Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery

also the portrait with the kids at ISO 6400 (last images) - it's focused wrongly. Sad to put just a portrait at those settings, and it's so flowed. You can see the focus is in some hairs, on the far part of the head. Yes, the image looks awful, but because it's an out of focus image at ISO 6400. I guess the only thing it shows is how grain looks in missed focus images :)

Apr 18, 2017permalink

Another: look at image 26, a ISO 800, but comparing to the ooc jpg, it looks like the eyes region was pushed a bit... so it's more like a ISO 1600 quality, and still looking really great in my opinion.

Apr 18, 2017*permalink

Shiranai

I really thought of medium format cameras as being superior, but for me goes the same. When I look at these pictures I don't see anything that justifies that price. I mean, yeah it's got high resolution and all, but at ISO 800 it got almost more grain than a 6D at 1600. And its shadow recovery is also not exeptionally better than a Nikon D750.

Apr 18, 2017permalink

No, as i tried to say.... the noise has become irrelevant in dpreview sample images, as they push shadows a lot "to taste". For example as i said, the image 26 is shot at ISO 800, but looking at the eye region, is more like if it was shot at ISO 1600...2000 image, because of pushing shadows in processing, and that reveals more noise, of course.

Look at studio comparison for that... and because of the larger sensor, will probably be about 1-2 stops better (at normalized view), but with double resolution ... compared to the 6D. If you compare it to A7RII, the difference will be smaller.

Apr 18, 2017*permalink

Shiranai

Nice try but nope. When I open the RAWs the picture is essentially the same (image 6 and 7). Dpreview adjustments were mostly adding slightly more contrast and saturation.
In the studio scene - nope it's not better at all - sampled down to 6D size it's almost the same quality. But because of the bigger sensor the quality of the grain should be actually much better - like when you compare a 6D to a 80D at the same size.
But when you look at ISO 6400 in the low light studio scene the faces of the X1D at 100% are just pixel mud. Really awful. I actually would expect a little more from a $9000 camera.

Apr 18, 2017*permalink

:) well... i didn't "try" anything, as i don't sell any camera, and i have nothing to win if you shoot X1D or iPhone.

I just said what my opinion is, as you said yours. For me, however you look at it, compared to 6D (because you mentioned it) the difference is big, and it is in favor of the larger sensor, and the difference compared to others (like 5DS or A7R2) is still there, but just a little and only in certain areas.

As always, the higher you go on a ladder you get less money for your $, it is a general rule in all areas. If you are a top player, you will afford the best in class tool. Be it camera, car, office in the center of NY, whatever. If not, you have to do with compromises.

Apr 19, 2017permalink

Bakman_29

I am not sure why ACR is used to process these images. Phocus/C1 both have superior output. ACR is mediocre at best, especially with skintones.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

PeterOlsen

Capture One only supports medium format files from Phase One cameras!

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Revenant

DPR only uses one raw developer, presumably to eliminate yet another variable. Given that policy, it makes sense to use the market leading software, which is used by the majority of photographers.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Thematic

Phocus does indeed produce stunning results. But it's understandable why dpreview sticks with the popular standard..... But it does make results from cameras like this 100% useless.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

obsolescence

Thank you for these samples. I see significant improvements over the pre-production samples. Raw files appear to have tremendous tonal range and flexibility, but something still bothers me about the gradation in the shadows. It seems they are compressed and shadow recovery only raises the brightness of dark areas without revealing gradation. My gut feeling is this gradation (and color quality) falls short of the rendering by well-exposed negative film, although it certainly can capture a wider brightness range than color film. Which reminds me it would be nice if some of the samples were shot in B&W. How it compares to top FF cameras and the Pentax 645Z remains to be revealed in direct comparison.

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

I'm in Tokyo right now and some of the big camera shops have the X1d (along with every other camera on the planet) in stock, its amazing how small/light it is in person, especially compared to the Fuji GFX and the 645z. After handling all three, Hasselblad would get my money if I were in the market for MF. Its not much larger than my XT2's, amazing.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Did you shoot raw samples with all 3 while checking out the cameras in Tokyo?

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Triplet Perar

Yeah, we know all those fictional posts from fictional locations. Don't forget to include 'sent from my iPhone 8' sig.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

https://www.facebook.com/trekofjoy or https://www.instagram.com/trekofjoy/

Check out my FB/IG page, I'm traveling around the world for a year, in the last four months I've been to Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, India, Nepal and now I'm in Japan. In another 10 days I'll be in HK and then China for most of May.

Though we haven't posted from Japan yet, been too busy. Geez, everyone is so cynical. I'll happily shoot some photos from inside the shop if you like, I'll be at the Tokyo municipal building observation tower tomorrow and two of the shops - Yodobashi Camera and Map Camera - are nearby. Cheers

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

@howaboutraw I would have needed three spare cards since they needed to be formatted inside the camera. Plus they were tethered to the counter, so it would just be shots of a crazy busy electronics store, nothing special. I was really there just to tinker and possibly get a new lens, I'm not buying MF. I went to the Fuji Square building too, which has a Fuji museum with all its film cameras and a really cool demo shop of every Fuji camera/lens including the GFX. Spent some time playing with it and various lenses, I like it, but like the X1d, the next gen will probably be when the camera really hits its stride.

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

Oleg Vinokurov

Certainly, one of good points of large shops in Japan, lots of cameras and lenses to play with. And all recent releases too!

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Trek of Joy,

Not sure about having to reformat. One card, formatted in the first camera should have done the trick.

But I understand if you're travelling and don't have a quick way to send a day's images to storage why you'd not use up a card testing camera bodies.

As for nothing to shoot in the shop, try the ceiling, presuming there are shadows, and shoot with lights in the frame, so as to test the lenses--it's highly informative, boring images I know.

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

Right now my 4 cards are in my two XT2's, split between video and stills, and my little macboook that I'm editing with doesn't have the space for me to offload my cards at the moment. If I get the chance I'll grab a few shots. All the big stores have Leica boutiques too, I was tinkering with the MF dslr they make, geez its big - not 645z big, but its huge. And its 2.5m Yen (about $25k). Ouch.

The guys in the shops here are really great, they want you to try everything and will stand there with you and run through all the functions, AF settings and so on. There was an Olympus rep at one shop and he took me through the EM1.2 so completely, it made me want to switch from Fuji on the spot, that's a badass camera. I miss real camera shops. Bic Camera is another, a 9-story building with everything electronic - phones, computers, appliances, cameras and so on. Its nirvana for a gadget junkie and you can get lost in there for hours as my wife can attest.

Cheers

Chris

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

@Oleg - Map Camera literally hade every brand's entire lens catalog, all current bodies, cabinets full of used gear and copies of big glass like the 600mm and 800mm canon lenses mounted on tripods to try out. They also stock tons of DSLR video stuff like cine lenses and external recorders, just so much to tinker with and so little time... Its great to see places like this still exist since there are so few big camera stores left in the US.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Trek of Joy,

The Leica DSLR, the body, is smaller than a Nikon D5.

The point is, if you have reasonably good access to high speed interweb connections, back up your raws to a cloud storage service. Gmail comes with 15GB of free cloud drive space.

I'm puzzled why one would take a long trip around Asia with a Macbook and digital cameras, but not also take significant external storage. But I certainly understand not getting samples from the Pentax, Fuji and Hasselblad.

The Olympus EM1 II only shoots 12 bit raws, may not matter to you, but one can see the difference.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

@howaboutraw Limited internet connections in places like Nepal combined with only carrying 30 pounds between my clothing and electronics is the main reason I'm not carrying significant storage or paying for cloud storage. I have a few 256gb sticks for keepers. For me the trip isn't exclusively about photo/video, its a trip to see 7 continents and explore the world - but I am shooting a lot to get better. I'm uploading edits to and saving some of the raws and prores files of my video rough edits to re-edit since everything on the small Mac is just global adjustments.

Coming back with 100k stills and a few hundred hours of video after a year would take another year to edit. I have dozens from each country that will be printed large and small and populate my walls. But I'm not one to keep everything I shoot like some. I keep raws of my faves and what's meaningful and delete the rest. I only have two duplicate HD's at home with everything on each. No need for anything else.

Cheers

Chris

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

That dog portrait shows perfect depth of field control. A breath of fresh air in this age of nothing-in-focus mania and a lovely example of the potential quality of the system.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

iAPX

Delicately sharp!

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Najinsky

Maybe that was 'blads rationale in not offering fast lenses, saving photographers from making bad artistic choices?

Apr 17, 2017permalink

agayardo

It's ironic that "depth control" was actually just shooting wide open.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

NameFinder

I don't find the original dog portrait (frontal view instead of side view) anymore.
It showed much better framing than the one left. Impressive shot - unfortunately removed (was it too good to be shown for free? Did Hasselblad buy it?)!

Apr 17, 2017*permalink

Najinsky, agayardo, I think we all strongly suspect the photographer was just blasting away with the lens wide open and it was just lucky that shot worked out perfectly! However, the irony is that the "limitation" you both hint at has meant a considerably better photo than might have been the case with a camera/lens combination capable of giving away more depth of field, if also used wide open.

Apr 18, 2017permalink

DenWil

The 90mm f3.2 headshot features DOF so shallow that neither the tip of the nose or the sideburns are in focus. For anyone wondering about the slow lenses of MF this is a perfect example of why slow is relative and that any slower here - say f2- would prove commercially unviable. Whether you are selling a product or the model selling the product- it helps if you can get a bit in focus. I would rather be offered f3.2 lenses that I can shoot wide open occasionally than pay the price premium for f2 and always shoot at f4.5.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Father Bouvier

That lens is equivalent to about 70mm f/2.5 FF lens. I think a lot of FF people paying $1800 for 85mm/1.4 lenses would disagree with your assessment. I have a modest 85/1.8 on my Sony and I definitely like the portraits at 1.8.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Alex Permit

Ditto. My go to portrait lenses on my D4s is the NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Rishi Sanyal

Yeah, but there are full-frame lenses you can shoot wide open at F1.4 and get nearly as good resolution (especially: lenses from Sigma).

So I'm missing your point? Please help me understand.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Mateus1

I am also satisfied with DoF portaits taken with Fuji 60/2.4 wide open on my X cam. No need for me to have 56/1.2 at all.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

paradiddlesix66

this all kindof depends on how far you are from your target though, doesnt it?

Apr 18, 2017permalink

Charrick1

If you believe that f/2 on medium format would be unviable, then you must realize that means there is no reason for medium format, period, as the equivalent of that would be an f/1.6 on Full Frame, and Full Frame already has lenses that are faster than that. Maybe you'd better stick with APS-C and smaller.

Apr 19, 2017permalink

Najinsky

Yeah yeah, just take the rest of my money ya heartless b'stards.

And my daughter is pretty, she'll get by.

And really, I ask ya, who the hell needs two kidneys, clearly a design error....

Apr 16, 2017*permalink

nicolaiecostel

Higly unimpressive pictures

Apr 16, 2017permalink

JT26

When you say that what do you actually mean? Sure they ain't gunna win any prizes but they show you really all you need to know about the camera... Right?

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Rishi Sanyal

Would you mind elaborating on which particular samples? You can leave a comment on the individual photos. Thanks in advance.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

electrophoto

@Nico
The samples are - at least in my opinion - quite nice and work well to showcase the camera's strengths and issues... so what?
Are the price winning, gallery rated stuff? not really, but they hardly are taken with the intention of being that, I guess.
And for a review, the shots are actually better than a lot of what can be found from camera testers on an average.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

moTmeN

I think the main problem with the sample pictures - not only in this gallery, but in general at this site - is that the images are made in very dull lighting situation, which makes it really hard to really understand the capabilities of different cameras/lenses.
It would be great if you could add at least few images where the sun is present on the picture - or at least close to it. At least let the sun come out from behind the clouds...

Apr 18, 2017permalink

davids8560

I think this camera nicely fills a gap few people really ever get on about, and predictably so, for the price, I suppose. The subject matter in some instances evokes a more noticeably poignant response from me than the IQ, which seems to lag a bit behind my expectations. But I've been called a moron plenty of times, too, so I dunno. This could be one of those items where your checking account balance affects your impression the most.

Apr 16, 2017*permalink

Ernest M Aquilio

Nice rendering from that 90mm and 45mm respectfully. A good array of images too! Thanks DPR team

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Sten E

A good camera

Apr 16, 2017permalink

cdembrey

Horses for courses!! I don't think that many people will be shooting the World Cup, or in unlit back alleys with a X1D. But many of the complaints seen here are about AutoFocus speed and High ISO performance.

If AutoFocus speed and High ISO performance are the deciding factors for you, look at a Canon 1Dx2. Duh!!

Apr 16, 2017*permalink

PhotoKhan

Precisely.

We have to come up with a name for the prevailing number of users that, given an outstanding photographic product, go out of their way to demand things from that product that it was clearly not designed to do.

I would call them "Negativists" and would bet that, while seating in a concert hall hearing the perfect rendition of Sibelius 7th Symphony by the Vienna Philharmonic, conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, they would probably go: "Yeah, but where is the light show?" ;)

Apr 16, 2017*permalink

jnd

If you take out high ISO performance then what's left of the large sensor advantage? At base ISO even smaller sensor will give you great results.

Apr 18, 2017permalink

Rodenmg

Oops. Sorry. The amazon add at the end of the article was for the 5D-something or bother. I'll take three. :)

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Rodenmg

I know the dollar ain't what it use to be but come on. $43000. Say it again and think about it. $43000.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

jorg14

That would buy a nice car... and both would depreciate at about the same rate.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Deutsch

However, that is NOT the price.
Body only is $8,995 and with 45mm lens, $12,995.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

zzzxtreme

Check out the Amazon reviews of the older $43k model

Apr 16, 2017permalink

falconeyes

@zzzxtreme there aren't any with the "Verified Purchase" filter active.
...
Strange :)

Apr 16, 2017permalink

zzzxtreme

Yes falcon, that what makes em funny lol
Check out review by Andrew Li

Apr 16, 2017permalink

falconeyes

You missed my irony smiley

Apr 16, 2017permalink

jackspra

The quality of the photos was fantastic.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

OrdinarilyInordinate

It's interesting just how ordinary the results look. Kind of grainy, not particularly sharp. I don't get the same "wow this is very nice, clear, and with great tonality" impression that I get when looking at Fuji's GFX results. Although supposedly more or less the same sensor. Must be the difference in lenses and RAW/Post Processing.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

It's rare for the staff here to process photos with any attempt to control noise. I have no idea why but, luckily, the internet is a big place and you will find much cleaner examples elsewhere.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

fedway

Or since the raw files are available, you can always do it yourself.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

OrdinarilyInordinate

I definitely mean OOC JPEGs in addition to RAWs. Both.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Out of camera jpg files aren't full sized. Yes, fedway, you can do it yourself if you have the patience to wait for such a large file to download. However, I think it likely that most people here won't bother and will rely on the poorly processed examples posted here.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Dale Baskin

We avoid adding additional noise reduction to photos in sample galleries for cameras since we're trying to show you what the camera produces, not our Camera Raw skills. We generally do minor adjustments, but if we do anything significant we usually note it in the 'image details' area.

Our purpose with these galleries isn't to produce fine art, but rather to show a mix of samples that illustrate how the camera performs in different conditions (e.g. low ISO, high, ISO, high dynamic range scenes, etc). We typically provide download links for the Raw files so that you can process them based on your own preferences.

Apr 16, 2017*permalink

We appreciate that, Dale, but isn't the point of using a RAW converter, rather than relying on the camera's processing, to make the most of the file's potential? No need for fine art (though some of the images are pretty nice!) but we want to know what the camera can do, so a little use of the sliders to tidy things up would be very helpful.

Adobe's "default" is not a level playing field as every camera seems to need a slightly different approach.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

Actually, I note many such samples over the last year or so have had the shadows excessively lifted too, which makes everything worse!

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Paul Petersen

Looks nice, although I think this is a better tool to get out of the city with and do some big landscapes. The wild is not that far from Seattle still unlike Lalaland.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

So odd that people have to dislike someplace else to like where they are....

:-)

Apr 15, 2017permalink

whumber

I didn't see any indication that he doesn't like LA; but if he did, you don't think it could just be that he doesn't like LA on it's own merits?

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

This link isn't broken....

Unlike yours.....

:-)

Apr 15, 2017permalink

(unknown member)

I thought Seattle was Lalaland north? Or is that Vancouver?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

jackspra

Some people like rain and bad weather and some like the beauty of So.Cal.and it's climate.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Paul Petersen

Actually I live in Portland and travel to LA and Seattle regularly. I love So Cal. My wife is from there and my daughter goes to College in the OC. My point is there is much more awesome scenery nearby Seattle then easily reached from an office in Downtown LA. So the DPR folks ave little exclude not to take a cool tool like this to where it can really shine.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Hmm....

Sounds like a $64,000 question maybe?

Why they chose different subjects than you would.

Maybe they'll answer.

You'd think this camera would beg for shooting landscapes....

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Paul Petersen

Yup its light and has a leaf shutter perfect for hiking. Contrast AF is too slow for action.
I suspect most will reside on a tripod in a studio shooting under strobes using its leaf shutter for its high speed sync and computer connected for review.

Apr 17, 2017permalink

Any chance of ISO 6400 examples shot in dim lighting--so as to challenge the sensor and lenses?

Also what firmware was the body used running? Same question regards the various lenses used too.

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

Magnar W

Judging such a camera from some random jpg files posted on a photo forum? Well, those posters will never move into medium format anyway! ;-)

Apr 15, 2017permalink

What makes you think people aren't downloading and extracting the raws?

Phocus 3 is free to download from Hasselblad. And Adobe DNG Converter will turn these X1D raws into DNGs.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Magnar W

There are many comments on the jpg file quality.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Right, I guess I'd thought that then you'd address your comment at a specific commenter commenting on the out of camera jpeg quality.

Very very few people shooting with this Hasselblad, the Pentax 645Z, or the Fuji GFX-50S would shoot exclusively jpeg. So I agree the comments about jpeg quality are next to meaningless.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Magnar...

So you're saying if the jpgs don't have it ....

Then it's not there to start with?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Magnar W

Read whatever you want into what I wrote, this is the web! ;-)

Apr 15, 2017permalink

MarkBeaumont

I'm not sure the gallery really does the camera any true justice. Having used it for little over a month now, what I'm finding is the ability to recover detail in the shadows, quite incredible. There's also no doubt it's a very unusual camera to use if your coming from a DSLR, it has its quirks and issues, but hopefully all things that can be sorted with firmware updates. However for me having the leaf shutter and being able to sync with my flash at all speeds, is just so awesome. Thank you Hasselblad for making leaf shutter MF affordable.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Father Bouvier

Nice pictures, but those 'processed to taste' look seriously overdone to my taste.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

cdembrey

Thanks for showing the untouched JPEGs. Comparing them to the "to-taste" conversions shows us more of your PShop chops than Hasselblads Image Quality.

The close-up of the mans head looks HDR/tonemap-ish—not something that my professional retoucher would do.

Hasselblad makes the excellent Focus software, that comes FREE with the camera, why not use it for at least some of the processing?

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

Mateus1

I must adimit the colour ballance and cleanness are one of the best if not the best I have seen in current cams. Fuji GFX render them also greatly, but I would probably prefer X1D for landscape and fashion and GFX for documentary and weddings. Both cams are really great to please many users. Both are beyond reach of my earnings but I will love to see all works they will show us with these two grand cams.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

The sensor speccing, developing, manufacturing and post image capturing pipeline tweaking appears to be a quite complicated process.

Just saying "It's a Sony sensor!" doesn't cut it.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Great Bustard

Not that OOC jpgs matter for a camera like this (I mean, who buys this camera to shoot OOC jpgs?), but I have to say that it is a serious contender for the worst ever in-camera jpg engine.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

surelythisnameisfree

The Jpegs are tiny files too. I think they are just generated for the in camera playback

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Porky89

@surelythisnameisfree You are right, the jpegs are only provided as proofs. Rather like the Polaroid backs we used back in the days of film.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

NameFinder

Wow - those colours!

I like the subtle pastel shades.
Something I have come to expect from medium format, don't know why!

And that is what I was missing when looking at the Fuji GFX 50S images here:
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6143051542/fujifilm-gfx-50s-on-the-streets-of-tokyo-a-shooting-experience

Since the sensors seem to be the same (I guess Sony), there must be other reasons for the difference in colour rendition.

Of course, one simple reason could be the "processed to taste from camera RAW" mentioned often.

Other reasons might be the different daylight, the different subjects, maybe the different photographer(?).

On the other hand, there are not that many pictures with JPEG "out of the camera".

Well, some - which indeed (Dragonrider wrote it before) look a bit flat and lifeless compared to the processed RAWs.

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

Dragonrider

JPEGs are kind of flat (low contrast and muted colors) but the processed shots look nice. I do think the limited depth of field on the MF could be "limiting" for a lot of applications.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

BJL

DOF can always be increased by stopping down, and with apertures chosen to give equal DOF in different formats, the diffraction effects are also equal (when images are viewed at the same size.) So it is not true that larger formats are "stuck" with less DOF.

The higher f-stop needed to get a given DOF does mean that a larger format is stuck with needing to either:
- use a lower shutter speed in order to get the same DOF at the same ISO speed, or
- increase the ISO speed in order to get the same DOF at the same shutter speed,
but at worst that reduces or cancels the IQ advantages of a larger format; it does not put it at a disadvantage in IQ. (Just in price, size, and weight!)

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

Dragonrider

That was kind of my point. In certain situations, MF is spectacular, but for general purpose work, there is not much of a real IQ advantage over FF and typically you lose a lot on the AF front. All that (and the price) leads me to believe that MF will stay a niche market.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

BJL

@Dragonrider, how does your comment about DOF translate to "not much of a real IQ advantage"? Traditionally MF has been chosen over 35mm format for greater resolution, finer tonal gradations (related to dynamic range) and better lens quality through factors like achieving a giver DOF at a higher f-stop and so with less aberrations — but typically at lower shutter speeds and so with more need for a tripod (or good IS!)

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Porky89

@BJL DOF can indeed always be increased by stopping down, but with a penalty in slower shutter speed or increased sensitivity (ISO), which may or may not matter depending on what and how you are shooting. You don't get anything for nothing. Swings and roundabouts and all that.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

BJL

@Porky89 Yes, that is exactly what I said. The higher ISO speed option is not so bad, since it roughly just cancels out the IQ advantage that the larger format typically has at equal ISO speed, but I think we agree that the IQ advantage of medium format typically comes with the trade-off of lower shutter speed; it is not for action photography!

Apr 16, 2017permalink

noisephotographer

Jpgs show less dynamic range than what I am used to see with HDR+ and the Google Nexus

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Do you really think that people shooting with a camera like this often shoot jpeg only?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Noise....

So you think the DR just isn't there at all?

Or it's discarded in the jpgs?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Jetfly

Jpeg is 8 bit which means that the maximum dr of it 8 EV. I really can't see any difference between two 8 EV files.

Apr 16, 2017permalink

derfotograf

All images could have been taken with any modern digital camera. Or i.e. with a Fuji GW 690 III or GSW 690III and Kodak Portra 160.

So what's the catch here?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Superka

Digital all look almost the same. Nothing interesting. My Panasonic LX100 is even better! https://www.flickr.com/photos/superka_01/

Hasselblad was much better when using film.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Add a red dot....

And it will be priceless....

:-)

Apr 15, 2017permalink

malabito

Not sure were you are looking or how you are looking, but is not comparable , (some of them at least). By the way were are your pictures taken? Looks very much like Bucharest in some places. Thanks!

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

(unknown member)

But Apr 1 was two weeks ago...

Apr 15, 2017permalink

medon78

Very strange color rendition...

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

Banhmi

I really hesitate to start yet another equivalency discussion... but is the 90mm F/3.2 lens on this Hasselblad MF sensor more-or-less equivalent to something like a 72mm (90mm*.8) F/2.6 (F/3.2*.8) on a FF sensor or what factor should I be using?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Old Cameras

It never occurred to me before but I guess leaf shutters typically don't allow for a very fast lens. I have an old RB67 and just one lens, the original 90mm f3.8. When that camera was introduced f3.8 was the fastest aperture lens available. The 44x33 sensor isn't that much bigger than FF, I'm curious what it would take to build, say, a 63mm f2.0 or even f1.4.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Father Bouvier

Leaf shutter must be small enough for short exposure times, the shorter the exposure the smaller the aperture it can open to. One thing you cannot expect from a leaf shutter is the achieve a shallow portraits in daylight like you can get with say 85mm 1.4 on full frame.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Adam2

MF quality though am I the only one seeing a lot of noise at 6400 or were the images at higher ISO under-exposed? Can't check the histograms because I am at work...

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Hot_Potato

Nice

Apr 15, 2017permalink

princecody

The sensor can be the size of a woolly mammoth but if the user experience is horrendous who cares?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Exactly. You've used the camera extensively then?

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Prince is able to absorb information from other sources...

Most people can....

One doesn't personally have to use a camera extensively to believe how a camera performs...

DPR provides in depth reviews...

You don't trust them?

You don't trust someone's comments based on their reading DPRs expertise?

When you go to the doctor do you do all the medical research the doctor provides you?

Do you ask the doctor if they personally did all the research for the medical information they give you?

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

princecody

No but Steve Huff told me Hasselblad cameras are unpleasant to use in the past. Maybe with the addition of Ming Thein the user experience is great now 👍🏻

Apr 15, 2017*permalink

Passing on review info (don't remember reading "horrendous" anywhere) as if it's your own user experience is fickle at best.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

Ahh. Steve Huff.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

TimRavenscroft

I have been using the X1D for about a month now (mostly outdoor work) and the camera is a delight to use (prior cameras Mamiya leaf Credo and Nikon D810). Very easy to work with and produces wonderful results even in challenging lighting. If you would like to see some images they are at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/98844125@N04/albums/72157680092122410

Apr 15, 2017permalink

DPPMetro

Incredible. This and the new Fuji MF are bringing lots to the table and surpassing Pentax by a huge margin.

Apr 15, 2017permalink

geoson

I don't know about a huge margin. All three have unique characteristics despite having the same sensor.

Apr 15, 2017permalink