Hasselblad XCD 21mm sample gallery

Looks good to me. Thank you.

1 week agopermalink

Excellent quality from the x1d.

1 week agopermalink

Double post. Apologies.

1 week agopermalink

The Name is Bond

Yet again confirms for me that ultra-wide is not for making attractive pics or fine art but pure function; interiours etc.

Makes me want to go out and take architecture pics with my 50mm, and landscapes with 135mm.

1 week agopermalink

Slouch Hooligan

Many posters have mentioned hand-held vs tripod for sharp shots. A page from military marksmanship training:
BRASS—
Beathe
Relax
Aim
Slack
Squeeze

This assumes a stable posture standing, kneeling, squatting,sitting, or lying.

1 week agopermalink

Slouch Hooligan

SP—Breathe

1 week agopermalink

Merida

How come Breathe and not Open Eyes?

1 week agopermalink

Slouch Hooligan

Merida: That was a spelling correction. But do, by all means, open your eyes while doing photography, or marksmanship.

1 week agopermalink

It would be of interest to know if you do the shots handheld,tripod,mono stick,a post to lean on.Comments seem concerned about stability handheld.Lot of keepers in that sample gallery.

1 week agopermalink

Medium format image quality shots are great.

1 week agopermalink

SmilerGrogan

Ah, Bournemouth!

1 week agopermalink

Beautiful pictures, excellent photography, especially the dudes getting their freak on in Spandex bunny and Ninja Turtle costumes. I remember the 60s so I am sure that I would dig where they're coming from and would be 100 percent supportive of whatever message they're trying to send.
But captions would be helpful in understanding what got these buff dudes so riled up that they decided their only course of action was to don skin-tight costumes and scandalize British families out for a quiet day at the beach.

1 week ago*permalink

Nikoncanonfan

How could you handhold a 100mp medium format camera without at least lens stabilisation? I cant see that going well...

2 weeks agopermalink

kodachromeguy

Maybe the kind of photographer who buys this equipment uses a tripod, stand, or boom with gimbals.

2 weeks agopermalink

Nikoncanonfan

Quite honestly it would need to be set in concrete before an attempt at a sharp picture..

1 week agopermalink

MyReality

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?

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week ago*permalink

MyReality

@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.

1 week agopermalink

Dr_Jon

Pixels aren't that tiny due to larger sensor, so level of steadiness required isn't that great. The smaller 100MP MF sensor has 3.76um Pixels, which is very close to a 24MP APS sensor (Fuji/Nikon/Sony 3.9um, Canon 3.7um). Just add a factor of 1.6 into the shutter speed vs focal length calculation.

1 week agopermalink

dmanthree

Looks like a class optic, but as the "bunny guys" shot shows, sometimes you want *less* detail. A lot less. :-D

2 weeks agopermalink

Mateus1

4:3 ratio is not nice for landscape, architecure shots. 3:2 would be much better.
Then why to bother with this" tiny" MF sensor? A7r3 seems better choice.

2 weeks ago*permalink

obsolescence

I think just the opposite is true for architecture. That could be because I spent many years shooting 4x5 and 8x10 formats that are even closer to square, but it's also because most publications would have to crop the 3:2 images. This Hasselblad quality is approaching that of 4x5" film, however much more versatile and practical than film.

1 week agopermalink

Yake

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

1 week ago*permalink

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

1 week agopermalink

Tyson Poeckh

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

1 week agopermalink

Astrotripper

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

1 week ago*permalink

NemanRa

obsolescence,

i'm not impressed that much with this camera. i prefer fuji gfx samples. especially the fuji's telephotots - 110 and 120mm the samples look "deep" and ridiculously sharp.

speaking about large format, i would say that LF is still the king.
i have sent a 4x5 provia to the pro photo lab, the results are impressive. over 200mp of details... even the mamiya-leaf 80mp can't come close... moreover, the prints are literally 3d, i feel as if i'm standing there... :)

regards

1 week agopermalink

Einride

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.

1 week agopermalink

Mateus1

"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.

1 week ago*permalink

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....

1 week agopermalink

JackM

“Approaching 4x5 film”??

1 week agopermalink

ozturert

The sample pictures look incredible. I don't remember seeing this performance in FF super-wide lenses. Even at f4 it is good, at f8-f11 it is flawless.
Some FF lenses are really good. I have used Nikon 14-24mm and it was also fantastic on 12 and 24MP sensors. But this Hassel looks... better behaved.

2 weeks agopermalink

17.2mm f3.3 ff.horizontal.fov + dof
on a 44x33

high barrel distortion ... spherical look
(not a very rectilinear lens)

2 weeks ago*permalink

It has some barrel distortion - but it is hardly high - is it?

Checked that data sheet - it is 3%.

The 30 mm lens has 2% distortion.

2 weeks ago*permalink

https://www.venuslens.net/product/laowa-magic-format-converter-mfc/

high enough to be immediately noticeable

fireplace waiting room pic
and
covered glassed in boardwalk view

considering it's a lens aimed at compact medium format
it's too high

alternatives:
FF Laowa 12mm f2.8 with MFC 1.4x works out as 17mm f4 Zero-D on GFX50S
or
new:
MF Laowa 17mm f4 GFX Zero-D (obvious spinoff from 12+MFC) for GFX50S

so, Zero-D is now the new highbar for MF, too
unfortunately, not for Hasselblad XCD, at least, not yet ...

2 weeks agopermalink

Zeiss Batis 18 mm has 3% distortion also.

2 weeks agopermalink

Sure - the Zero D is very nice.

2 weeks agopermalink

Francis R

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.

2 weeks agopermalink

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

2 weeks ago*permalink

Francis R

@PhozoKozmos Yes, it is an effect of perspective, but one of the advantages of medium format (in film at least) is indicating that wide angle lenses show the geometry of a standard lens. It could be a myth as perspective depends of distance but well, thank you for the reply.

2 weeks agopermalink

@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 ...

2 weeks agopermalink

mbradich

Perhaps there is tradeoff — less corner stretch at the expense of more barrel distortion? (I am no expert in optics design, so just guessing). Addmitedly, this lens lends itself for architectural photography, but then I imagine most users at this equipment and price level would use a different system that has TS options. So Hasselblad might have aimed the lens at a different usage scenarios.

2 weeks agopermalink

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.

2 weeks agopermalink

obsolescence

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.

1 week ago*permalink

the "perfect stretch" in rectilinearity is pure mathematical
it's not a distortion at all, but a normalness

likewise, for "perfect squish" in sphericity (mathematical) such as pure fisheye lens
not a distortion, but a normalness

1 week agopermalink

@obsolescence. No need to do the testing. The size does not matter.

A rectilinear lens is like a pinhole camera. Changing to a bigger format is like replacing with a bigger back further away from the pinhole. And then - nothing happens to the perspective.

1 week ago*permalink

obsolescence

@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.

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

carton

It's interesting that Fuji's use of traditional shutter allows these old, open-market lenses to be used. I find that compelling because it seems fun to find the odd gem among them.

The tradeoff is that you cannot use XCD lenses. ;)

But vignetting (mostly) and distortion (entirely) are solved problems on digital that don't seem worth all this discussion. Use Phocus. That is what the 'D' means in XCD and HCD lens model numbers: it doesn't make sense to trade weight or image quality for things that can be perfectly corrected in Phocus, unless you are shooting on film, at least not if the goal is to make images rather than win the thread.

1 week agopermalink

Fly18

It looks an excellent lens to me.

2 weeks agopermalink

panther fan

The samples look great no doubt. But isn't that the same with other modern lenses? Mix in a shot of the Fuji 23mm F4 or the Batis 18mm and nobody would have noticed.

For such high end lenses I think a full review would be more helpfull than a sample gallery

2 weeks agopermalink

deep7

Until you zoom into 100% and maybe add in some tricky lighting...

1 week agopermalink

Tape5

The lens is in a class of its own.
I particularly love the way it documents testosterone in action.
No need for crystalline xray photography.

2 weeks agopermalink

Gavin Wade

Sharp as a tack, but it has so much distortion.

2 weeks agopermalink

sop51

I'm still trying to unsee those guys in the bunny costumes...

2 weeks agopermalink

You mean the turtle costumes? Take the first one and choose 100% and you will be looking straight at a close up of a bearded and sandy mouth through a hole in green cloth. Scary! My deep dream state will have a tough time erasing that tonight.

2 weeks agopermalink

KrisAK

Mr. Pink has moire on his thighs.

2 weeks agopermalink

sop51

And his package is distorted.

2 weeks ago*permalink

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?

2 weeks agopermalink

onlyfreeman

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

1 week agopermalink

RootX

Some experts, like Sigmund Freud, concluded that humans are naturally bisexual

1 week agopermalink

RootX

Some experts, like Sigmund Freud, concluded that humans are naturally bisexual.

1 week agopermalink

Arca45Swiss

Costs more than my Nikon D850 ! Ridiculous

2 weeks ago*permalink

D logH

But why would I want to mount a Nikon D810 on a Hasselblad X1D? A lens would be much better...

2 weeks agopermalink

kodachromeguy

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

2 weeks agopermalink

brendon1000

^^At some point maybe the op has a thought of upgrading to MF. But considering the price point he may be pointing out in his own way that its just too expensive at this point in time at least to remain a small niche for a few photographers.

2 weeks agopermalink

ozturert

Costs also more than my Bose headphones

2 weeks agopermalink

Arca45Swiss

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

2 weeks agopermalink

Can u say more on the 850 versus the medium format.

1 week agopermalink

Arca45Swiss

Everything about it is better except less resolution. D850 has better dynamic range, high ISO capability (IQ180 only good to ISO 400), live view focus peaking, much smaller and lighter. The D850 still has plenty of resolution for say 30x40 prints

1 week agopermalink

Nereo

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?

1 week agopermalink

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.

1 week agopermalink

jnd

I would compare it to Canon's 17mm f/4 tilt shift which costs half and offers more functionality.

1 week agopermalink

D logH

Why would you compare two different focal lengths from two different systems with two different market sizes and two different development times? I could compare both those to the Fuji 14mm f/2.8, which is much cheaper and lighter!

1 week agopermalink

bluevellet

What kind of party was this...?

2 weeks agopermalink

ProfHankD

Looks good, although the sensor also looks sort-of noisy even at 400 -- did somebody turn-up microcontrast? I see some CA wide open, but it's better overall wide open than my old Sigma 12-24mm... but then, I usually stop-down an ultrawide and isn't 21mm on that sensor just 16mm on FF? It actually doesn't look as good as my Sigma 8-16mm @16mm on my A7RII (yes, APS-C lens on FF). In sum, I'm not awed -- in fact, I'm left wondering if a designed-for-FF 21mm lens on a GFX couldn't match this.

The other thing here is that these shots don't make good use of the ultrawide lens. Most of them are the classic "try to fit it all in" shots people think ultrawides are for rather than the forced perspective or foreground/background stuff that they really shine at. The first shot is the only one, and it's just a moderate forced perspective.

2 weeks agopermalink

ozturert

So your 8-16mm APSC lens is better on a FF A7RII with an adapter, then this state-of-the-art Hasselblad lens?

1 week agopermalink

ProfHankD

ozturert: Depending on how you weight the various IQ factors, I think it is -- but only at 16mm. The 8-16mm vignettes pretty severely on FF much below 16mm. In fairness, despite targeting APS-C, the 8-16mm is a larger lens and quite awkward to use. My point is not so much that a modestly-priced zoom can compete on an A7RII (I'm sure more than a few lenses can at 16mm), but that this 21mm doesn't seem like it would blow-away some FF 19-21mm lenses that can cover a GFX-sized sensor.

Put another way, 21mm is a slightly long minimum focal length for a modern lens covering that size sensor. Remember, it isn't really a "medium format" sensor -- it's more of a multi-aspect 135 size.

1 week ago*permalink

EskeRahn

What do you mean sharp? I can not even read the type number on the Zarges plate on the ladders on the first one... /S *LOL*

Seems like an amazing lens,

2 weeks ago*permalink

rondom

0.79×21=16.59mm (35 mm equiv) in case anyone is curious to know.

2 weeks agopermalink

panther fan

If you calculate so precise use the precise focal length of the lens, which is 21.8 mm according to Hasselblad ;)

2 weeks ago*permalink

rondom

Don’t know where you read this, but most likely that’s the physical focal length which corresponds to a larger image circle than what the sensor captures. In other words, the calculation above still remains correct in terms of equivalence.

2 weeks agopermalink

panther fan

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

2 weeks agopermalink

rondom

Thanks. Interesting. Not sure why they picked such an odd focal length. I also found this:
https://cdn.hasselblad.com/0cabede4-7cb9-446d-8f92-d320ac3a5838_xcd21+datasheet+uk+20180509.pdf

2 weeks agopermalink

Impulses

What's so odd about it? A ton of other lenses that purport to have a classic FL are often a few mm off and the manufacturer just rounds up or down arbitrarily, or they focus breathe at certain distances... Maybe Hassy is being more honest than average. 14-18mm EFL in 35mm for ultra wides is not exactly uncommon...

1 week agopermalink

Indohydra

This is an interesting camera. But frankly, these kinds of "sample galleries" do not allow anyone to understand anything. It is not the execution. The pictures are fine. It is the whole concept of " sample galleries" viewed on a computer monitor. They all look fine even to a trained eye. Anyone who claims to see the difference is a Trump supporter.

I would like to see DPR compare (in some way that we can appreciate) a Sony A7R FF at 42MP with a Hasselblad medium format which comes in at 50MP (which will no doubt become over 100MP soon enough). Sony, after all, is going to be popping out their full frame to over 100MP at around the same time. So, I would like to know from DPR what the useful difference is between FF 50/100MP and MF 50/100MP in principle. I don't care about the brand.

2 weeks agopermalink

Wrong

2 weeks agopermalink

Michael_13

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.

2 weeks agopermalink

PLShutterbug

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

2 weeks agopermalink

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.

2 weeks agopermalink

PLShutterbug

Ecka84: “You” ... who?

2 weeks agopermalink

https://www.hasselblad.com/news/hasselblad-x1d-firmware-update-1.19/

Those who are trying to compare these cameras.

2 weeks agopermalink

TenPoundTabby

Don't you mean lens? This was a review of a lens, not a camera. Careful. People are going to infer things about your politics (since you went there) because you missed something obvious and were not on topic. :)

1 week agopermalink

north w

@ecka84

I have tested the camera and pixelpeep the files with 45 and 90mm, and they are at least on par with my best Zeiss and Nikon lenses, think of "Otus" grade sharpness. And now X-lenses dont have the odd "bokeh" any longer and they
got another 1/4 stop by SW, so an f3,2 lens is now effectivly f2.8

You are crrect that HB got picture quality, but my D850 is to close because X1D have an old outdated slow sensor. The X1D needs a new high res EVF, the 100mp sensor and a better releasebutton that have 2-steps. X1D should also give away data for 3-party adapter builders like Fuji does so one can bring over ones lenses that are over 85mm.
If HB do these upgrades they will increase sales many times over todays sales, i assume 3-5 times increased sales.

6 days agopermalink

First, smaller sensor requires sharper lenses just to catch up with larger sensor and less sharp lenses. The results of putting the same Otus lens on the X1D might surprise you.
Second, color bit-depth isn't about sharpness, or lenses, or even pixel-peeping.
Third, if you don't need a better sensor, it doesn't mean that the sensor in your current camera is just as good. And the biggest reason why this "medium" format is not much sharper than FF, is that it is not much larger than FF. However, the bit-depth is an entirely different quality dimension. It's just like the difference between 8-bit JPEG and 14-bit RAW, only here it is 14-bit RAW vs 16-bit RAW. Or maybe you see no difference between JPEG and RAW either?
If you put Fuji lenses on X1D, then you will only have the electronic shutter.

5 days ago*permalink

Wow, this is probably the sharpest super-wide-angle lens I've ever seen. And it is sharp right from wide open, including the corners. This system is getting more and more interesting, in particular regarding the probably coming 100 MP X2D, or whatever Hasselblad will call it.

2 weeks agopermalink

BlueBomberTurbo

Easier to make sharper lenses when the pixel density is lower. Same as why sharp FF lenses look soft on APS-C. Want to make this lens look horrid? Put it on a 1" sensor. ;)

2 weeks agopermalink

nickolas84

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?

2 weeks agopermalink

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.

2 weeks agopermalink

nickolas84

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.

1 week agopermalink

That's about a 30% increase linearly - and that's what counts. A good 21/1.4 with the necessary image circle would be huge because of all the correctional elements needed.

1 week agopermalink

digilux

at Nickolas...did you look at the old guy holding up the cakes...even at f8 only the cakes are in focus...not the guy. So yes MF has shallow DOF.

1 week agopermalink

StephanBG

Love love love those FF shooters - 'so called MF'. Or should I say 'so called FF'?

1 week agopermalink

BlueBomberTurbo

@StephanBG

Current FF is as close to true FF as is needed. 35x24, vs 36x24 of a film frame. Roughly a 3% loss in capture area.

Current MF isn't anywhere near what MF originally started at. It used to be 60x45 at minimum, with 60x60 also popular. It went up to 60x90 normally, and as crazy as 60x170 (drool). Nowadays, it's a tiny 44x33. That's a hair off of a 50% loss in area on the smallest original MF size. That's why it's "so called MF".

And no, I don't shoot FF. ;)

1 week ago*permalink

Actually, the frame inside a, let's call it '35 mm' to avoid that somewhat confusing 'FF' monicker, camera was never really 36 x 24 mm, as you, StephanBG, could easily check if you still have slides or negatives from the film area. Quadratic medium format also was never 60 x 60, but more like 56 x 56. Anyway, the small digital medium format is nowhere near that, there are really only a few, exceedingly expensive digital cameras, that are similar in size to the former film-based small medium format, which was in practice something like 56 x 42. That, plus the fact that, in linear terms that is resolution, the small digital medium format is only 30% larger than 35 mm, makes it legitimate to call it the 'so-called' MF - this is really a marketing term to suggest a huge increase in IQ.

BTW, this was true of all film-based formats: 4 x 5 also never had 4 x 5" of usable film area.

1 week ago*permalink

Joel Benford

I've never used a lens that wide. I get the impression that keeping the camera level would be a benefit in many pictures. Possibly you want it absolutely square to the architecture rather than roughly square, too.

The pictures with no important geometry, like the guys in bunny ears, seem happier. And I like the sense of being right in among them that you get from the wide lens.

2 weeks agopermalink

mbradich

Photographing architecture from a lower angle in order to capture a desired scene (e.g. include a larger portion of a ceiling etc.) will inevitably lead to vertical perspective distortion, unless you use a so called tilt/shift lens. That is easily fixed in post, but you end up losing resolution and lower corners in the process, so not ideal for a detailed review, which was a priority in this case.

2 weeks ago*permalink

J A C S

There is nothing in those shots that makes me want to own that system. Poor colors, bland photos. On the other hand, every Fuji GFX gallery makes me envious.

Full disclosure - I did not pixelpeep.

2 weeks ago*permalink

shigzeo

Kind of a photographer problem.

2 weeks agopermalink

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

2 weeks agopermalink

Elonlukatski

They use the exact same Sensor. You will be shooting RAW files so your choice on everything you are talking about.

2 weeks agopermalink

GFX glass is something else. Especially the 110. Strongest reason to go there.

2 weeks agopermalink

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

2 weeks agopermalink

J A C S

@ecka84 - Nonsense!

2 weeks agopermalink

shigzeo

I've not seen a single piece of evidence showing the GFX glass to be better than the X1D glass. Faster, yes, but sharper, or better resolving, or better colour gradation, no. GFX has the advantage of Fuji colours, though. This gallery is torched by the quality of its photos, not of the equipment taking them.

1 week agopermalink

@shizgeo Hasselblad glass is of course top quality, no argument there. The Fuji 110 is in a class of its own when it comes to rendering though, nothing like it in the Hasselblad lineup, and few lenses at all come near it. Take a look at portraits shot with the 110, there is a translucency to the transition from focal plane to rear defocus.

1 week agopermalink

shigzeo

I'll not argue with you there; I'm not necessarily a fan, or not a fan of that lens. I'm glad you really like it.

1 week agopermalink

Vassilis Skopelitis

I will wait for MK2

2 weeks agopermalink

Thank you for no high ISO samples :)

2 weeks agopermalink

misspiggy01

Which would be extremely useful in a lens review!

2 weeks agopermalink

No. Keep the high ISOs for camera reviews.

2 weeks agopermalink

Indohydra

Actually, I think the high ISO (versus lower ISO in equally dark spaces) - may become the only justification for using medium format in the long run.

2 weeks ago*permalink

The glass, man. The glass.

2 weeks agopermalink

PhotoKhan

Wow!...Simply, wow!

2 weeks agopermalink