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.

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.

@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.

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."

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.

" The smaller the sensor, the larger the magnification given the same print size"

True for film camera's using the same emulsion, but not for digital. A 50mp FF body will give the same magnification for a print than a medium format body with
50 mp.

"it needs a sharper lens"

Another misunderstanding. Closer to the sensor a given lens projects sharper. Just as your slide projector in the past moving it closer to a wall.

For the same reason the lens flaws are not worse for the smaller sensor.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

@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.

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...

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

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

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.

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.

@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

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@deep7
Ah, yet more attempted passive aggressive insults.

Hilarious and tragically amateur at the same time.

@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.

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

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.

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.

"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.