Hasselblad XCD 21mm sample gallery

Looks good to me. Thank you.

Excellent quality from the x1d.

How come Breathe and not Open Eyes?

It is easier to use a heavy camera and lens combo for better results, because their is more mass and weight to be moved(inertia). Also better for vibration damping.
How did the photographers 30 or 40 years ago ever take pictures at in NFL game?

It's all in how you hold the camera. I think of it as an iron hand in a velvet glove. You hold the camera gently with your fingertips but at the same time keep your arms and shoulders tensed like you're going to hoist a 100lb bag of cement. When you do it right, you can feel the camera vibrations propagate into your hands where they dissipate instead of shaking the camera.
It also helps to push the shutter release very slowly and softly, as though you were trying to kiss a sleeping baby without waking it up.
Or you can use the old neck-strap-across-your-shoulders-and-pull-taut technique. But forget monopods. They're useless in my opinion. Tripods, only if they're gargantuan, but then they work amazingly well.

@MrBrightSide - No matter what kind of camera I am using, I use the classic technique from years ago. First I check the direction of the wind, then place my body sideways into the wind and separate my two legs apart. Keep my arms together and elbows to me sides. Hold my breath and gently tip the shutter. In the past, this was known as the tripod stance.
I can take very good pictures using this technique at 1/30 sec. with no IS or VR in the lens.

I really like the 4:3 ratio for everything. But I probably wouldn't use this ultra-wide lens for people pics.

Sorry, 6x6 as in the Rolleis, Yashicamats and other real cameras is the only acceptable format.

I find 4:3 much more appealing for portrait orientation landscape and architecture shots personally.

How hard is it to crop a digital photo? Seriously...

3:2 is the amateur small picture format. 4:3 is the format of painting, of large format cameras, of mighty Mamiya RB67’s.

4:3 makes much better use of the image circle from a lens. A square format would give the smallest lenses in relation to total image area but 4:3 isn’t bad.

3:2. You’re basically throwing away most of that circle with every press of the shutter.

"3:2 is the amateur small picture format" - you must be kidding.

For landscape I use all 3:2 format (6x9 in MF) which I find beneficial for landscape shots.

You guys are kidding, right?
The aspect ratio of the picture is subordinate to the subject. It doesn’t really matter what the sensor aspect ratio is, you shoot the composition you want and then crop as needed. Circles, for instance, triangles, amorphous blob shapes, you can glue your photos on those wavy Fiberglas roof panels....

Zeiss Batis 18 mm has 3% distortion also.

The distortion is higher than I thought for a so called medium format system. The stretch in the persons at the borders of the frame is quite strong.

the "stretch" at the edges ensures objects like perfect squares and circles that naturally "slant away" as they are farther away from the center on a perfectly parallel plane to the image center remain perfectly "squares/circles" as they "lean away" on that plane farthest from center

this means all straight dimensions are supposed to be equisized no matter which way they are oriented on that parallel plane

however, perfect spheres with full circles always look ellipsoidal since they show a non-leaning plane "face" perfectly perpendicular to only "vantage point" of camera, and are thus never parallel to the sensor plane at all

any slight barrel distortion can be seen by non-straight straights "anywhere" oriented in any direction, if rectilinearity is non-Zero-D

@Francis - you are out in deep water :)

The stretch (as you call it) is only an effect of the FOV and that the lens is rectilinear. Does not help the slightest that it is a medium format camera.

The only interesting thing here is if a medium format 21 mm lens F4 is good at 3% distortion. It surely is good for a 35 mm FF camera of the same FOV. Then we have the ZeroD lenses, asking a very relevant question. You can do it better. But .... those lenses are bigger. So ...

That is totally true. If you add som barrel distortion you get less stretch. If the lens is made for architecture you want zero distortion. If it is made for general super wide angle jobs, then a bit of distortion may improve.

Now, it is perfectly possible to correct the distortion in software. And if the distortion is low, then it will not degrade the result all that much.

Someday, I aim to test my theory that wide angle stretching is less severe with larger formats (given the same AOV, camera position, and rectilinearity), although I know it's difficult to make direct comparisons due to different aspect ratios, limited available lens focal lengths, and the effects of camera movements compared to software convergence correction. Having worked quite a bit with 8x10 / MFT with ultra-wide lenses 120mm / 7mm respectively (I no longer have the 8x10 system), it has been my intuitive observation that larger formats produce greater spatial realism due to less apparent perspective distortion. Perhaps this has something to do with the limitations of optical design for smaller formats. Or maybe (as many people think) I'm imagining something that is physically impossible :) but I would like to see proof.

@Roland Karlsson -- My experience (40+ years) with a wide range of format sizes indicates otherwise. I think I see differences in the rendering of UWA perspective and "spatial realism" between formats, although I can't really say this conclusively without proper testing. One may cite theoretical analogies, but results in practice may reveal parameters not previously known or quantified. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Then do the testing by all means.

I have experience both in practice and in theory. And I tell you that the reason for the different feeling when using large format cameras is not about medium and large format cameras treating the perspective differently. They do not. Here might bve some reasons for the difference.

1. Large format lenses can be made with higher F-stop and still not having problem with diffraction. Then you can make lenses with far less optical problems. Sharper, less coma, better rendering in the corners, etc.

2. Large format lenses (e.g. Grandagon) do have a totally different design with large front and back lenses, giving a much more even IQ over the full area and also minimizes vignetting.

3. Large format (expensive) wide angle lenses are more rectilinear. You get a totally different feeling in architecture if the lens actually is rectilinear.

4. The film grain is less visible, giving a totally different feel of depth to the image. The image pops out better.

Mr. Pink has moire on his thighs.

And his package is distorted.

Oops --- there were some bunny guys. And now my sleep will be even more disturbed. Why did you tell me this? And why did I look?

Curiosity. The only weakness of photographers and cats, and also their greatest strength.

How is this related? How did Nikon slip into the evaluation of a Hasselblad lens? Why do you care what the price is?

Costs also more than my Bose headphones

No I have been there done that. Medium format digital that is. Sold off my IQ180 for a Nikon D850. Best decision I ever made

You're comparing the IQ180 (released in 2011) to last year's D850, and you seem somehow surprised that a MF lens would cost more than a FF body.

How are these comments even relevant?

I see that the 850 does more things than the medium format,but looking at the finished photo taken in the same condition at what the medium format excels in,I would go for the medium format finish.

Hasselblad lens release: https://m.dpreview.com/news/1899137602/hasselblad-unveils-its-widest-lens-ever-the-xcd-21mm-f4-lens

Focal length: 21.8 mm
Equivalent Focal length (24x36): 17 mm
Aperture range: 4 - 32
Angle of view diag/hor/vert: 105°/92°/75°
Length/diameter: 106 mm/83 mm
Weight (excl. covers and lens shade): 600g
Filter diameter: 77 mm

I am not sure if simple real life samples would help much here. The studio shots already suggest that there is not a huge difference between a 40 MP FF and Hasselblads 50 MP.
Professional users still have their reasons why they choose it over FF, but I doubt that these will become apparent in such a simple, yet still cumbersome, comparison.

The article isn’t about the camera. It’s about the LENS.

You are missing the point.
D850 = 14bit camera
A7# = 14bit camera
GFX = 14bit camera
X1D = 16bit camera
There's much more data in the RAW files.
The lens itself may not be the best there is, but it's a leaf-shutter lens designed for that system. It's a Hasselblad (which means expensive), it's not perfect (usually) and it's made for a specific audience. Things like the cheap looking angular aperture in a $3000-5000 lens are just too crazy for me. But the image quality really is above any FF camera. It's just not my type of camera, mostly because of its price.

Those who are trying to compare these cameras.

A middle format 21/4 lens has a diffraction limit close to 200MP and AT THE SAME TIME can have everything in focus between 1.5m to infinity (not everything with 200MP sharpness offcourse but acceptable sharpness).

Who said MF is all about shallow depth of field huh?

This so-called medium format is not that much larger than 35 mm to really make such a difference. We are not talking about a 4 x 5 large format lens here. This is simply a really, really good lens, as is easily demonstrated by other lenses for this format both from Fuji and Hasselblad that are not nearly as sharp, in particular towards the corners.

They are still like ~70% bigger in terms of surface area than FF, so there is a difference.
It is interesting to me that they did not make it an 21/1.4 or something similar like we see on full frame. I am sure they did that to make as little sucrifices as possible to where it counts for the lens.

I'd have to agree - output from the GFX is compelling.

@J A C S, @shigzeo, @Lars V, @Elonlukatski - Nonsense!

@ecka84 - Nonsense!

No. Keep the high ISOs for camera reviews.