for some reason, the pics look flat, not attractive.

Excellent photographs, incredible detail.

I would love to be able to buy into this system, the experience and the new learning would be worth it. However that’s a stretch too far financially and TBH I’m not sure that my photography would be any better .
Looking at the gallery does bring some small comfort in that most images are viewed on phones, tablets and computer screens. I’m sure that this does not show the MF files at their best save zooming in , but at the same time my current camera images do not look significantly worse 😁

I see nothing in these pictures that reflects the fabled “medium format look”. They could have been made with any modern interchangeable lens camera. That said, I’m sure that they are super clean and detailed; but it just goes to show that any mystique about a certain “look” has more to do with the photographer, than the camera itself….

Very nice gallery, and I love the underexposed images. Not every image needs to be exposed to middle gray. And color science looks great.

I downloaded the RAW files only and opened them in Lightroom, they look great ! (much better than seeing the images on dpreview web interface)
The lenses are sharp.
The image quality is very good.
Thank you for these samples.

Personally I would love an Hasselblad digital camera with a square sensor of 55x55. Maybe one day… ?

Do the people who took the photos actually know what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are, and how they work together?

This is about as far away from a point-and-shoot camera as you can get for under 10k. So why treat it like a point-and-shoot camera? Wouldn't it be better if the shots were actually lit and metered properly?

The colors and ovreall rendering is VERY similar to Canon 1D with its CCD.

I will stick with my R5 ...

The pictures with the horizon in view are not perfect horizontal.

Nice pics. i really like the Hasselbad color rendering

The images look nice, the lens doesn't appear to be able to keep up with the sensor though, it will be interesting to see full reviews.

The Fuji GFX 100 (with same chip) sample gallery is more impressive IMO.

What I see is many underexposed photos.

Cat pictures please.

Not impressive at all. I expected much better quality. Maybe street photography is not for a 100MP camera. I have seen APSc images that look much better. Something is off. I am just not sure what it is.
A video I saw showing studio samples was very impressive. Color and detail were as expected and worthy of a camera like this. Maybe this is made for studio work with controlled strobe lighting?!

As someone else also commented the white balance does seem off in several of these shots. Also some shots, especially photos with people, look decidedly overcooked with skintones rendering far too reddish and oversaturated, at least for my taste.

I dunno. Given the $8000 price tag, I guess I was expecting to be a bit more impressed.

Reading through the comments is… strange😀
There are people, who compare these images to their old D850, even to their smartphone and come to the conclusion: we need studio shots to really compare.

Yes, agreed, in a studio setup you have a level playing field. Sort of. But in reality it is what you shoot that counts. And sometimes the studio shot looks just amazing, but if you go shooting you are left underwhelmed.

The first question has to be: who needs more than 16 Mpix, let alone 100 Mpix? Not the one, who thinks that his smartphone photos look similar. In a broader sense: not the one who only looks at his photos on a calibrated 4k monitor.

Folks, it is the print at the end of the day. A photo is a photo once printed and hand held - everything else is either a web shot (which is totally fine!) or the modern equivalent of a contact sheet.

Ever tried to compare the IQ of cameras or film on a contact sheet?

White balance seems a bit off.

The Hasselblad website has some great shots with this camera and various new and current lenses. It’s worth the look.

Very nice images. I'm sure this camera is going to be a stellar performer.

Looks kinda average to me, especially considering the cost of the kit.

Happy to see some great photos here. Much better than DPRs usual sample photos. Colours look absolutely gorgeous too!

So it's not capable of cat pics.

100 MP and it still can't handle highlights.

They look like mirror lens pictures, dead and no contrast, my Sony AF 500mm f8 looks a little bit better than those.
There is probably two reasons for that : lenses can't resolve a 100MP, or the JPEG engine .
I am comparing it with my D850 pictures when paired with a sharp prime lens, closed down to f9, they are crazy sharp.

Hardly the kind of pictures a Hasselblad is meant for! Show us some fashion pictures and landscapes and we will be able to judge (maybe)!

I can see nothing special in these photos except the high resolution. On a pixel level my Nikon Z7 with good glass looks not a bit worse. And I would bet quite a lot that with a 100 MP full frame sensor the results would also look almost as good as with this Hasselblad camera.

I like the river scene (second to last photo)... you can see details in the cars and people hiking up the stairs on the cliffside... pretty amazing.

I wonder though at what point does the resolution of the sensor goes beyond the capabilities of the lens. I realize that it depends on the lens being used, but it seems though there is probably some limit it no longer makes sense.

Yep, it looks like a CMOS sensor camera.

Lenses seem to show visible levels of CA wide open -which is a serious and non-fixable problem when happens on out of focus regions-, a few people mention that (check CA on out of focus metallic chairs at image no 3). Definitely not Hasselblad level.

For anyone who's interested, one of the better reviews for the X2D is Karl Taylor's where, as well as reviewing the camera, he makes a comparison with the H6-100 for studio work...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5GjcpJeKUs

And they look like my pixel cell phone photos when viewed on the web

Who took these pictures? 🤔
There is a significant difference between these shots and the rest of the galleries.

Am I the only one to notice how lovely, even great, the colour rendering of these images is?

And no, I didn't look for ultimate sharpness, but I do like the rendering.

I am not sure why, but I am not blown away. Maybe Studio controlled shots will tell me a better story.

The details don't look well resolved. It looks more like an issue with the lens though. I am sure if Sony 185mm was mounted, it will look a lot more sharp thanks to its superior resolving power.

Ah, London! It has been a while since most sample galleries had picture of London.

It's funny when you apply Lightrooms Super Resolution to those 100MP files. You get a 1,3GB raw file and Lightroom hogs 28GB of RAM.
The level of detail in that curly portrait is insane. The reflection in his focused eye is a picture in itself.
Impressive.

Nice look.