Home Photography Hasselblad X1D: 50 Megapixels, Medium Format, $9K

Hasselblad X1D: 50 Megapixels, Medium Format, $9K

4
46
Advertisement canpers.com

Order on Amazon at http://help.tc/X1D SUBSCRIBE and like http://fb.com/NorthrupPhotography Buy the #1 book with 14+ HOURS of video on Amazon: …

source

Facebook Comments
Advertisement canpers.com

46 COMMENTS

  1. So I just watched one of your videos where you explain that you shouldn't just multiply the focal length in case of a crop-size sensor, but also the aperture.

    But the difference between a 2.8 MF lens and a 1.4 FF lens is 4 stops?
    Am I missing something?

  2. This camera is very tempting. Im here for real advise. i currently own sony a7rii and use zeiss otus 85mm. i trully love the capability of the zeiss otus to go to f1.4. Im looking to upgrade, and this seem to be it. I am not familiar with Medium format. I have never used it. I assume that medium format sensors are superior in every way to full frame, not only in pixels but in image quality. but what conerns me is the Hasselblad 90mm f3.2 lens.I am a portrain fotografer and For a Camera of this caliber, why not make a faster lens? i rarely use apertures > than 4.0 at any time due to high speed sync. Is the depth of field on medium frame at 3.2 comparable to the depth of filed of a full frame at 1.4? are the optics better on the hassleblad 90mm 3.2 than per say the otus 85mm? I am asking because honestly i do not know. i will appreciate any suggestion. thank you in advance.

  3. Leaf leaf leaf leaf leaf leaf leaf shutter!
    I don't understand why other manufactures don't make a few leaf shutter primes, you could easily have a mode on normal cameras where the shutter opens before the leaf in the lens, then the leaf opens, the strobe fires, the leaf closes, then the sensor closes. It would lower FPS obviously but it would allow proper stove work on normal cameras. HSS loses so much power and requires camera communication.

  4. people who have actually used this camera seem to think it would have been better if it had been a rebadged Sony. Cameras these days are all about electroics. Hasselblad is millions of miles behind Sony in this dimension. Please, before you review something, try it out for a few days at least.

  5. Tony, you disappoint me. The 5DS-R has such a crappy dynamic range that it can not even be COMPARED to that invariant Sony 50MP CMOS. Not even in the same league. I am sure that you certainly know this…?

  6. 1) Fuji has proven their quality is top notch, specially with the GFX – stating otherwise is just brand prejudice;
    2) Hasselblad has proven that they are interested in capitalizing on their brand's history, doing ridiculous special editions and having a lot of issues of production and design in the recent years;
    3)Medium format has a different look and general better bokeh because it uses higher focal lengths – Arguably you can have similar results between a 135mm f2 MF and a 85mm f1.2 FF – with similar bokeh and field of view but with more compression on the MF.
    4)You should not compare same focal lengths with different aperture because is misleading. A 36mm is almost an ultra-wide on MF and 72mm is a normal lens that, because of being a higher focal length, can have similar bokeh to a 50mm 1.4 even with a maximum aperture of 2.5.

  7. Bullshit camera…I used film Bads in the 80's and 90's. It's no longer the same quality company. Besides, Swedenistan is on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse. Only a fool would spend a LOT of money on a brand that won't be around much longer…

  8. Aside from numbers on which he is totally correct. But medium format has a distinct look, its called perspective and it affects our perception of what photograph looks real, live three dimensional, simply reaches out to your senses on another level versus common, generic, or flat images. I knew the first time i picked up a four thirds camera that though everything looks fine, yet it looked flat. Subjectivity is missing in this videos comparison. If a certain type of look appeals to your customers then thats what you should get. Dont get a camera to have the coolest newest thing out there.

  9. Hey Tony, could you pleeeease do an update on this (maybe take this vid down like you did with the "Mirrorless vs. SLR" vid?)…. Here's Ted Forbes' vid (The Art of Photography channel) 12-20-17 especially from 7m25s to the end:


    MUST SEE: @8:25 !! Hasselblad has been doing updates (like Sony does!)

  10. But wouldn't the compression bw different? So if you want that look going for a full frame is not an option I guess, or? Id this difference is possible to spot I don't know. Still I think Tony has a good point here.

  11. I am a hasselblad studio system shooter so I am Biassed in favor of hasselblad glass and image quality I did test the X1D and I loved the image quality the vibrancy of the colors, but on the go I still use my Canon systems and I agree that for the price the current selection of Canon Gear is more efficient, and that's what I am looking for when I get out of the studio, especially for the price but if they keep going this direction I may change my mind I know allot of photographers that are starting to swear by mirroless so… you have to start somewhere and this is not a bad start even though at this point it's a commodity, bragging rights kind of product

  12. CORRECTION: YES Hasselblad DID make a "mirror less" camera-
    anyone remember the Super wide camera (S.W.C)?, or maybe the flex body or Arc body?, they had NO mirror box, just the lens attachment area, shutter controls, Bellows ( flex / Arc bodies), and film back mount. the flex & Arc bodies had bellows, so only an external finder (aka like the Leica M series rangefinders) was able to be used; the S.W.C. had a FIXED biogon lens was also for similar reasons, the lens focus distance meant that the body HAD to be that slim ( so infinite focus can be obtained).

Leave a Reply