction of the 35mm format? For example, some digital MF cameras have an fps of 1. If you are considering the operational features of the D850, you probably never were a candidate for MF in the first place.

1 week agopermalink

The price on Hasselblad's website is $9000, which makes me think the manufacturer still recommends that as a selling price. I have been trying to work out how to reflect that it's widely available for less than that, in the review, though.

Price plays very little role in our reviews. The 'value' field has almost no impact on the final score, for instance. However, the XCD lenses cost around double what Fujifilm asks.

The Nikon is included because it has an ISO 64 mode that allows it to gather around 2/3EV more light than the Hasselblad, which means you can open up the aperture on the D850 to provide the same depth-of-field and total light. As such (focusing on the camera bodies and putting lens performance to one side), it should be able to compete with the X1D's image quality.

If you can get comparable image quality in a smaller camera without the operational drawbacks that you imply are inherent to medium format, for less money, doesn't that seem relevant to you?

6 days agopermalink

Price may have no impact on the score but commentary regarding it does on the minds of the impressionable, I believe.

I don't know how DPR defines image quality, but getting one sensor to gather an equivalent amount of light as another doesn't automatically produce equal image quality.

By the way, this is something I've wondered about since Nikon introduced it. Is ISO 64 a breakthrough unattainable by other camera makers? It is curious why others haven't followed suit if this base ISO gives a FF camera equal footing with larger sensors or would help them compete against Nikon.

6 days agopermalink

AirJarhead

My thoughts exactly. I can understand how ISO 64 can help noise comparisons, but I am not sure how these "photographers" at DP Review figure that makes "image quality" equal. Spouting off crap like this makes me respect these people even less. Now they are incapable of taking a interesting photos for a review, AND they are incapable of logical thought.

5 days ago*permalink

Kenneth Almquist

“If you are considering the operational features of the D850, you probably never were a candidate for MF in the first place.”

I suspect that most of the people reading this review are people who don't own a (micro) medium format camera, and won't own one any time soon. Part of the point of reviewing MF cameras is to let people know when the MF cameras have reached a level of development where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Currently, the disadvantages will outweigh the advantages for all but a handful of photographers, but that could change.

4 days agopermalink

Actually, you have that backwards. The advantages of medium format would improve the lot of all photographers but those few who truly need pro level AF and/or 12-20 fps for something other than bragging rights or protection against their own lack of skill.

4 days agopermalink

What in the world is going on in the samples gallery? Noise noticable even without zooming in at ISO400? Moire on every piece of clothing? I cannot believe the camera is a lemon, you guys must have done something wrong.
I'd take my A7III eny time of the day over this is samples are any indicator.

1 week ago*permalink

Dude, that moire means the system is sharp as he!!. Maybe you should wait for the 100 MP version.

1 week agopermalink

I'm fine with my 24mpix, but then it didn't cost like 10,000 $$$$

1 week agopermalink

IdM photography

The comparison with the Pentax 645z isn't just about whether you prefer an optical or a an electronic viewfinder. The 645z will focus very well in almost darkness, that's the most important difference...

1 week agopermalink

Morvegil

Another camera for doctors and lawyers?

1 week agopermalink

Wrong

1 week agopermalink

You're thinking of Leica. This camera is for people who shoot for billboards and shopping malls.

1 week agopermalink

Tommi K1

Neither, as billboards and shopping mall posters are just couple Mpix...
These are for high end magazines and galleries as for private art collectors.

1 week agopermalink

kb2zuz

lakkot you can shoot a billboard with a 2MP camera... doesn't matter because the pixels could be the size of your head when you're looking at something from 50 feet away. I work with Hasselblads for art reproduction (though the multi-shot studio versions that have no moire and better resolution) and it's useful for that, but I have to admit if I go to a Hasselblad event, there are a lot of doctors and lawyers. Do I care? No because there aren't enough of us to keep Hasselblad (or Leica) afloat on our own, so if they sell some cameras like these to doctors and lawyers, they're still around to make the cameras I need for my job.

1 week agopermalink

You just can't resist it, can you: "The Pentax offers a range of generally older lenses, rather than the small but modern array of XCD lenses for the Hasselblad."

Give credit where credit is due: Pentax has the biggest range of lenses for mid format. All of them have an excellent reputation.

1 week agopermalink

DonThomaso

I am often surprised of how relatively cheap the FA 645-lenses are on the second hand market, often similar price-point to full-frame lenses, even though they where MUCH more expensive when new. I guess analog Pentax 645 sold better (longer?) but not many Pentax 645D/Z sold?

1 week agopermalink

True. The truth is Pentax isn't sexy (anymore.) I have the K-1 and all you read in the reviews is AF is slow and blah-blah. Can tell you the autofocus hasn't let me down just once... Same with the 645D: between the Fuji, the Hassy and the Pentax I choose the latter every time: best ergonomics (other brands can learn a thing or 2 in that department (especially Fuji), best IQ and best built. But even in this review the 645D is downplayed against the Fuji and the Hassy. Sure the thing is heavy like a brick but the Fuji isn't especially small either...

1 week ago*permalink

EcoPix

When you consider image quality, performance, feature set, breadth of offerings, ergonomics, lens selection, quality control and value for money, it's difficult to understand the media bias against Pentax. But then if you consider the relatively small number of advertising dollars Pentax spend with that media, well, perhaps it becomes clearer.

1 week agopermalink

@Ergo607 You do not appear to own a 645z. I own one as well as a Fuji GFX 50s. I own 5 of the legacy lenses mainly because they are cheap to own (used from eBay sellers from Japan). The new releases are all excellent. The problem is there has been too few releases over the years. Also, I think the reputation of these legacy lenses are somewhat fan boy driven.

DPR got the remark about lenses correct, Many of these legacy lenses are not up to modern standards. If you were to find the Pentax Forums (different website) and look in on the medium format forum there, I think one of the consistent gripes is the lack of lens introductions and/or lens updates. One theory is that Pentax has ignored MF in favor of the FF production.

1 week ago*permalink

Rick Knepper I beg to differ. Even if we only count the new releases, Pentax line up is triple the amount of Fuji, including some offerings you won't find elsewhere. Add to that a vast array second-hand A- and 67 lenses (the latter to be used with an adapter) and I can't imagine you can't find your choice. So dpreview's comment is misleading (to say the best.) But that is what happens to Pentax every time: no review of the 645D or 645Z here (the remark was that dpreview didn't do reviews of medium format - och really?) or the mess they made with the review of the K1 II, and I am not even going to mention DxO's non publishing of their test...

1 week agopermalink

Ergo607, you and the Pentax fanboi who liked your post are completely confused with regard to the 645 lens lineup. The newly released lenses are the 28-45, 90, 55 and an updated 35mm (I can't think of any others). The rest of the current line-up are legacy lenses which are extremely high-priced for what they are. If it were not for a vast number of these legacy lenses in the used market, the Pentax 645D&Z would be much less of a good bargain for the bargain conscious than it is right now.

I am not defending DPR's general coverage of medium format, but their comment regarding the 645 lens line-up for Pentax's DMF is correct.

1 week agopermalink

Rick For completeness: you forgot the 25mm. Just curious: if you were in charge, what would the first lens in the 645 line up that you would update?

I can't comment on the prices (the offerings of Hassy or Fuji aren't exactly cheap either), but nevertheless stick with my statement that the comment of dpreview is way out of line. If anything the others have some catching up to do.

I may or may not be a fanboy (if enjoying my K-1 is being a fanboy, then so be it), and I am the first to recognize the weaknesses of the brand, but I am a bit heartened (and angry at the same time) to just read about those weaknesses and never about the things they got right at the first time (and other brands still have to catch up on.)

1 week agopermalink

I did not include the 25mm since it was discontinued a few short years after release. The rumor was there were design issues that could not be fixed.

Pentax not getting their props on DPR is a different issue from the lens statement. I don't expect DPR to unabashedly praise the medium format models of any brand. As for FF and APS-C, I haven't followed their coverage in a while. My FF is a Canon so you can imagine the complaints I have had in the past with DPR. Best to let it go and let DPR have its pet brands.

1 week agopermalink

seethroughme

I really wanna meet the tiny elves that make this camera by hand. I’m guessing they’re really cute but somewhat disgruntled.

1 week agopermalink

newe

Are those elves in China? I hope they have a good union.

1 week agopermalink

Those elves are in Sweden which generally has great labor laws.

1 week ago*permalink

newe

That would explain the price then...solidarity forever!

1 week agopermalink

Mr Bolton

You can get a new one of these for $8299 on Amazon (looking at the link above, August 8, 2018) and this camera will probably last you the rest of your life. I'd happily buy one of a camera that helped a union employee have a proper pension and paid vacations. (Fujis are still made in Japan too, except the cheapest ones, and IIRC so are Nikon and Canon's nicer models).

I think this camera is reasonably priced for what it is and what it does.

1 week agopermalink

Mateus1

It's overpriced.
Should be around Fuji GFX price.

1 week ago*permalink

jfountain

Right now Hasselblad and the Fuji are about the same for the bodies. The article lists the MSRP on the Hasselblad site. Check B&H, Adorama or Amazon. And actually when the price of the X1D did drop, that's when I decided to get one.

5 days agopermalink

Imager of

I jus dont no hoo wood by dis?

1 week agopermalink

HowaboutRAW

People considering a camera like the Fuji GFX-50S.

1 week agopermalink

I tinq es df 4 sum pople

1 week agopermalink

turvyT

Greens and yellows are close to horrendous. Artificial and oversaturated. Compare with Fuji, Pentax 645z or Leica S.

1 week agopermalink

Tommi K1

....if we just could shoot digital....

1 week agopermalink

turvyT

1 week agopermalink

vesa1tahti

Nikons D850, 7200, 7500, 500 do the same, for a fraction of Euros.

1 week agopermalink

photomedium

...and with much better AF! ;-)

1 week agopermalink

HowaboutRAW

Psst: the D7200, 7500, and 500 have no where near the pixel count of this Hasselblad.

No, higher mega pixel counts aren't everything, but because of the big sensor it's one of the reasons people consider this X1D.

1 week agopermalink

Mr Bolton

Seems kinda like the medium format version of the argument between Leica and Fuji.. except this is two grand more than its competitor, not four grand more.

If I worked primarily in a studio, I could really see getting this camera system. Knowing me tho, I'd still take it hiking..

1 week agopermalink

Hasselblad ran out of time, and money, to develop the X1D before they launched.

They knew that Fuji were likely to launch the GFX, so wanted to be first to announce. If Fuji got in their first they knew they'd sell a lot less X1Ds.

They completely underestimate how much it would cost to develop a mirrorless camera and lenses, and ran out of funds - eventually being bailed out by drone manufacturer DJI.

These two issue mean that they launched a product which was not ready for market, or fit for purpose. There were long delays in delivering lenses to market, and extremely long delays in shipping product.

Their own ambassador, Ming Thien, and said that it's taken nearly two years for them to update the camera to the point where it should have been at launch - and it still has significant issues, due to poor choices during design and pre-production.

1 week agopermalink

The decision to use the Sony sensor, without upping the refresh speed (as Fuji did) has crippled the AF system and EVF refresh rate.

The decision to use leaf shutters has crippled the camera's ability to use adapted 3rd party lenses, a key feature of ever other mirrorless systems.

Leaf shutters have also limited their ability to deliver fast glass, because the leaf shutter cannot move fast enough at wide apertures in daylight to deliver accurate exposures.

The price is clearly a challenge - while Hasselblad's best interest is to protect their MF base, it has lead them to price the camera at a point way higher than cooperative systems, with little material benefit for that price hike.

Sure it looks sexy, but sexy isn't worth zip when the camera is lacking in basic functionality.

I road tested the camera system twice, and concluded that it was 3-5 years behind current mirrorless technology.

1 week agopermalink

I spent my money on the Fuji GFX - couldn't be happier. Better camera period, and the lens system from Fuji is better than anything Hasselblad, Pentax, or Nikon??? have produced to date.

Hasselblad had a shot at getting my $20,000, and they completely blew it.

1 week agopermalink

You spent your money on Fuji and that explains everything you write above.

Hasselblad X1D is a dream camera. Handling, Design, IQ.
Hasselblad customer service is top notch, firmware releases are constant and adding features. The camera is very technologically advanced.

1 week agopermalink

@michaeln123
I gave Hasselblad the first shot - in fact two shots. I drove a 6 hr round trip each time to test the camera, with the Hasselblad rep, and couldn't believe that a company like Hasselblad, would seriously consider launching such an unfinished (and premium priced) product to market.

When pros who are being paid by Hasselblad, (Ming Thein), won't even endorse the product, and reviews here on DPR, tactfully reference the same issues, you have to call it out for what it is.

I have Hasselblads, and have shot with them extensively. The brand is legendary.

Unfortunately they bit of too much with the X1D - no point trying to sugar coat it

1 week ago*permalink

deep7

When I read a big rant like that here, I often wonder if someone is paid to do it? No camera is perfect for everyone but, for some, this one has no real competition and is highly desirable.

1 week agopermalink

@deep7
You can't handle the facts, so you claim I'm being paid by Fuji - awesome trolling.

So far Fuji have $20,000 of my money, and I have none of theirs - but as I'd tested both the X1D and the GFX50s, I'm happy that my money went in the right direction.

The GFX has already paid for itself with 6 cover features in the last 12 months.

But thanks for the amateur shade throwing demo - just awesome.

1 week agopermalink

Tommi K1

I find it funny that DPR gearheads are saying how many things Hasselblad has done wrong and they are talking about camera manufacturer that very well knows their customerbase needs, that is totally different than what the DPR reader base even is.

1 week agopermalink

deep7

Wow, Chris Dodkin, now you add poor reading skills and appalling guesswork to your rant. I made no such claim and I base my choices on facts. I retain my scepticism though.

1 week agopermalink

@deep7
Ah, yet more attempted passive aggressive insults.

Hilarious and tragically amateur at the same time.

1 week ago*permalink

deep7

Chris, you came to an article about a particular camera, bashed it (fair enough to give your opinion), then proceeded to go on and on and on about another camera which is only comparable to this one in terms of some of the technology used and which appeals to quite different photographers. The length and aggression of what you wrote, across several posts, qualifies as a rant and clearly raises suspicions. That's an observation, not an insult, nor an accusation.

Then you made untrue claims against me (which is aggressive and insulting) and I made the observation that you read poorly and guessed poorly - again, an observation, not an insult. Why not just read what you said and understand why I responded that way and then move on to the Fuji forum, where you zealousness will be gladly embraced?

Anyhow, I don't know you and won't be drawn into an argument but feel free to have the last word, if you like (an apology would be nice but I won't hold you to it).

1 week agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58046702

@deep7
Hey deep. Hope you don't mind if I call you deep, because you're concealing your true identity.

You're probably a decent enough person, hard to tell from your passive aggressive attacks.

You blunder into a medium format discussion, on a camera which I've been covering for DPR since July 2016.

You did an amateur job of throwing some shade, then doubled down with some personal insults, and some very basic blame dodging.

If you took the time to check everything I'd taken the time to outline in the original post, you'd know that it's factually correct, and gives an accurate historical context to the camera under review.

I've taken the time to road test the X1D, with the Hasselblad rep, and then compare it with a rival system, providing clear USPs to show why I spent my money on one system rather than another.

Most people see the benefit of this discussion, but you seem threatened, which is sad, and says more about you I fear.

1 week agopermalink

Deep7, there were 7 morons that liked your rant?

1 week agopermalink

lacix

Love to have one!

1 week agopermalink

The writers argue that something like a D850 can do almost as well for less money, yet the photo gallery makes liars of you all.
The portraits shot with flash are world class, they are as good as anything I've seen anywhere—professional or amateur, contemporary or vintage.
Take for instance the Richard Butler picture, in photos he usually comes across as a very handsome, nattily attired gentleman, but human nonetheless. In this gallery he is resplendent, like one of God's own emissaries descended to earth on a divine motor scooter.
Explain that with the dull and fragile tools you call science.

1 week agopermalink

BBQue

camera or photographer's skills?

1 week ago*permalink

I have one of those D810s and I've never shot anything as magnificent even with all the tricks (mirror lock up, rock solid tripod, optimal aperture, cable release, careful lighting to highlight shape and add modeling shadows, speedlights, manual focus).
I chalk it up to a combination of the superior Hasselblad lens, photographic skill, larger chip, better imaging tech, and one other aspect that these guys are too caught up in their own odd theories to notice.
I've always preferred the look of photos shot with leaf shutter and strobe. I wonder if the traveling slit of a focal plane shutter reduces resolution. Light hates slits.

1 week ago*permalink

Luis Gabriel Photography

Sure It has to be the camera making the difference......

1 week agopermalink

https://ricoh-imaging.ca/en/products/cameras/645Z-highlights/site/lens.html

Unfortunately for the myth of "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" in this case you are correct.

Generally, the galleries are shot in conditions that hide the difference between cameras. This time, the pictures show how much further Sony, Nikon, and Canon have to go before they arrive at medium format quality—but since medium format cameras are also improving they never will.

The irony is that writers who are supposed to highlight the differences between cameras are working so hard here to downplay them.

1 week agopermalink

photomedium

Hasselmeh.

1 week agopermalink

WGChsv

How could you have missed “Hasselblah”?!

1 week agopermalink

photomedium

if you ever have time to dig through my comments from a couple of years ago (if they are kept) you'll find just that. I don't like to repeat myself.

1 week agopermalink

22codfish

You mention the extensive range of Pentax heritage lenses still available, but not the Ricoh currently produced and marketed digital lenses:

Also, at one time there was a K mount FF>MF adapter. Or, was it K mount MF>FF?

I'm curious and admire the IQ of all MF cameras. I hope Ricoh will release a new Pentax 645 model which will include the Pentax K-1 advanced features like that movable screen and pixel-shift technology.

1 week agopermalink

KE_DP

"Compared to it's rivals -"
Fujifilm GFX 50S Pentax 645Z

and........D850? = NOT a Medium Format Camera :-/
Comparing Apples to Bananas here. Given this MF=FF comparison - then the Sony A7R2/3 should be listed as well.

1 week agopermalink

Deliverator

The D850's base ISO of 64 allows it to gather as much light as the 50c at its base ISO of 100, putting them on a similar footing, image quality-wise. The Sony A7RIII cannot compete on these terms.

1 week agopermalink

Graham Best

"The D850's base ISO of 64 allows it to gather as much light as the 50c at its base ISO of 100, putting them on a similar footing, image quality-wise. The Sony A7RIII cannot compete on these terms."

The only way to prove that is with empirical evidence. Show images where the difference is perceptible. DXO Mark scores the Hasselblad at 102, and the Nikon and Sony both at 100.

I expect the ability to differentiate prints made from the 3 cameras would be difficult to impossible.

1 week ago*permalink

Deliverator

Why DxO Mark chooses to show the D850 at ISO 100 is their business; the camera has a true ISO 64 that was there and available for them to use.

Read the D850 review on this site. You'll find the differences pointed out there.

1 week agopermalink

The inventor of the theory you're talking about has categorically stated that equivalence doesn't predict image quality. The authors of this article also conveniently ignore his admonition...
He says:
"Elements of (image quality) such as bokeh, color, flare handling, distortion, etc.... are not covered in this use of the term "equivalent".

1 week agopermalink

ffking

It's a bit noisy at high ISO compared, for example, to the K-1ii - but it retains detail about as well.

1 week agopermalink

Manzur Fahim

K1-II has an accelerator / processor that does constant noise reduction, maybe that is why.

1 week agopermalink

uMad

It's nice to see many of the flaws the camera once had fixed. There is still a long way to go to get it to competitors level and that is a moving target too.
But there are two very different options for mirrorless medium format cameras and both offer things, that full frame doesn't.

1 week agopermalink

Kuzmabrik

"built around a 44 x 33mm sensor that's 70% larger than 'full frame."

It completely destroys rhetoric of FF-obsessed photographers :D

1 week agopermalink

joe_leads

I must say I like what this camera does! It’s a good reason to go to Photokina this year and get my hands on one.

From the review, the Hasselblad seems to be like a first-gen A7R in operation, but I wouldn’t care, I was very happy with that camera. If I wanted to shoot sports, I’d choose another one.

1 week agopermalink

khunpapa

The most funny thing about this larger-than-full-frame-sensor *mirrorless* camera is that it has NONE that the guys who voting in the "new FF MILC should have" want in first threesome.

No full legacy lens compat, no fast AF, etc.

1 week agopermalink

Manzur Fahim

MF is not supposed to be fast. Well, it might be in the next generation, but MF has always been slow. GFX is still a little faster compared to other MF cameras.

1 week agopermalink

FoxShutter

It looks like this is the best money can get. Ppl who post not really smart comments comparing it to ultra high resolution FF cameras can get away with 1” sensor cameras easily.

1 week agopermalink

Biowizard

Just gotta say, if I had loads of money, I would SO be buying this.

Brian

1 week agopermalink

Rent it. Very enjoyable to use and results are spectacular.

1 week agopermalink

theprehistorian

Thematic - I tried one at a photography show shortly after it was launched. It was nicely made but got very hot very quickly, the focusing system was a good decade behind the curve, and the leaf shutters in the lenses were very loud and crude; think I'm terms of the original A7R. I'm not desputing the fundamental image quality, but I don't think it's a great camera.

1 week agopermalink

Shiranai

I see little to no difference between this and a Canon 5DSR, a Nikon D850 or a Sony a7RIII not even at ISO 6400.

Remind me again, what is the selling point they ask $7000 for?

1 week agopermalink

It is 9,000$ before tax and lenses. Every lens is 4-6K$. So be prepared to spend 20,000$
And if you don't have - sorry

1 week agopermalink

Wrong.

It's $6,495

1 week agopermalink

Wrong, right
https://store.hasselblad.com
9000$

There are discounts. There was a store in Europe selling for almost half the price

1 week agopermalink

noirdesir

Since about maybe two months, the X1D is discounted very consistently by between 20 to 30% in lots of places.

1 week agopermalink

It is just a starting point.

1 week agopermalink

Someone should teach you what msrp means.

It's $6495

1 week agopermalink

EcoPix

I'll wait for it to get to Nikon V1 firesale prices.

1 week agopermalink

Shiranai

No matter if it's $6500 or $9000, it's still freakin double the price of any other flagship model. And thats just for the body. The lenses are also half the price for even Zeiss or L glass which gives you way better apertures than the equivalent of Hassy.

1 week agopermalink

utphoto

Never have so many mis-informed gear heads gathered in one place.

1 week agopermalink

kodachromeguy

Oh, no, just look at any article about Leica or film. You will see even more ignorance and pseudo-technical babble then.

1 week agopermalink

David Mantripp

Well, at least they all agree WHICH grapes are sour now...

1 week agopermalink

Managarm

Since when is the Nikon D850 smaller than the Hasselblad X1D?

1 week agopermalink

dbo

Ever since PK16, when I put my hands on that masterpiece of ergonomical body design and felt the haptic I am in love with this camera.

To some who are stressing here that in certain pictures they see a "clear" advantage of high res FF cameras aka A7R2/3 or Nikon D850:
Technical comparison doesn't make any sense.
It is the experience using this camera that makes it up.
I am sure I wouldn't make better images compared to my A7RIII, but if I could effort the Hasselblad I would buy it in an instant.

On this years PK18 I am for sure taking some time on the Hasselblad stand, and have a look at the meanwhile released nice lenses.

1 week agopermalink

aris14

A nice crowd (aka clients) funding project for the next to follow model/version.
Quite honest though because it really delivers in every aspect (from marginal IQ performance to perceived quality in the eye of the beholder/client).
To my opinion flagships of FF manufacturers (and not only FF, but APS or M4/3 in some cases as well) can produce similar results in 95% of cases, far less if results are to be printed.
MF cams can serve this extra 5% of cases, whatever this 5% represents scientifically, technically, aesthetically or just pure vanity.
Generally speaking technology can help photography to an extend whose limit is the guy using the tool. You can argue that this is just a "common sense" comment, but I am not sure whose "common" and whose "sense" consist this "common sense" mixture...

1 week agopermalink

Hasa

Compared to D850 "Its resolution is fractionally lower", actually moiree gives advantage to D850 as seen in the comparison both at 100 and 3200 iso. Check out the comparator at the bw drawing of people admiring a painting. The Nikon D850 smokes the Blad at 1/3 the cost.

1 week ago*permalink

NumberOne

Seems we are the only two noticing it - And the same can be said about the A7RM3 which smokes it too regarding moiré! :)

1 week ago*permalink

@Richard. Can you give us a real-world comparison of the AF speed. Is it X-Pro1-when-released slow, or X-Pro1-after-all-the-firmaware-updates slow?

1 week ago*permalink

MrBrightSide

I second that motion. Am I misremembering or didn’t DPR used to publish autofocus speed in microseconds? Regardless, the lack of almost any numerical data in the tests is a bit of a head scratcher on a technically oriented website.

1 week agopermalink

We haven't regularly posted AF times during the time I've worked here.

It's definitely nearer X-Pro1 at launch speed: there's a definite waiting period.

1 week agopermalink

Specific AF times don't tell you anything you can relate to; I was more interested in relative performance.

1 week ago*permalink

MrBrightSide

We forget you're practically a babe in arms in comparison to the age of the site; Phil used to report autofocus lag time.
But why deny us the gray, black, and chroma noise graphs? Delta E. The dynamic range numbers? Absolute and extinction resolution? The numbers that let readers make up their own minds.
Is the problem that current readers aren't as smart as they were 10 years ago? Did the good testing equipment get left behind in London? What happened?

1 week agopermalink