Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review

I wouldn't say FF is better, but it's important that we express how much (or little) of a difference there is between this and other, much less expensive cameras. And yes, we will make clear that features such as leaf shutters are significant, too.

However, we regularly see people talk about medium format as if it has some inherent magic to it. Larger sensors only have an advantage if you can get more light to them (ie: when you can't open up the lens on a smaller format to match the total light capture).

Apr 6, 2017permalink

turvyT

I think you dpr guys are dealing with your own prejudices. I don't see anyone in this forum talking about any magic related to MF, not regularly. By the opposite, I see tons of people regularly talking about the magic of FF, or the magic of certain brands. People like Ming Thein, f. i., lately coverted to MF, just takes pictures, doesn't talk about any magic. And many do like him. MF is expensive and more critical in general, and yes, you do get better results if you need extreme resolution, big prints and tonal gradation. If you need them, what means pro work.. But in order to be a good photographer you don't need MF. Not even FF. Or APSC. You can shine with a phone camera or a film P&S. But that's another story.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

You say you don't expect magic but then say that MF gives better resolution, big prints (presumably better IQ?) and tonal gradation. It's this assumption that we wanted to test.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

badi

Richard, my point (here and in some other comments) is not that this or the GFX is so much better than the A7RII ... is that you have a problem in looking at the subject in a one way only.

First point: yes, you are correct ... that art 85/1.4 put on A7R2 (shot wide open), gives the best light gathering. It's someting like 1.5stops better than the XCD 120/3.5. This difference will most likely be more important than the sensor performance difference, which as you already showed is less than a stop.

Second point: In real life you shoot stuff and want to show it. You shoot fashion, landscape ... at anything but wide open, so the "slow lenses" of the GFX or X1D are not a real problem. You might not get the resolution advantage you would expect, but the speed of the lenses is not the problem, and MF never had too fast lenses. The problem is that MF should use better sensors :)

Apr 7, 2017permalink

I don't think we did look at the issue from just one way. I completely agree that low light and shallow depth of field photography are only one aspect (an area where these cameras currently can't keep up with a smaller format, despite their greater price).

However, as you say, in situations where you're not light limited (such as the studio), you can stop down to whatever degree you want and use base ISO. This is an area that full frame can only compete with if if offers greater full well capacity, that allows a lower base ISO. That's exactly what we were investigating and showing with the studio portraits we shot: you can lower the ISO on the Nikon D810 and get essentially the same IQ/tonality by shooting at ISO 64, but you can't get the resolution. Conversely you can shoot with the 5DS R and get most of the resolution but lower IQ (through a combination of less total light and lower sensor performance).

Apr 7, 2017permalink

We checked this because it's where a larger sensor should have an advantage and, in this case, it does. However, the advantage is relatively small, given it costs over twice the price of a D810.

We wouldn't have given it a Gold award without that difference.

Apr 7, 2017permalink

left eye

The size of a photon is not so far away from the size of the photosites in an sensor. Larger photosites not only collect more photons but also create less disturbance [similar to aperture diffraction].

Take the centre of the spectrum, light of a green wavelength; 'green' photons are 0.5 micron in size, some smartphone sensors have a photosite size of 1 micron - that's only double the size of green photons.

These 50MP MF sensors have a photosite size of 5 microns. This must make some difference? Not so oddly enough, skin tones (larger photons) are often better with MF.

Apr 21, 2017*permalink

sibuzaru

I liked the battery solution, not the fact that it's part of the body, but its charging method, it they used USB it would be even better since the batteries could just work as a power bank outside the body

Apr 6, 2017permalink

iae aa eia

I don't understand why it is difficult to talk about color. Ok, the X1D doesn't output JPEG, but something can be said about the samples in RAW. It looks to me they render colors basically in the same tonality, only that the X1D is more saturated.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

It's difficult to talk about colour because it's impossible to disentangle the effect of the camera and the effect of the Raw processor's profiling. We discuss JPEG colour because that's camera + manufacturer's colour profiling but in this instance it's camera + non-standard Adobe profiling.

It may be possible to achieve exactly the same colours from all other cameras. Equally, you're likely to get a totally different result in other Raw converters, so it tells us little about the camera.

Essentially we'd be reviewing Adobe's input just as much as we would be reviewing a property of the camera.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

MPS Photographic

Looking at the comparison tool, I wasn't surprised that the Hasselblad images were so much sharper than the D7000 I have. But it was even noticeably better than a D5.

Apr 5, 2017*permalink

Lawrence33

If I didn't have the working, 'Collection' of Hasselblad equipment I've worked with for many years. Been at this game from the sixties.
I would be interested in the New, x1D but I like the equipment I have.
" That's nice. But what have you done lately ? " Go make some new pictures

Since digital came to cameras the EGOs' have arrived. Some guy told you that Leica was a piece of "clap" because it was over "price'd", Well, don't buy one.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

Tonio Loewald

"Contrary to popular belief, greater bit depth doesn't help overall 'tonality'; instead it means there are enough available values to accurately describe the deepest shadows, rather than clumping everything into a few values, leading to a type of noise (quantization error)."

What? You're saying it doesn't do X, it does X. And incidentally the linked article shows bit depth improving tonality. Having more detail in shadows is tonality.

What is important is that bit depth subdivides dynamic range, so if you have enormous dynamic range and poor bit depth you'll have worse tonality than if you had the same bit depth and less dynamic range (assuming you shot something within the dynamic range).

Apr 5, 2017permalink

The article shows that, if there's noise dithering your transitions, then there's no benefit to additional bit depth, beyond a certain point.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

Tonio Loewald

So what you mean is that "greater bit depth doesn't help overall tonality beyond a certain point" which is kind of true of anything. Also bit depth that is overwhelmed by noise isn't bit depth, it's noise.

Apr 8, 2017permalink

Petar Veliki

Math at dpreview...

focal at medium format - f/8
FF - f/5.6
APS-C f/5.6
and mikro 4/3 ... f/5.6

Do you think 4/3 could be at best f/4 - f/4.5 I am telling that some time. No luck.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

s1rf4n

The F stop is the same across all formats...what is different is the depth of field.
In other words:
FF - f/5.6 with a depth of field equivalence of f/5.6.
m43 - f/5.6 with depth of field equivalence of f/11.2.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

webrunner5

And it still looks worse than a 700 dollar used Sigma dp2 Quattro!

True, you are probably stuck at ISO 200 tops but...

Apr 5, 2017permalink

mezastel

Oh ffs, Hasselblad, all we want is a digital XPan, okay? None of this stuff. Just a digital XPan with a set of 3 lenses and a wide sensor behind it. That's it! That's literally all you have to do to sell a decent amount of cameras to landscape photographers.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Samuel Spencer

I'm with you. Landscape photogs aren't the only ones lusting after 65:24.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

filks1

The x-pan was a kinda gimmic. Like much of what is created today. What photographers need is a digital 500cm. Why do you think they took that 6x6 format too the moon. The x-pan is 35mm on steroids which is ok for landscapes or for portraits of really wide people :-))

Apr 5, 2017permalink

DPHI

Canon 5DSR with Zeiss 15mm and 21mm lenses cropped 3x1. That is my XPan.

Apr 5, 2017*permalink

Jon Ragnarsson

DPHI: It would be tempting getting a 5DSR with those lenses just for landscape. No zooms for that resolution.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

Banana Chips™

i cannot agree more. hopefully whatever they've learned in developing this would be used to create the digital XPan.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

QuantumPhysics

Want a digital X-Pan? Get a Sony A7II and use sweep panorama, or 16:9 shooting mode. Crop the vertical by 11 percent and you've got a 2:1 panorama, just like the Noble X-Pan! Not big enough? Double the size with bicubic sampling in Photoshop! These days it works extremely well! There's a large assortment of Zeiss lenses native to Sony E-Mount, which are not too shabby. You can also shoot a sequence of verticals and join them in post for enormous, sumptuous panoramas that will print beautifully!

If a credit card is tickling your fanny, go for the Hasselblad! But remember it is always good technique and thoughtful content that win the day.

Apr 5, 2017*permalink

QuantumPhysics

By the way, up close and personal long panoramas are pretty neat, but at normal viewing distances for a given print size, 1:2 is a bit more effective, because you don't have to be as close. Just a thought....

Apr 5, 2017permalink

Henry McA

I like the look of the Hassi files much better - punchier, sharper, better colours.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Colour in Raw is heavily dictated by the camera profile applied by the Raw converter. In this instance, the Fujifilm was developed using the Adode Standard profile (which is broadly similar between cameras and hence is our standard process), whereas the Hasselblad was developed using a 'Camera Standard' response that tries to mimic Hasselblad's preferred response.

I'd recommend downloading the Fujifilm file, apply one of the profiles that attempts to mimic Fujifilm's preferred colour response before drawing conclusions about colour in Raw.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Henry McA

Yes, it shows the difficulty of comparing even Raw files with LR.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

FuhTeng

Nope, I'll never buy it, it's way out of my price range, but I'm still glad it exists and I'm happy to read about it.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

String

Exactly! Just like Ferraris and Lamborghinis... don't own one and never will but sure glad somebody makes them!

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Macaque2

Well, that's not entirely correct. The X1D is very affordable compared to most other medium format cameras. Only GFX and 645z are cheaper, and those don't offer leaf shutter lenses. I myself am considering purchasing it, but will wait and see what Nikon D810 successor will come up with. The 50MP CMOS in the X1D is already three years old, after all.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

wizofoz

Actually, there are 2 leaf shutter lenses available for the Pentax MF camera. One only needs to do a simple search to ascertain this oft repeated statement simply isn't true.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

Steven Lungley

On the question of cropping, consider this actual event from a few years ago:

Photographer shoots an ad campaign for a national client. The ad agency and company reps are on set and approve the images as they go. The favorite image is a full body shot, including some foreground and background details, captured on a 40 MP medium format back.

The agency and client decide they want to use the same image across all media platforms. They take the select frame, and crop it into a mid-shot, throwing away half the data. With the cropped frame, they create print ads and online ads and have plenty of detail to work with. Then they create bus shelter ads, and POP cut-outs for use in-store. In both situations, the viewer can walk right up next to it and stare the actor in the eyes.

And the photo is.. a bit soft, which does not make the agency or client very happy. When they plan their next project, they go looking for a different photographer, who has more advanced equipment.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

patrickjchase

Absolutely, and that's why commercial photographers will probably continue to buy "real" MF cameras like the P1 XF 100MP and the equivalent Hassy, as well as their 200 MPix followons (per Sony's roadmap).

The problem with this camera and the Fuji is that they don't bring enough to the table to make a difference for that sort of customer. Taking the A7R ii as a comparison point, 2/3 stop more light and 9% more linear resolution (which is what the eye perceives) is a very marginal improvement, that is unlikely to be decisive in situations such as you describe. That's particularly true once you take lens speed into account.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

guyfawkes

Looks to me that neither the Ad Agency nor the client knew what they were doing. Did they fully inform the photographer that such cropping and huge images were contemplated? Makes one wonder why serious work is still the domain of large format photography, and even larger than 5x4.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

Najinsky

I find that the colours in the X1D rendering of this scene are exceptionally nice. I like very very much.

The skin tones of the 4 portraits, the cotton reels, the reds in the playing cards, the green of the foliage, the Yellow-Green label on the colour wheel, the Beatles patch, the paint tubes; just about everywhere I look in the scene I see great colour.

I understand this is mostly down to the profile in ACR, so it seems Adobe have done a really nice job of matching the intent.

But I'm wondering if Hassleblad tweaked with the CFA give to the sensor what they consider to be an optimal spectral response to start from. It will be interesting to see the colour analysis from DxO if they get to test it.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

AstroStan

" wondering if Hassleblad tweaked with the CFA "

That seems highly unlikely because Bayer filter and micro-lens deposition is an integral part of the manufacturing process. I would be greatly surprised if any company bought bare CMOS from Sony then deposited their own Bayer filters and micro-lenses. But I suppose it is not entirely impossible.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Najinsky

What seems to happen is the customer designs a sensor specification and Sony builds it. So the CFA specification would be part of the design that Sony then build, not something added after.

For example Olympus talked about the microlens design they did for the EM1.2 sensor, supplier then built it to that design.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Fujifilm has also said it developed its own microlens array for the GFX 50S. Given Fujifilm appears to buy Sony sensors with custom (X-Trans) color filter arrays, it's clear that you don't just have to buy off-the-shelf combinations of silicon, CFA, microlens and AA filter.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

patrickjchase

I think that Richard hit the nail on the head: The big up-front costs for any chip (sensor or otherwise) are the silicon and metal masks. All but the very largest customers would have to share those.

OTOH, things like microlenses and CFAs can be customized fairly cheaply.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

AstroStan

Look at the converging lines just right of center in the compare graphics. This camera has excessive color fringing compared to the Fuji (but noticeably superior resolution compared to every FF). I wonder why?

Supposedly the same detector is in both cams and the apparent sharpness is very similar. Maybe the Fuji uses a blur (AA) filter. Or maybe the Hasselblad lens is ultra sharp, significantly exceeding the resolution of the Bayer matrix? If so then 50mp is insufficient.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

S Yu

I still wonder if many (relatively cheap) lenses that have low perceptable CA actually just have lower transmission of magenta, or I should say they have an earlier cut-off at high frequencies. This should be very easy to test yet nobody ever tests transmission on a per-color basis.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

patrickjchase

If a lens had low enough transmission of magenta to mask CA, then it would have a VERY obvious green tint when you look straight through it.

The short answer is therefore: No.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

TimRavenscroft

I noted you referred to the X1D as essentially a studio camera. I have used the X1D almost exclusively in the field and it performs admirably in this context. Manual focus with back button autofocus (plus focus peaking) works great and the rear screen is bright enough to review images in the brightest light. Its weight compared to conventional medium format digital makes it a much more manageable offering for a day in the field.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Judging by the wood working tools in your previous post, and posts on other sites it is capable of rich;y rewarding the photographer who uses it well.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

DP, if I am understanding correctly: One thing that comes clear here is that this camera is similar to a Leica m in the sense that one must slow down and shoot more deliberately, with more intentionality, and love for craft wether or not you are in a studio. Like the 500c series it's more of a purist camera. So if you don't want to develop and maintain a certain level of knowledge and skill stay away. Am I hearing you correctly Richard, Rishi, and Samuel?

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

aris14

Ι think that the only thing matters is that they had 30,000 preordered units... That means the 30.000 guys surely know what to do with it and how to sell it.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

In my humble opinion at 50mp it isn't worth going to these new medium format cameras. 100 mp + and now we are talking.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Priaptor

Will you still have that POV WHEN these cameras go to 100mp and their FF competitors are shooting at 80mp?

The same can be said for any and every camera. The good news is that the lenses for these new cameras will be compatible with their 100 mp replacements whenever that happens.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Well good point not sure to be honest. Maybe it depends how those lenses perform as compared to the FF cameras.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Priaptor

Again, the same can be said for FF lenses as resolution of the sensor increases. I'm not criticizing your personal decisions by any means, but I have, like with so many things, stopped with waiting for the next best thing, whether it be a FF, MF, audio, car, etc. If something's current capabilities serves my purposes now I will usually go for it, assuming I can afford what I am going for. I guess as one gets older the waiting for the next best thing takes on a different perspective and why I was very interested in the X1D but chose to go for the GFX and am really enjoying it (so far).

Apr 4, 2017permalink

I get to all is good :) I do shoot Hasselblad in fact shot some portraits with it yesterday. Right along side my PEN F. :) Of course my Hasselblad is a 503 cxi and shoots film. :)

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Priaptor

Never shot with a Hasselblad BUT my favorite camera of all time was the Mamiya 7 and its three lenses. That was my ultimate photography bliss. I never should have parted with it.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

My friend owns a Mamiya 7 I shot it for a day way back in 2005. Crazy cool camera though I did have trouble focusing it. He told me it took him awhile to get used to it himself.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

dbateman

A 0.08EV advantage sounds to me like you need to look at 10 cameras from Fuji and 10 cameras from Hasselblad. I bet with in the brand you would see a 0.08 EV difference. Ie your within your error for looking at the exact same thing!

Apr 4, 2017permalink

bclaff

Yes, 0.08 is barely within the accuracy of the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) test. A slight variation on data collection or sample variation could explain such a small difference. Certainly there is no photographic consequence.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

dbateman

Ya I know people who can't see a difference between f2 and f2.2 or f2.5 and f2.8. And these differences are 0.3 EV or 1/3 of a stop. I can't imagine 0.08 Ev of a difference to mean anything. Also slight errors in lenses used would equal more than 0.08. Just seems silly to even talk about.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

sobermeier

compared to the 645z the testimage does not look so good - quiet noisy,

Apr 4, 2017permalink

dpreview should include the 645z in the image quality comparison

Apr 4, 2017permalink

rogerstpierre

But that would be acknowledging Pentax's better IQ!

Apr 5, 2017permalink

zzzxtreme

warning : terrible grammar below

they managed to priced X1D more realistically. Compared to Phase One or their older MF dslr which cost tens of thousands of dollars. even the rich won't spend $40K on a H5D-60. but X1D at $8K - "yeah sure ok"

I wonder if DJI envisions venturing into lower to mid-range camera segment ? Imagine a competitor to Fujifilm X100F.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

sts2

Wow, everyone was hating on this camera earlier, and but give them a test chart and everybody falls in love with it ;-)
/puts on flame suit

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Who is this everyone?

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Najinsky

I for one wasn't hating on it earlier, there is lots I love about it, including what the test chart is showing, and the metadata approach to high ISO shooting.

But this preview has actually curtailed any thoughts I was harbouring about jumping on board with it.

I love the design and how they made it so compact. It's a camera I thought I really could take with me without too much hassle, except...

10 seconds to boot up, it eats through the battery and is awkward to change the AF point. That's just not going to work for a walk around camera that will frequently be turned on and off as opportunities arise.

I also think 50MP is a bit on the low side for a camera of this cost, given the Full Frame bodies available now.

I don't need high MP for every shot, but I prefer to crop rather than change lens, so more MP turns my primes into zooms: 28, 35, and 50mm from one lens. A crop is a crop

I'll wait for MK 2; 80MP, 2s startup, touch AF point selection and in-camera charging?

Apr 4, 2017permalink

sts2

"Touch AF selection" was already there when I tried the camera 4 months ago; what I miss is actually a physical AF point joystick or multiselector. But if you want it on the touch screen, no need to wait.

The startup time really gets blown out of proportion. Whether it's 2s or 7s, it's too long to "get the decisive moment". But it's irrelevant because the camera has a nice standby feature that works perfectly fine. I'm a bit surprised no review seems to mention this.

I take your point on the 50mp, but take it from me the way the 50mp is detailed on this system makes Nikon's 36mp look like 20mp. So in reality it gives more detail than you'd expect (actually the test chart is good for that much at least ;-)

When I say "everyone" I think it's obvious that I don't mean "100% of the people without exception". I just find it ironic that most of the reallife reviews where people rave about the image quality (DR, skin tones, bokeh transition etc) and build quality got ignored, until now.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Now, let's make a bet, all right?
Just observe the Pentax KP. Now, let *any* mirrorless camera use the same sensor; the KP, because it is a DSLR, will beat them in image quality across entire ISO range. If it doesn't, I buy you a drink!

Why? Heat is the problem with mirrorless cameras made by the Japanese (and Swedish) manufacturers, it influences badly consistent image quality, and the problem must be addressed. It is only partly resolved through constant change of the battery and switching the camera off. Otherwise those cameras would be seriously damaged.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

dccdp

Do you have proof for this, or it's just your opinion? Because except for intense video sessions, all mirrorless cameras I tested had no heat problem and worked flawlessly at normal temperatures.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

s1rf4n

I have shot my OMD EM1.1 and EM1.2 both and never had a issue with heat. In a BBall game I will take 5 - 700 photos in an hour / and multiple games in a day....The EM1.2 can fire off as many as 60 shots a second in E shutter....I believe your theory is incorrect and based on your opinion only.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

My bet still stays. Who wants to challenge it?
Half the secret in good digital imagemaking is keep the sensor and camera quite cool. Cooler it is, better images it makes.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

08amczb

I think it's true, but unmessurabley small differance. So I don't care.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

CaPi

I am very taken with what I see in the lab tests. This is well beyond my already high expectations :D

Apr 4, 2017permalink

shigzeo

What I like about it is how ergonomically it has been designed. Its interface is impeccable. But... its EVF is slow, and like the Fuji GFX, its lenses respond like they are attached to someone else's body.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

CaPi

Those are two vital points you make..
Thank you for sharing.
I would hope the latter will be able to be improved via firmware updates. Fuji especially has been know to do invest quite a lot of energy into that.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

deep7

This camera appeals so much! It's not that I have a real use for it but the very idea of it makes me want one anyway. Maybe in a couple of years when the lens range is bigger and the inevitable early issues get sorted. I just want to congratulate them on bringing such a neat concept to life.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

CameraLabTester

"One does not simply walk into Mordor Format..."

__________________________ [add your own meme and rounded fingers]

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

StephanBG

Not tempting yet, but I look forward to either the 100mp GFX next year or perhaps the cheaper 50mp version (Fuji always started a new line with a mid range model or top of the line model XPRO1, XT1, ... and cheaper models came later). We see how H. responds to that. I'm a little concerned with the lens line up, up to now they started with high quality lenses and then delivered slower lenses, hope this is not the case with the GFX line.

The bit difference with two cameras with the same sensor is interesting too, Firmware update coming?

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Hasselblad is a small company. Cannot compete with Sony, Canon and Panasonic.
It was ok before the 90ies when cameras were a box with film and a lens.
What they are trying to do and are struggling to, is to retain the status of luxury item, but they do not have the heritage, the means of brands like Rolex, Luis Vuitton or Aston Martin. Leica is doing a much better work at it.
When Louis Vuitton or Rolex produce a 10k item, they sell several tenths of thousands instead of just a few hundreds maybe 1000, although their marketing overhead is much higher than Hasselblad, yet there they have lot more margin and wealth to work with.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

zilver

It's my humble opinion, but I think you maybe wrong. In fact, it's the opposite to what you are saying, X1D is selling much much better than they expected (they expected to sell 3,000 units in the first year but instead had pre order of 30,000 units globally on launch day, according to their UK manager).

Also they have the heritage and status, it's resources and technical expertise that they lack. Resources for production that they need quickly is somewhat solved since DJI is brought on as partner. Now it's the technical, firmware side of things that needs major work, quickly as these cameras are getting into people's hands. They hired Ming Thein, I assume he will need to hire many more people, but Hasselblad has been around so they are good at the long game so I won't worry too much.

Just my 2 cents, oh, and I bought and sold the X1D, loved the design and the hardware but usability is mightily disappointing, for now.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Impulses

I own Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus cameras and I'm far more interested in what Hasselblad is doing now than anything Leica has put out over the last few years (short of maybe the Q)... /shrug

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Zilver, you may be right and I may be well wrong. I was still thinking when the MF digital market few years ago was about few thousands units per year across all brands. So I may be well wrong.
Yet to believe what a UK dealer brags about pre order i would look at it with a big grain of salt. 30K units for UK only is a huge number, it would be huge even world wide.
Economy has improved a lot the last few years, and a lot of Leica stores are blooming around the world. They are in good locations, pay good looking sales people wearing expensive suites like in a Tag or Rolex store, that means there are buyers for these expensive cameras for sure.
Yet 30k pre order in just one country which normally carries higher price tags for cameras, I want to see it first.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Zilver, I am sorry I misread your post above about the 30k unit pre order which was for the global market instead of UK only.
take care!

Apr 4, 2017permalink

I hate to sound cheap but these new "medium" format cameras at above 10k are not worth any of my cash.
I used to own Phase digital backs when they were between 30 to 40mpx and the dslr were 12 to 24mpx, at that time you could see some tangible difference in image quality, although it all depended on the circumstances of shooting.

With the introduction of 36mps sensors and now the Sony's at 42mpx, it is not the case anymore. First the difference in IQ between these "medium" format at 50mpx and the Sony's is less than negligible and sometime it swing in to the Sony's favor,
then let's mention AF speed and accuracy and resposivness of operation (especially in the case of the A99 II) and what a difference it makes when you are shooting people.
Bottom line, if i was retired or a professional on another field, maybe i would buy one to take it to the holidays. after all is still a fraction of the cost of the clothing many wives can fit on their suitcases.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

StephanBG

I think your sexism invalidates your comment, but one could point out the stupidity of it ("I owned real MF cameras and spent a lot of money although there was only an tangible difference ...").

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

I understand your politically correctness... and you could be kind of right: many men carry 20/30 K of clothing on their suitcases, so that was a bit careless of me to imply that mostly wives do so.
Yet stereotypes are not born out of someone fantasy, they develop through time because of what quite often happens in life.
Fact is: in a "well off" couple, the woman is more likely to carry the highest value in fashion items, which does not mean that the man was paying for it.
If someone can afford a 10k designer coat, fine.
Many woman these days earn well beyond the 6 figures (my wife does) and with the disposable income, quite often they buy a lot of fashion items.
There are more men then women who watch sports and there are more women than men who like and buy fashion. There are numbers you can look up and find the answer you do not have and will make my comment quite less sexist than you believe.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Stephan BG a lot of money is a relative concept and then I do not see the stupidity on owning and using professionally in advertising photography MF equipment 10 years ago. That was the best you could have at that time and all well paid by my clients. i did not waste any of my pennies.
that is hardly any stupid.

Yet you are jumping on conclusion to hastily and giving judgement on someone you do not even know.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

The Name is Bond

"I think your sexism invalidates your comment"

Men and women are different and there are anthropological reasons why those differences exist. The new equality dogmas being forced on everyone are scientifically invalid.

But what really irritates people, to the extent that people are voting for such as Trump, is the emotional blackmail and self-righteousness that accompanies these dogmas. Your reply is a case in point.

His logic is not incorrect nor invalidated just because you feel offended.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

dccdp

@StephanBG: I think your intolerance invalidates your argument. Even if the original poster was sexist (which is debatable) that doesn't mean he is completely wrong in anything else he says. One can have strange opinions in a field and still be a valuable contributor in another.

Summary judgements like yours are in fact characteristic to extremist ideologies, history shows at least two examples in the last century. And being self-righteous is a sign of adherence to such an ideology.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

Noticeable improvements in the studio scene over all the FF cameras including Canon's 50mp. Not just resolution, but better DR.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

justmeMN

My first impression is that I can't afford a US$13,000 (with lens) camera. :-)

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Your comment about not losing dynamic range when increasing ISO does not make sense at all.

Please look up the definition of ISO. Please look at dynamic range charts published by DxOMark.

The only way to not lose dynamic range would be to not push in post-processing, meaning that you don't effectively increase the ISO value.

The same effect can be achieved by just using any other camera with an "ISO-less" sensor and shooting it at base ISO or at least below the intended final ISO. This gives one highlight protection if needed and all the effective ISO required (up to blowing out highlights).

You are creating a difference between a "traditional camera" and this Hassy, which simply does not exist. I'm sure not even Hasselblad would support your very strange statement.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

bclaff

Regarding dynamic range; here we are tripped up by semantics.
The ISO setting controls two things, exposure and the downstream processing of the sensor.
Above the ISO 1600 setting the downstream processing remains at ISO 1600 while exposure respects the ISO setting.
So no dynamic range is lost, you simple underexpose more and more.
This is what many people do manually when they have an ISO Invariant sensor; so it's nice to see the camera taking care of it for us.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

I have not tripped over semantics.

1. There is no fundamental advantage of letting the camera undexpose under the hood vs you doing it manually.

2. Many "traditional" cameras take the same approach.

You cannot have your *effective* ISO cake and eat your *effective* dynamic range too. DPReview's comment does not make sense as is.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

JJack

Fully agree with you Class A.

Furthermore, I don't see the point of why this cam would even allow you to set ISO over 1600. It doesn't produce JPEG, so you have to do RAW conversion in any case and adjusting exposure is an (almost) necessary step in that workflow already.

So if ISO over 1600 is actually reflected in the recorded RAW file, the camera efectively (or, as bclaff said: "nicely") cuts the dynamic range off - doesn't matter if it did that by pushing the sensor or by postproc pushing the RAW.

OTOH, if ISO over 1600 is NOT reflected in the RAW, then such setting actually does nothing at all. Unless I'm missing something crucial here.

(Is the RAW file's bit-depth perhaps much larger than the bit-depth of sensor reading values? Then RAW files indeed wouldn't lose the DR info, but would ALWAYS be way larger than necessary - which would contribute nothing to the image quality - just alleviate a single click-and-slide at postproc workflow. Much larger files for THAT? Silly.)

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Class A - ISO as manufacturers use it is based on output JPEG brightness and doesn't particularly care how you get there. So let's imagine two cameras, with a base ISO of 100.

If Camera A achieves ISO 1600 by amplifying its capture by 16x, it can use the same JPEG tone curve as base ISO and give the correct image brightness. The 4EV lower exposure of ISO 1600 means that 4EV of highlight data was initially captured by the sensor but amplification has pushed this all to clipping before the Raw file is written.

If Camera B were to use hardware amplification up until ISO 400, then stick at this 4x amplification level, you get a different result. The ISO 1600 exposure means that you capture 4EV of extra exposure (compared to the ISO 100 exposure), but this time only 2EV of that highlight data gets amplified to clipping. If you render this image with the default tone curve, yes, it'll look the same as Camera A's image. However, these 2 extra EV of highlights are retained in the Raw file.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Consequently, pull down the exposure, or use highlight recovery, or some such method and those highlights will be recoverable. (ie post-processing can be selective in terms of brightening, which amplification can't)

So long as the sensor has suitably low read noise, the main contributor to both images will be the shot noise, which is defined by the exposure. Since this is the same for both cameras, there'll be little difference in the shadow noise performance, so the lower limit of dynamic range will be the same. So you get 2 extra stops of highlight capture with little or no noise cost.

This article and its follow-up follow the capture process step-by-step and show where noise comes from and what role amplification plays. There's even an example showing an ISO 3200 shot and an ISO 100 shot taken with the same exposure, showing the additional highlight capture.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Richard, thank you very much for your response.

However, you have just restated the advantages of "ISO invariance" or an "ISO-less" sensor. I am well aware of these advantages.

The problem with the way you want to have your cake and eat it too is rooted in the notion of effective ISO. Only if you are able to push the image in post-production by 4 EV without blowing out highlights, you actually get an effective ISO of 1600. If you can only push by 2 EV, your effective ISO is only ISO 400.

We apparently agree that one good way of measuring ISO is to look at the "saturation-based speed", i.e., obtain the ISO value by looking at the maximum possible exposure that does not lead to a clipped output. If you stop short of pushing by 4EV in post -- whether that is through only pushing by 2EV in the first place or pulling down from a nominal 4EV push -- you don't get to ISO 1600.

Do you not agree?

Apr 5, 2017permalink

My point was that the X1D-50c does not bring anything new to the table w.rt. ISO invariance. There are many other ISO-invariant cameras from Sony, Pentax, and Nikon.

Many Pentax DSLRs do not apply hardware amplification beyond ISO 1600. I am unsure whether they actually protect the RAW data and only put a "push in post-processing" value in the metadata or ruin the RAW data, but in practice the difference does not matter much.

One simply shoots at base ISO (or a higher ISO setting that does not blow out the highlights) and then pushes in post as needed.

The only advantage of a camera supporting the capture of the unpushed RAW data and managing the required post-push through metadata is that the preview on the back of the camera won't look (potentially severely) underexposed. While that is a practical advantage, the main advantage is the ISO invariance of the sensor.

BTW, the Pentax 645Z could be ISO-invariant as it uses a Sony sensor and Sony sensors typically are "ISO-less".

Apr 5, 2017permalink

P.S.: There are claims from apparently credible sources that the Hasseblad X1D-50c, the Fuji GFX, the Pentax 645Z, and even a PhaseOne, all use the same Sony 50MP 43.8 x 32.9mm CMOS sensor.

While the CFA and microlenses may be different among the above cameras, the ISO / dynamic range behaviour will be the same amongst all these cameras. If anything (the difference would have to be confirmed) the only difference would be whether some of these cameras would require the photographer to explicitly underexpose, or whether underexposure happens under the hood. The quality of the image will be the same in each case.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

OK, I think I understand where you're coming from. I'll try to take this step by step.

First off, let's put ISO_Sat to one side. It's a sensible way of assessing sensors on a common basis but it's got a tenuous connection to what manufacturers (and most photographers) mean by 'ISO.' As you've spotted, ISO_Sat ignores what's going on here.

ISO Invariance is a property of the sensor (the degree to which there's any difference between using a high amplification setting vs using a low amplification setting and pushing later). What the Hasselblad and Fujifilm bring to the table is that they make use of this behavior (the Pentax doesn't so, even if it's broadly the 'same' sensor, it won't always give the same results).

We're agreed that 'all' this is doing is making it easier to take advantage of the sensor's ISO Invariant behaviour, but I'd say making such a workflow easier is significant.

Apr 6, 2017*permalink

There are two ways in which the manufacturer utilising the sensor's ISO Invariant behaviour is beneficial.

Firstly, it means that your preview comes out at the correct brightness (albeit without any indication of the additional highlights captured). This is no trivial matter: having some idea of what your final image might look like is a key tool and is much more useful than getting a severely underexposed p/review image that just shows the highlights.

Secondly, it means that you don't start your processing by having to push all the sliders in your converter to extremes (which risks limiting your scope to correct the image, since most Raw converters aren't designed with this way of shooting in mind. This is only a minor benefit, since most Raw converters also don't have tools for incorporating multiple EVs of extra highlights, either.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

Consequently, when cameras stop analogue amplification, it makes a huge difference how the higher settings are dealt with. If you take the sensor data and mathematically 'amplify' it before writing it into the Raw file, all additional data is pushed to clipping, just as it would be by hardware amplification. If it's simply a metadata tag, telling the Raw converter how to initially render the data, then the additional data is preserved and the rendering intent can be corrected.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

To be clear, though, this isn't a huge deal. It's nice to see a manufacturer use their sensor in an intelligent way, since it has a small but recognisable photographic benefit, but it's the cherry on the cake, rather than a fundamental advantage (in my personal opinion).

As much as anything else, we explained it so that people don't reach the wrong conclusion that having a larger sensor gives you lots of highlight recovery.

Apr 6, 2017permalink

Richard, this will hopefully be my last response.

You went from
1. "increase ISO but not lose dynamic range" (in the article; still extremely misleading), to
2. "significantly easier workflow", to
3. "not a huge deal".

Fuji and Hasseblad are not using the sensor "more intelligently", they (may) provide a pretty small convenience factor. I inserted "(may)" because I am not sure whether the Pentax 645Z actually does not use a metatag system for higher ISO values as well. Are you positively sure it doesn't?

All a photographer needs to do is to ensure that highlights are not clipped. As a matter of fact, using the "metatag"-system makes this harder, because the highlights will appear to be clipped on the back LCD (and the histogram!) whereas they are not. [If the highlights are not clipping when pushed mathematically, you don't need an increased dynamic range anyhow).

Arguable, a straightforward scheme makes it easier to push ISO just enough, but no further.

Apr 7, 2017permalink

A preview-boost with an actual RAW-data-histogram would be ideal, but no one is offering that yet, right?

In any event, if camera-supported underexposure is so useful (as opposed to letting the photographer handle it), why is that not offered for lower ISO values as well? Would it not be useful to, -- quote "not lose dynamic range" -- unquote, for lower ISO values to?

The answer is of course that your presentation of "increasing ISO while not losing dynamic range" is extremely misleading. If that worked, it would not only be a "small deal" or "easing the workflow", it would be revolutionary. It won't ever happen, though, as it is against the laws of physics.

I am not saying that an entirely ISO-invariant concept -- where the ISO setting just influences a metatag -- is not a good idea, but it isn't fundamentally different from what you can do today already.

Apr 7, 2017permalink

In summary, your article is still very misleading, creating the impression of a fundamental difference ("traditional" vs "non-traditional") that just doesn't exist.

You write that you don't want people to reach wrong conclusions, but the way your article is phrased, some will definitely believe there has been some breakthrough with respect to preserving dynamic range when increasing the ISO setting.

BTW, everything else being the same, a larger sensor does give one more dynamic range. Not better low-light capabilities, but more dynamic range. In that sense, you gain more "highlight recovery", if you don't expose to the right too much.

Apr 7, 2017permalink

Image quality has something to do with mirrorless design too; making a very compact mirrorless camera with a huge sensor and no efficient cooling has many disadvantages re consistent image quality during the use; heat dissipation and closeness of circuitboards influence sensor performance in mirrorless designs. One of the dirty tricks used in the mirrorless world, for example, is poor battery life; the user must turn off the camera and open the hatch (a process which shuts down and cools the circuitry) and insert a new battery, very often. DSLRs have no such problems and they can shoot till doomsday, with best possible performance of the imaging sensor.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

1Dx4me

and this is all for how much...a cool 48K? this is made for warren buffet and prs. trump club members of the world, not for average joe cool guys!!!!

Apr 4, 2017permalink

no pizza left behind

Its like 9k

Apr 4, 2017permalink

dynaxx

"One of the dirty tricks used in the mirrorless world, for example, is poor battery life; the user must turn off the camera and open the hatch (a process which shuts down and cools the circuitry) and insert a new battery, very often."

I have come across some "conspiracy theorists" @Triplet in my time but thinking that camera manufacturers use underpowered batteries to reduce the battery replacement interval to cool things down, takes the biscuit. Nothing to do with smaller cameras having smaller batteries, then ?

Sounds like an anti-mirrorless crusader desperately searching for a way to hold back the tide that has been accelerated by the prestigious H'blad brand adopting the new format.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Not at all. I have both. Short battery life is the fate of the mirrorless, and not only because of the usage of the electric current. Heat is the problem there and it must be addressed, and is partly solved through constant change of the battery. Otherwise those cameras would be seriously damaged.

One notable example of the good approach is the LeicaX; thanks to its metal construction (magnesium + aluminium), and larger than nominal size of its peers, it addresses the heat issue quite well and produces consistently good photographs. That is, Leica X is true to its purpose, while many other cameras cheat on size, cheat on material, to appear smallish, but only to lose the battle with heat and image quality.

Just observe the Pentax KP — let *any* mirrorless camera use the same sensor, and the KP, because it is a DSLR, will beat them in image quality.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

dynaxx

@Triplet - as this preliminary review above, of the H'blad X1D-50C, states, the design uses a milled metal billet to enclose the guts of the camera body to dissipate the heat - are you saying this will not work ?

Also, please explain how the Sony RX1R ii with it's 42mp FF sensor ( the pop-up viewfinder uses up even more internal volume ) and tiny body does not suffer any overheating issues nor loss of IQ ? In fact, the H'blad X1D follows the RX1 design by using a leaf shutter that drastically reduces the front/back dimension.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

zunivolo

You have no idea what you're talking about. I can shoot 400 frames or something and then you think that shutting the camera off for several seconds to put in a new battery will have a significant effect on the temperature? Dream on.

And would you care to explain to us idiots without a tin foil hat why Fuji would be so stupid as to release a battery grip with two more batteries for X-T2 so you end up never replacing the battery in the camera? They must be so stupid.

And BTW if what you were saying is true you would see a serious difference in image quality in the studio scene between D800 and A7R or something like D7200 and A6000. Do we see that? No.

There might be a tiny impact on IQ but it is negligible and is definitely not the reason why most mirrorless batteries are rather small.

Sounds like you're just a frustrated Pentax user...

Apr 4, 2017permalink

"...impressive purity of focus...": OK, but if a DSLR -- built for still photography -- misses a dedicated movie recording button, DPReview downgrades the camera.

Makes sense much?

Apr 4, 2017permalink

No.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Leandros S:

I'm not simply seeing noise.

There's a least one Nikon APSC DSLR that allows shooting in both 14bit and 12 bit raw.

Also the Pentax KS2 shoots 12 bit raws only, though I can't find another Pentax DSLR that uses that sensor.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

cshyde

All that money just to take a few snapshots of the kids to post on facebook? Jeez you could sure feed a lot of homeless people for the price of one of these. Even NASA can't afford them now.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

miric

Why moaning?

Apr 4, 2017permalink

sunhorse

Thank you for letting us all know your photography use case. While not unique, it isn't universal either.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Think whatever you want of this, being nice for the sake of being nice is not what I do.

On one hand, it's nice DMF is finally becoming "affordable". Yay.

OTOH, (read this in Kay's accent) it's just sad to see such incredible high end cameras opening to a much larger audience, which means we're soon getting ISO 25600 backyard shots of terribly lit, mundane, amateurish subjects shot with high end DMF.

Not to mention so many people seriously thinking (and believing) you can beat DMF's purpose by using a FF camera with some fast glass.

Again in Kay's accent: this is just like ARRI lowering Alexa's price to consumer level, and the next thing we get is Uncle Albert shooting B-parties and disney vacations with a Hollywood movie camera and some kit lens.

The m4/3 crowd would then jump in stating their m4/3 cameras + fast glass can beat the Alexa's purpose in life.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

He spells his name as Kai, but well played. :)

Apr 4, 2017permalink

FLruckas

Blackmagic has already reduced the Alexa's price to consumer level....

So what's your point?????

:-)

Apr 4, 2017permalink

FLruckas, interesting example, I haven't thought of that, yeah, that one is a mini-Alexa (due to RAW video capability).

But one major difference between still photography and video, is that video is way harder to produce. With video, to produce anything worth your time, and worth posting in public for everyone to see, one must have a reasonable skill level.

I think it's safe to say that many BM users are sharing at least somewhat decent content, like short films, etc, while the really bad content is rarely seen, because it never finds its way to You Tube and Vimeo anyway.

The problem with photography is that, as it's much easier to do than video, it doesn't need the same level of time investment, planning and skills that video require.

By consequence, we'll surely see a lot of really lame stuff coming from these affordable DMF cameras.

BTW, sorry for misspelling Kai's name. He's awesome! Hope one day we get to see him back on DRTV. He was the heart of that show.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

FLruckas

Marcio....

I agree.....

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Impulses

Spent the duration of that post wondering who the heck Kay was... He has his own YouTube channel now btw, has been putting out somewhat steady content throughout this year, even some stuff with Lok...

And I think your lament is utterly misguided, no offense, this might very well lead to a flood of mundane work produced with MF but who cares? Those people were gonna put it out there either way, on the other hand making it more accessible might just put it in the hands of a few genius/artists who might otherwise have never had the chance... And that outweighs much of the negative.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

The more units sold the lower the price can be which could be beneficial to pros. Given the discription of this camera the "slow photography" aspect is enough to keep most people who aren't serious about photography away don't you think?

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Doubt anyone cares, but I'll explain where my harsh opinion comes from. I'm Brazilian, but with 50% Japanese heritage.

I'm not sure if I'm talking absolute nonsense, but I always thought things, as well as skills, have got to be earned in life. You must prove yourself worthy.

Being able to afford is not enough to earn it. You must earn it by proving yourself (not your wallet) capable.

DMF has always been the tool of choice of mind blowing, high end pro photography. This is where it belongs.

On my personal case, I've been a pro fashion photographer for 10 years. I do shoot with DMF but IMHO, I think my work has proven worthy of it.

Then, 3 years ago I decided to retire pro photography.

While walking in the neighborhood with my Phase One kit, taking images of really boring, mundane stuff, I felt I was doing my camera a disservice.

It just felt wrong and sad.

This is not a high end tool's purpose in life, this is not where it belongs.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Cont.

Then, 1 year ago I decided to keep myself as a hobbyist (probably will never go back to pro photography), but have decided to up my game.

Even as a hobby, I'm now assembling production teams (model, beauty artist and stylist), doing location scouting, planning, using good lighting set ups, etc.

Just like in the old days, it doesn't matter it's just a hobby now, the output looks like real effort was put into it.

I feel I'm worthy shooting DMF again.

If my posts are too confusing, what I'm saying is that whatever you do in life, don't assume money is the only entry price. You have to make it for yourself.

Up your game, prove yourself why you've invested in such expensive gear, make it all worthy.

That line of thought can be applied to a great deal of things in life.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Very interesting. I appreciate your point of view. As someone who has loved photography all his life, is 60+ y.o., has had to learn a little here and there, and found that cameras like the film Hasselblad cameras, 500c/m, made me learn and grow. If I could I'd study with high end pros and learn how to put cameras like the phase one xf 100mp to good use. I am fascinated. As it is I'll keep my eyes open, continue reading and practicing photography, and hopefully some day be fortunate enough to work with medium format which I've wanted to do for a long time. From the work I've seen there is a different level of image quality when done well and I want my image quality to get better and better.
In the meantime I've worked up to a D810 and put it to good use, although I have much to learn. We work well together the 810 and I.

But back to my previous point: The more the price comes down, the more chance I have of working with MF and raising my skills to the next level.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

It's fine with me if people with money want to take back yard pictures as long as they help keep the camera companies solvent and producing cameras pros want or need.

In fact, encourage them, encourage their photographic education and help them appreciate the quality of images pros produce. Perhaps they'll also pay for quality photographs in the future!

Apr 4, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

FF Owner: "My FF camera is 14-bit, your APS camera or other brand FF is only 12-bit, I can choose which one, 12 or 14 bit."
Innocent bystander: "Well, this camera is 16-bit."
FF owner: "....What does that matter??!"

Apr 3, 2017permalink

There was an article some years ago laying out a physics-based argument that anything greater than 12 bits captures mostly noise, not signal.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Very few APSC bodies shoot only 12 bit raws. There's an inexpensive Pentax DSLR that's 12 bit only.

I can see a difference between 12 and 14 bit files. Not between 16 bit and 14 though.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

I suspect that's more to do with what the ADC is doing than any inherent property of 12 bits vs. 14 bits. In some practical cases (poorly implemented 12 bits), you may see differences, but the question remains whether the 12 bit image will seem just as good if you just add a little bit of noise.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Leandros S:

I'm not simply seeing noise.

There's a least one Nikon APSC DSLR that allows shooting in both 14bit and 12 bit raw.

Also the Pentax KS2 shoots 12 bit raws only, though I can't find another Pentax DSLR that uses that sensor.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

marc petzold

@OlyPent

About that bit-like Joke/Rant thingy: Hasselblad MF digital Backs & Cameras nowadays using 16-bit for years, but i've read the fact that Hasselblad made it clear to only use 15-bit of it.

And even 14 bit vs 14 bit isn't the same, one can't compare a camera with another, based just onto this fact, because the processing pipeline (not only the sensor) is being important.

For instance, my old, trusty 5D just records 12 bit RAW files (.CR2) but i can't complain about it's Tonality.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Higher bit depths will record mostly noise - but that's what you want: to digitize down to the analog noise floor and not be limited by LSB dither/sampling quantization.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Juzam

Funny :)

Apr 4, 2017permalink

rawmaz

I think this camera is 14 bit, like the Fuji GFX. Both use the same sensor.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

No, not "cropped" medium format. That nomenclature should only be used for cameras where the sensor is smaller than the film area the lens mount was first designed for like the 645Z.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

That is the case here.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

BobT3218

Agreed! I irks me when people refer to 4/3 or m4/3 as cropped.

I must admit to a little smugness that the aspect ratio of the X1D id 4:3.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

The 645z, X1D and GFX 50S have the same "cropped" sensor, which is smaller than the film area the lens mount was first designed in the Pentax 645 system. The difference here is that Pentax may launch a camera with a larger ("not cropped") sensor, and most lenses would support that larger sensor. The X1D and GFX 50S systems will never allow a larger sensor.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

I would like to see a source backing that claim before believing it.

Comparative images I've seen suggest that the Pentax has the smallest mount diameter of the three.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

@Leandro but the Pentax has a larger flange distance. All the Pentax 645 lenses that are named "D FA" (like the 90mm, 35mm, 55mm) or the older "FA" series support a "not cropped" sensor. "F" stands for "Full Frame Medium Format". The only lens that would not support a larger sensor is the DA645 28-45 zoom...
The X1D and GFX 50S, being mirrorless, have a very short flange distance and you can just see that a larger sensor would not fit.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

"Just see" is not good enough - any nonzero flange can theoretically allow projection over an arbitrarily large area behind the throat.

Sony's E-mount was not initially used for the projection area that it later proved suitable for. The corners of the sensor are in fact obscured from view when visually inspecting an A7 series camera, yet the image projects fine and on top of that allows IBIS, which requires an even larger imaging circle than a non-moving sensor.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Ok, theoretically... I do not know what to think about Sony's E-mount... The mount diameter was criticised by Sigma... On the other hand it is only 1mm smaller than Canon's mirrorless mount... I would not believe Canon and Sony forgot about FF when they designed their mounts... But the Leica SL's mount is larger...

Apr 4, 2017permalink

@IdM

You didn't need to go to "never allow". Maybe it could, maybe it couldn't. The lens mount was designed for the as-released sensor size, so the x1d is not a cropped format. The Pentax 645 cameras were for 6x4.5cm exposed film area so the digital version is cropped format until RIcoh makes one with the same sized sensor as the film original.

Trying to prove *never* would just get you into all kinds of trouble consider for example the Pentax Q which got a larger sensor mid-life, though neither sensor would reasonably make the system "cropped format".

Sony E/FE is a similar situation, though perhaps the exception to prove the rule. I wouldn't consider the APSc E mount cameras to be cropped format any more than Fuji X-mount, but when an FE lens is used on a E6300 for example I admit its not cut and dry.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

"The lens mount was designed for the as-released sensor size" Source?

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Pythagoras.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Given the prior article on new 100 and 150 his sensors the possibilities are interesting.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

MrBrightSide

I feel very sad for Dave Stouffer and Harry Nyquist. They were once the Moses and Isaiah of camera testing—the lawgivers—now we hear nary a word about either of them.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

FLruckas

Shhh.....

They need to sell more cameras.....

:-)

Apr 3, 2017permalink

What firmware is the DPR example(s) of this Hasselblad body running?

Apr 3, 2017permalink

surelythisnameisfree

The latest one as it has focus peaking

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Thank you, I was hoping for a version number.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

cosinaphile

looks like a pair of 18650 rechargable cells.... in the battery shell like the ones you can get for high end flashlights

Apr 3, 2017permalink

zzzxtreme

that's a plus lol
you can get 3 high powered panasonic 18650 cells for under $30

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Sorry, guys, but I cannot really see the reason of this medium-format camera, at least with such slow primes.

E.g. the 90 mm lens, which is supposed to be a little wider portrait lens, has the equivalent FF aperture of F3.2 × 70 / 90 = F2.4.

Even Micro Four Thirds has a really high quality portrait lens with this equivalent aperture of F2.4: the Nocticron 42.5/F1.2! Not speaking about Full frame systems where a good 85/F1.8 usually is a bargain.

Is the (somewhat) high(er) resolution such a key feature you want to sacrifice the price and the portability for?! Let’s be serious!

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

kaka12moto

You are very new to photography...It's obvious you cannot see anything else beyond tunnel vision.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

OMG. Please tell me, what’s the difference between a good FF camera + a 70/F2.4 high quality lens and the X1D with this F90/3.2?

FOV? the same.
DOF? also the same.
Sharpness? Be serious.
Maybe the pixel resolution. But nothing else.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

String

How about leaf shutter lenses?

Apr 3, 2017permalink

kaka12moto

Believe me, you are right! And you cannot see anything else beyond FOV/DOF...Photography is a discipline that will take, in your case, a lifetime to understand.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

kesztio:

Those m4/3s cameras only shoot 12 bit raws. This shoots 16 bit raws.

f/3.5 is reasonably fast for medium format.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

@String: Global shutter will became a standard in a couple of years, even the next Panasonic flagship camera will likely come with a global shutter sensor, which makes any leaf shutter systems obsolete.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

@kaka12moto This is anything but a valid argument. MF has nothing magic in it.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

kesztio:

Global shutters if perfected for CMOS systems will still add digital noise that mechanical shutters avoid.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

@Howaboutraws: 14 bits. And 16 bits RAW is just a matter of time.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

kesztio:

Nope, wrong. The m4/3s bodies shoot 12 bit raws. This includes the EM1 II and the GH5.

Now a full framed body or an APSC body, those shoot 14 bit raws.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

@HowAboutRaw:
“Global shutters if perfected for CMOS systems will still add digital noise that mechanical shutters avoid.”

Nope. Just check the DPReview test of electronic rolling shutter images from GX8. Cannot see one single pixel difference between mechanical and electronic shutter RAW, moreover, both have the same bit depth. And the global shutter will be presumable even much better.

Mechanical shutters are outdated and the will disappear in a decade.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

@HowAboutRaw:

“Nope, wrong. The m4/3s bodies shoot 12 bit raws. This includes the EM1 II and the GH5.”
Yes, you’re right, sorry.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

keszto:

Don't just assume I've not tested fully electronic shutters versus mechanical shutters in the same body, by way of example the Sony A7SII.

"Mechanical shutters are outdated and the will disappear in a decade." No, they won't, unless electricity starts running cold.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Probably not an amateur camera but if you need 16 bits and a leaf shutter and want to carry a reasonably sized camera it's a great option. For now I'll stick with my mamiya and phase one but it's size makes it an interesting option with traveling shoots.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Global shutters and electronic shutters are not ready to be used professionally, they introduce noise and a rolling effect on anything moving or near the edge of the frame. Leaf shutters offer many of the benefits of global shutters without degrading the photo. Not to say someone won't in the future manufacture a better electronic shutter but none are available as of now.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Sion H

@kaka12moto Let me Yoda your bsbble up a motch: Believe me, right, you are! And see anything else beyond fov/dof, you cannot...Photography is a discipline that will take, your case in, to understand a lifetime. Yes, hmmm.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Karroly

Mechanical shutters make camera less reliable, add weight, require space, generate vibrations, are slower, etc.... They will progressively be replaced by electronic shutters the same way as EVF are progressively replacing OVF, despite the increased power consumption, because they are better at each iteration. If mechanical shutters and OVF still exist in the future, this would be for a niche of photographers with very specific needs.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

Karroly,

Unless electricity runs cold, mechanical shutters will be around for a long time, though probably not on every camera.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

Karroly

@HowaboutRAW,
What is an issue today will be solved tomorrow certainly faster than we think.
Progress is exponential.
Look at BSI sensors. They were first released in very small size due to technical constraints. Now Sony is about to release medium-format 150MP BSI sensors...

Apr 3, 2017permalink

onlooker

@kesztio "Global shutter will became a standard in a couple of years" -- From your mouth to God's ears, but I've been waiting over a decade, and every time "it's just around the corner". Yes, I agree, mechanical shutter is an archaic contraption that is way overdue for the trash heap, but I am not holding my breath -- unless you know something?

Apr 3, 2017permalink

onlooker

@pkcpga "Global shutters and electronic shutters are not ready to be used professionally, they introduce noise and a rolling effect " -- ? Global shutters eliminate rolling effect.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

@Howaboutraw:
“by way of example the Sony A7SII.”
Sony is famous for failing to resolve even their own sensors. The most known example is the almost useless 4K video in Sony cameras due to overheating issues.
Same thing is with the readout frequency. The current GH5 sensor is certainly from Sony, but only the Panasonic Venus engine is able to fully benefit of its high speed.
So if Sony doesn’t succeed to implement a full value rolling shutter it doesn’t necessarily mean that it neither can be done by other manufacturers.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

@onlooker:
The Panasonic–Fuji joint venture for global shutter organic sensors is almost ready for starting the mass production. I bet you’ll see them in Panasonic/Fuji cameras in at most 3–4 years.

Apr 3, 2017*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0119553924/photos/3331848/200-crop-no-sharpening-applied

Just look at that photo to see what MF (Pentax 645z) can do:

Enlarge the image to see the sharpness, have a look at the original photo to see how it was cropped.

Apr 3, 2017permalink

shutter2013

Just a point to add regarding APSC and FF bodies having 14bit raw. I cannot confirm if Fuji do this for their continuous shooting modes or not, but certainly Sony does not provide true 14bit raw output in their A7rii,A7sii, a99ii, a77ii, A6500 bodies when you shoot them in anything other than single shot mode e.g. bracketing, continuous shooting etc... where they drop back to 12bit mode.
Actually I'm not sure if it even is proper 12bit mode or whether it is the 11+7 lossy compressed format.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Sorry read in order global introduces noise right now and electronic introduces rolling shutter. While most leaf shutters in MF are in the lens and solve shutter issues and mirror issues. Who know what future will hold but you can't judge a camera today on what may or may not happen in the future. Electronic shutters were the rage a few years ago and were going to solve all issues but that never happened so I'm not going to assume anything, same with 2015 claim of Fuji-Panasonic organic global sensor, no way to judge until it happens.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

http://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/why-leaf-shutter-lenses-matter/

Karroly,

Larger BSI sensors don't seem to have some much greater noise control.

What would vastly improve noise performance would be the aforementioned cold electricity, we're not allowed to have that.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

PWPhotography

Be able to leverage Leaf shutter lenses really matter! Read the link below if you don't understand. Its x-sync speed 1/2000 outstands all FF and mirrorless cameras in market today. It lets you light outdoor scenes with 1/10 flash power you needed with a 1/200 x-sync DSLR, and you can shoot at larger apertures at level no FF DSLRs and mirrorless could do.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

onlooker

@pkcpga "Sorry read in order global introduces noise right now and electronic introduces rolling shutter" -- I don't think you understand what kesztio means by "global shutter". You keep mixing the terms all over the place. Global shutter prevents rolling shutter, not introduces it.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

lecoupdejarnac

Aside from bit depth and leaf shutter lenses, the Diffraction Limited Aperture might be higher on the larger sensor (though I'd have to look up the pixel pitch of this sensor to determine that).

Oh and some will say you get the "Medium Format Look". Which is very subjective. Would love to see a blind study about that.

But seriously if you compare the fastest Full Frame lenses, some of which are even f/0.95 (which you can buy today), it would need to be an f/1.2 MF lens (which don't exist AFAIK)... well you'll never get that kind of depth of field control on a MF camera.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

Valen305

The camera you use is determined by the needs of your client and the assignment they give you. When an art director asks for a shot of an athlete frozen mid-leap in broad daylight and overpowered ambient using strobe by about a stop, your GX7 may get a few sharp-ish shots synced at 1/250th, if you're lucky. Not to mention, your power pack will be gasping between shots at f16.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

Impulses

" @String: Global shutter will became a standard in a couple of years, even the next Panasonic flagship camera will likely come with a global shutter sensor, which makes any leaf shutter systems obsolete "

That has been said for years, literally, and still doesn't seem to be any closer to reality. The readout speed of e-shutters has increased marginally over the last 5 years, but not to the point where it's anywhere near ideal... It would all sound a lot more credible if Panasonic (in an official report) wasn't considering pulling their investment from TowerJazz and CMOS development.

I've got a decent investment in M4/3 gear btw, I'd love for that stuff to really be around the corner, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

hjr13

Don't ever think of getting into large format photography if you think the lens of medium are slow.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

@hjr13:
Is an average medium format lens slower than a good FF prime?
The answer is YES.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

hjr13

Like I said large format is even slower, so you wouldn't understand why poeple would use that system if all you can see is the spped of the lens.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

I’d be surprised if you managed to identify – at leat with 70-80% success rate – the images from a MF camera versus a Nikon D810 (or whatever) + a proper FX lens.

In this case I cannot see the advantages beyond snobbery.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

MIT test and conclusion on global shutters 2016. "Additionally, the global shutter readout process introduces nearly double the read noise as well as increases the dark current noise. These constraints of slower speeds and increased noise can limit the practical application of global shutter with a sCMOS sensor."
So as I stated global shutters are not ready for professional use as of yet and who know if or when they will be. But right now there's leaf shutters and they seem to offer the best for right now.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

String

@ kesztio "I’d be surprised if you managed to identify – at leat with 70-80% success rate – the images from a MF camera versus a Nikon D810 (or whatever) + a proper FX lens."

And I'd be surprised if most people could tell the difference on the web between an iPhone shot and a D810. That's the thing you don't get; some people need that resolution, others don't. Just because YOU don't, doesn't make this camera "snobbery" but your comments sure seem to make you out as one.

Apr 4, 2017*permalink

@String
NOT just on the web, LOL. The 36 MP with no low-pass filter from Nikon 810 is HUGE. You get over 200 dpi even printed on A1 paper, widely used in photo exhibitions. Even for A0 you have 150 dpi which is more than enough when watching from 1.5 m.
And there are already rumors about upcoming twice bigger resolutions. Be serious. The so-called „MF-look” is a myth.

Apr 4, 2017permalink

@string @kesztio I have a D800E and a Pemtax 645z , the difference is very noticeable, the 645z' images are much better... It may be surprising, but the AF of the 645z works also much better in low light (single shot AF) than the D800's.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

@IdM photography DxO Mark claims exactly the opposite, the sensor in 645Z is not even close to D800E, not speaking about D810.
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-D800E-versus-Pentax-645D___963_814_668
The only advantage is the higher megapixel count. Bu seriously, do yo really need 50+ megapixels? This means prints above A0, just specialised banner plotters can do that.

Apr 5, 2017permalink

In commercial work there is a noticeable difference between my d810 and my mamiya or phase one, granted we are talking about 36mp verse a larger and larger than this hassy sensor with 60 and 100mp sensor. That also has 16 bits and at ISOs below 800 the color gradients are much smoother and more natural looking. Especially in larger prints, judging cameras on a screen is not always the best. Seeing prints from these cameras in poster size, you can very easily see the advantage of medium format. But as everyone stated, it's not something everyone needs.

Apr 5, 2017permalink