NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Michael Erlewine on September 25, 2016, 13:06:55
-
Because Canon and Nikon have been unable to lead, this has opened the door to a number of other companies, most notably Sony. In shotgun fashion, I have blindly tried to follow these new leaders, but so far have been disappointed. This includes purchasing, aside from a spate of mirrorless duds, the Sony A7rII, Sony A7s, the Pentax K3 and K1, and I am about to try the Hasselblad X1D.
In similar fashion, I have spun off into more technical cameras, including (aside from the Nikon bellows), the Rollei X-Act 2, the Novoflex CASTBAL and BALPRO, and the Cambo Actus. This is not to mention the slew of supporting lenses that I bought. Of the above, only the Cambo Actus has made the cut; the rest have been sold, are being sold, or will be sold.
As for the concept of Nikon taking me from cradle to the grave, well, that has gone out the window. I clearly feel marooned, isolated, and on my own recognizance. Anyone else feel this way?
I have become basically a tester. I can’t afford the expense (and also lack the interest) to keep buying every new camera that hits the streets, and there will be more and more of them as we turn toward the medium-format type of high-end gear. I was disappointed with the Pentax K1, Sony A7s, and Sony A7rII, generally, and for very specific reasons which I won’t go into here. The Nikon D810 remains the finest camera I have ever used to date.
The appeal of the new Hasselblad X1D, if it lives up to its claims, is very much as a refuge from the proliferation of new offerings and the expense of time each of them would entail. The X1D suggests a one-stop-shop, a camera that has it all or at least does enough FOR me that I can embrace it and return to the comfort of feeling that I have a complete system – a brand that I can count on.
My life, already technical enough, has become technically even more demanding in recent years. I yearn for yesteryear and to just put the gear on autopilot and enjoy taking photos for a while, perhaps for a long while. Enough already of shooting in the dark, figuratively speaking.
This is why the Hasselblad X1D promises to be (and possibly could be) a shelter from the storm of technology and a turning away from the plethora of beckoning options to the relative comfort of having a camera, a few lenses, and a system that for all practical purposes does it all, or at least does enough to let me rest in the experience of taking photos once again. Or is this allure of endless technology a modern replacement?
I have loved my walk on the technical edge these last many years, but it threatens to be all that I do, with the beauty of photography running a distant second. I am sure this will all get sorted out, but I for one yearn for a simpler solution, if it can be found. Instead of looking back to when I had “enough,” whatever that was, do I dare look forward to a time when I will again have what I need in new equipment (and lenses) to turn back to mainly taking photos? I hope so.
P.S. I still have my Nikon D810 and too many lenses, so I can tinker with that. Meanwhile, I would like to learn landscape and people photography and the X1D should be able to help me do that.
-
By saying "The Nikon D810 remains the finest camera I have ever used to date." aren't you contradicting your initial claim "Canon and Nikon have been unable to lead?"
Why not just use the D810 and make images? I don't see why one would always have to be looking for something more, or better. The essential ingredient is what the photographer brings to the table. The equipment can easily become a distraction, if you let it.
Sometimes traveling can help bring perspective and new ideas to one's life and photography as well.
-
By saying "The Nikon D810 remains the finest camera I have ever used to date." aren't you contradicting your initial claim "Canon and Nikon have been unable to lead?"
Why not just use the D810 and make images? I don't see why one would always have to be looking for something more, or better. The essential ingredient is what the photographer brings to the table, not the gear. The equipment is just a distraction, if you let it be that.
As mentioned, I do use the D810, and it is not that I (being here the "one" you mentioned) "would always have to be looking for something more, or better," but I find that (just now) for the work I am doing I need a larger sensor, at least 50 Mpx and preferably something larger for what I want to do. I also can't agree that the "equipment is just a distraction," either. Equipment seems to progress along with time, and sadly Nikon (IMO) has so far lost an opportunity to provide me what I need in a timely manner. At the same time, it seems that we are at a crossroads, with many branches opening up... and as the Poet Robert Frost wrote "And sorry I could not travel both." With the expanding universe of cameras just now, as mentioned, I lack the money and time to take all roads. Intuitively, I feel that the era of CaNikon is coming to a close, unless they manage to do something sometime soon.
-
If you want Nikon or others to implement specific features, you can write them a letter (or e-mail; e.g. contact the local NPS rep) and explain what you want to do and how you think the camera could help you do it in a better and easier way. I find it surprising but almost all my complaints about the early digital Nikons have been addressed. And so I'm very happy being a Nikon DSLR user, whereas 10-20 years ago I had dozens of large and small problems. Now I'm able to do what I have wanted to do with photography even in the most difficult conditions.
From what I have understood, Nikon and others are affected by sensor factory earthquake damage and they have difficulty supplying products to the market. Introducing new products that make use of Sony sensors may not be sensible since it would increase demand but not increase sales since they cannot make the products in volume. Thus I believe Nikon's product announcements using large sensors are largely on hold until the situation on the sensor supply side is cleared. Sony of course also have the same problem. Both DSLR and mirrorless sales are heavily down this year and by a comparable percentage which is compatible with the idea that manufacturing is limiting product availability, or at least thid has been a factor.
Nikon's DSLR lineup were designed more for certain applications than others and you may be working in an area which is not in Nikon's focus. In time there will be products that work well and answer your needs, I am sure. However, it is quite normal that technical photography subjects and pushing image quality limits requires a bit of a do it yourself approach. While Nikon implemented nice features such as dual area live view with zooming, Nikon's focus is still more on the side of sports, wildlife, events, portraits than on technical subjects, although they occasionally put out some products such as the PC-E Nikkors. However, I understand that you're extremely demanding on image quality and especially chromatic aberrations, and Nikon in my experience is more into making lenses that produce a pleasant rendering of the subject rather than a perfectly aberration free image. They did make a near-apochromatic 105/1.4 which I find to be a very nice lens but it doesn't focus particularly close so it
might not be what you're looking for. Still it is an example of a lens where Nikon made a more technically correct image than is usual for them.
I think in your type of photography, some degree of always having to hack together something new that is not available in off the shelf components may be expected. I don't think that is going to change. This is partly because you want to push boundaries of what is possible and that kind of approach by definition means that it's not yet available as a product.
Personally I only am demanding in one area which is of particular interest to me and is not easy on the equipment. I want to do wide aperture photos of people at events, of action etc. This is an area where Nikon has made significant progress in the past ten to fifteen years or so, and with the D5 the out of focus percentages are in the single digits even at f/1.4 in dim light (f/1.4, ISO 6400, 1/500s) with much of the light coming from behind the subjects in an 800 year old church. This same situation causes big problems for the D810 AF, and I'm lucky to get even one good shot with it of a procession in the center corridor. I am therefore not at all understanding why people would say that Nikon isn't innovating or making progress. :o Perhaps it is that they're just making progress in an area which is of a particular interest to me, but obviously not for everyone.
Also I find the video of the D5 to be surprisingly well thought out and good looking. There is no usable AF tracking during video, an area where Canon seems to have made an excellent solution but I am planning of doing my videos with manual focus and a large screen (Manfrotto Digital Director and iPad). This is an area which is new to me but for many years I've been waiting for the time to be right that practical solutions are available. I am sure Nikon will sort the AF out. I tried the Manfrotto product out briefly and it seems to be what I'm looking for. I cannot use an EVF as I get a feeling of nausea in a short time and prefer to use either an OVF or an LCD screen. However many seem to want an EVF. I can understand why but it just isn't something I'm happy to use. Perhaps my brain just isn't wired compatible.
I hope you find solutions to whatever you are working on. Sometimes doing things that are new is a struggle. Otherwise those things probably wouldn't be new.
-
Michael, whatever you are searching for, you will most likely not find it. Because perfection is a rare commodity.
-
Maybe Nikon and Canon are not leaving much room in the conventional dSLR market so the others are looking for a spot elsewhere.
I get the feeling you may be looking for a silver bullet when you may have many of those among your Nikon-F mount lenses.
Dave
-
X1D uses the lens shutter. It could be tricky to use it with the large format lenses with the mechanical lens shutter, even if I would believe you would find the way and master it.
-
Balancing technicality, art and fun can be extremely difficult to do when you have high standards. I have lost control of things when I couldn't maintain a balance, so I know all too well. Best wishes Michael!
-
X1D uses the lens shutter. It could be tricky to use it with the large format lenses with the mechanical lens shutter, even if I would believe you would find the way and master it.
You can buy the modern LF-lenses in electronic shutters as well as in old fashioned shutters.
With electronic shutter you buy into a system and I am not sure that Michael want to travel that path.
-
I'm afraid I am being misread. I continue to use the Nikon D810 because it is a great camera and I have a ton of lenses to fit it. However, since Nikon has yet to offer a better camera, I would like to try the Hasselblad X1D, which I see as a closed system on which I would not try to mount any other lenses than Hasselblad. And... although I might lose some money, I will keep that X1D until there is a camera that will take my F-Mount lenses and has a large sensor with large photosites, at which time I may sell the X1D and get that camera. On the other hand, I may really love the Hasselblad system. Who knows?
I need to be doing something "larger" NOW, not sometime down the road.
-
Canon's 5DS and 5DS R cameras are 51 MPx and can accept F-Mount lenses via adapters. A less expensive option than a full system acquisition for the 50 MPxHasselblad X1D?
-
Canon's 5DS and 5DS R cameras are 51 MPx and can accept F-Mount lenses via adapters. A less expensive option than a full system acquisition for the 50 MPxHasselblad X1D?
I am interested in the X1D... to see what it is like. I can return it if it is a dud.
-
You can mount the X1D or the GFX to your Cambo Actus and make use of the huge image circle of some of your lenses...
-
You can mount the X1D or the GFX to your Cambo Actus and make use of the huge image circle of some of your lenses...
I don't think that is possible Frank. The X1D requires the shutter to be in the lens, not the camera body. My feeling, spoken to myself, is that I have to stop trying to make any one camera do everything and be satisfied if it does some things well.
-
I don't think that is possible Frank. The X1D requires the shutter to be in the lens, not the camera body. My feeling, spoken to myself, is that I have to stop trying to make any one camera do everything and be satisfied if it does some things well.
You have your large format lenses in Copal 0?
So you have a shutter.
Additionally I hear the X1D features an electronic shutter, the GFX features a focal plane shutter, so: Where is the trouble?
-
Additionally I hear the X1D features an electronic shutter, the GFX features a focal plane shutter, so: Where is the trouble?
I don't hear that the X1D has an electronic shutter. Can you show me a link to that claim please?
B&H states "the X1D embraces the Hasselblad Central Lens Shutter, enabling shutter speeds as long as 60 minutes or as short as 1/2000 second, with flash sync possible at every speed."
-
I need to be doing something "larger" NOW, not sometime down the road.
If you need a larger sensor with more and/or bigger photosites "NOW" why not a Mamiya-Leaf (or Phase One XF)? You could have a much larger sensor than the X1D (0.67 crop factor - much bigger than the difference between the X1D and the D810), and more pixels, and the likelihood of yet bigger sensors with yet more pixels in the future, which the X mount will struggle to accommodate. And you get proven design from a company with a strong track record, unlike "Hasselblad".
-
If you need a larger sensor with more and/or bigger photosites "NOW" why not a Mamiya-Leaf (or Phase One XF)? You could have a much larger sensor than the X1D (0.67 crop factor - much bigger than the difference between the X1D and the D810), and more pixels, and the likelihood of yet bigger sensors with yet more pixels in the future, which the X mount will struggle to accommodate. And you get proven design from a company with a strong track record, unlike "Hasselblad".
What equipment would be needed to accomplish this and at what general price?
I had a Mamiya RZ67 with 33m Mpx digital back and it was not interesting at all.
-
You have your large format lenses in Copal 0?
So you have a shutter.
Additionally I hear the X1D features an electronic shutter, the GFX features a focal plane shutter, so: Where is the trouble?
A firmware upgrade to give the X1D an electronic shutter has been talked about, but at the end of June it was "yet to be confirmed" (according to Ming Thein, who is paid by Hasselblad) that it will ever be offered.
-
A firmware upgrade to give the X1D an electronic shutter has been talked about, but at the end of June it was "yet to be confirmed" (according to Ming Thein, who is paid by Hasselblad) that it will ever be offered.
That has been pretty-much no longer claimed by now. They are not going to offer that is what I hear. The X1D is what it is, IMO, a system that either will be enough or not. As mentioned, I plan to try it out as a stopgap measure, if nothing else, on the road to Nikon actually providing me with a successor to the D810 with a larger sensor. I also need something that I can travel with that is relatively small and succinct.
-
Michael, why not have a look at the Fuji GFX, which may meet your requirements!
-
That has been pretty-much no longer claimed by now. They are not going to offer that is what I hear. The X1D is what it is, IMO, a system that either will be enough or not. As mentioned, I plan to try it out as a stopgap measure, if nothing else, on the road to Nikon actually providing me with a successor to the D810 with a larger sensor. I also need something that I can travel with that is relatively small and succinct.
The Fuji GFX seems to have the same Sensor as the X1D and it has a shutter.
The bigger and more expensive sensors are here: https://www.phaseone.com and here http://www.mamiyaleaf.com
But we speak real money here like 30k to 40k Euros.
-
The Fuji GFX has to be checked out, tested, deployed, etc. Ming Thein has already done this with the X1D and given it his approval, which is good enough for me. I don't want to spend $30,000 or so dollars, etc.
The GFX, with the proper adapter, may be a ticket too. My guess is that more are coming, including, someday, Nikon.
-
Have you genuiney considered setting technicality aside for a bit and letting your creativity breath? Sounds like it would be a pleasant change for you.
-
Have you genuiney considered setting technicality aside for a bit and letting your creativity breath? Sounds like it would be a pleasant change for you.
well... yeah. That is exactly what I am doing by getting the X1D, using a closed system to concentrate on a new kind of photography for me, not close-up.
-
Looking forward to your X1D captures!
I never liked Hasselblad, but even in Film days was drawn very much to the Fuji GF series. A digital GF for me is mouth watering.
Nikon has no history in medium format. Fuji was always a good name & I loved the ergonimics of the GF-Sreries.
I will wait until the camera was tested by reliable people, then decide.
-
Looking forward to your X1D captures!
I never liked Hasselblad, but even in Film days was drawn very much to the Fuji GF series. A digital GF for me is mouth watering.
Nikon has no history in medium format. Fuji was always a good name & I loved the ergonimics of the GF-Sreries.
I will wait until the camera was tested by reliable people, then decide.
Me too. When the Fufi camera is tested and there is a good adapter for F-Mount and all other things, then I might go for the Fuji. Meanwhile, I can move forward with what I am having fun with... whenever the X1D is delivered.
-
Nikon has made medium and large format lenses in the past, the latter fairly recently.
However in today's business atmosphere it may be difficult to start a project which takes a long while to develop, and if successful, can be expected to result in one camera sold per day on average. It is possible for companies which do not have successful mass market product lines but Nikon isn't one of those.
-
Nikon has made medium and large format lenses in the past, the latter fairly recently.
However in today's business atmosphere it may be difficult to start a project which takes a long while to develop, and if successful, can be expected to result in one camera sold per day on average. It is possible for companies which do not have successful mass market product lines but Nikon isn't one of those.
Looking for a successor to the D810, with 64 ISO and at least 50 Mpx sensor. They are late on my schedule.
-
Nikon has made very nice large format lenses and I own and love one of these, Michael has it too. A friend on mine shoots BW landscapes on 8"x10" with a 600mm LF-Nikkor.
They did not make cameras though and all their efforts produced nothing but losses for the company and was thus given up.
I believe easily in a Nikon Rangefinder full format S-type system for the 100th anniversary and for collectors, which are an interesting part of the market, but not a medium or large formast endavour.
PS: Tagebau Linden 2004. Technikardan by Linhof, 600mm LF by Nikon, Harald Finster by Frank Fremerey taken with a Minolta Dimage7
-
All of my large format lenses are Nikkors. They were first to multi coat while Schneider offered sing coated lenses with soft coatings. As I recall the large format Nikkors where soon eclipsed by Rodenstock. The exceptionn was the ED tele Nikkors.
Dave
-
Michael,
Have you considered a 6x9cm view camera? I don't see the short hop from FX to near double 35 worth starting a new system.
Linhof makes a beautiful 6x9 view camera. You might consider a used view camera. I'm sure there are lower cost 6x9s available. With a 6x9 view camera you get swing and tilts without the problems of an SLR mirror box and the cost of a true medium format camera system is probably higher than a 6x9 view camera.
Best,
Dave
-
I am pretty clear about what I want. For one, I want a small enough system to easily travel with. Not too large or conspicuous, but high quality images. The X1D is small siszed, fits in a fairly small bag, and seems right. I have a bunch of tlit/shift systems, the Nikon D810 (and many lenses), and so on.
Unless the X1D is a dud, in which case I will return it and wait for the Fuji or an eventual Nikon 50 Mpx. Otherwise I will enjoy the Haselblad and see what else turns up. My plan is to move away from just close-up and toward landscapes and portraits, etc.
-
I am still with the first reply.
You say that you need a compact high Resolution set "NOW".
That won't happen. At least not the way you imagine and if you include the time for researching, purchasing, testing, learning usage of your new set by mind... How much time would you consider to be required to run thru these steps? How long until Nikon supposedly releases its successor to the D810? How much money do you "burn" during your tests? (Or does money not matter in your equation?) How much time could you spend taking more photos instead? Is it worth the commotion?
Just a total amateur's two cents.
Cheers,
Günther
-
'Me thinks thou dost protest too much." I am fine. Don't worry about me. I am selling some lenses and purchasing the X1D. I still have everything else I have used. I am not 30 years old. Time for me to take photos and the X1D looks like it can do it. I have read VERY carefully, and trust Ming Thein as a judge of cameras, having followed him for years and used most of the same Nikon-related gear that he does.
-
Here is what I have been doing for a long time, this with the D810 and the Noct Nikkor. I like it, but I am ready for portraits and landscapes.
-
Michael,
How great is the real difference between 50mp on Hasselblad X1D and 36mp on Nikon FX? Maybe the lenses will be an important part of the equation too? What about using the Zeiss lenses (Otus? , 135/2 Apo Sonnar) you already own? Maybe the Nikon AF-S 58/1.4 or Nikon AF-S 105/1.4 will give what you are looking for, and they can be used for portraits.
The Nikon AF-S 58/1.4 might not get top scores in every test out there, but I've lots of nice images from it on fredmiranda.com. So in capable hands...
Maybe a 105/1.4 can give some medium format look?
If you're happy with the Nikon D810 bodies, why not stick with them? Perhaps there will be a D820 with the 42mp sensor from the Sony A7RmkII in just a few months? 42mp or 50mp are almost the same in linear resolution...
-
Michael,
How great is the real difference between 50mp on Hasselblad X1D and 36mp on Nikon FX? Maybe the lenses will be an important part of the equation too? What about using the Zeiss lenses (Otus? , 135/2 Apo Sonnar) you already own? Maybe the Nikon AF-S 58/1.4 or Nikon AF-S 105/1.4 will give what you are looking for, and they can be used for portraits.
The Nikon AF-S 58/1.4 might not get top scores in every test out there, but I've lots of nice images from it on fredmiranda.com. So in capable hands...
Maybe a 105/1.4 can give some medium format look?
If you're happy with the Nikon D810 bodies, why not stick with them? Perhaps there will be a D820 with the 42mp sensor from the Sony A7RmkII in just a few months? 42mp or 50mp are almost the same in linear resolution...
Larger sensors like the Sony 50 Mpx are not just larger; they have larger photosites that capture more light. Haselblad has its own take on color, etc. and etc. I did not really like the Sony A7r II and sold it.
Medium format cameras give the medium-format look, at least until Nikon comes up with a larger sensor. I am getting the X1D and I will return it if it does not give me what I am looking for.
-
Part of the.medium format look is the 56 millimeters on the long side of 6x6 or 6x4.5 formats. Size matters not just the number of megapixels but the physical dimensions of the format. The focal length of the lenses used for a particular working distance, crop and perspective. The size of the entrance pupil and more. It all matters. 42 or 50 megapixels won't materially change the look if the format dimensions are still 36x24mm.
Dave
-
Looking forward to your findings of the quality of the new Hasselblad and their lens series!
-
Part of the.medium format look is the 56 millimeters on the long side of 6x6 or 6x4.5 formats. Size matters not just the number of megapixels but the physical dimensions of the format.
A digital image file does not have a "long side". What you say is certainly true in the film realm, because for any given print size you cannot change the output resolution except by using a bigger negative. Larger negatives = better prints. But in digital you can change the output resolution. When sensors were 6MP the point was academic, because 8 x 10 at 300 dpi is over 7MP, but 13 x 19 at 300 dpi is only just over 22MP, so at 50MP you can have just about any print size at just about any output resolution, and larger sensors no longer = better prints.
Another aspect of the medium format look is, as you say, lens focal length and entry pupil, and that is still there in the digital realm. But compared to the effect of larger negatives on print quality those things are minor. Plus, of course, in the case of the small-medium format cameras like the X1D and the Fuji the effect disappears, because the fastest Fuji lens is a 63mm f/2.8 and the fastest Hasselblad is a 90mm f/3.2.
-
Larger sensors like the Sony 50 Mpx are not just larger; they have larger photosites that capture more light.
The Sony 50 Mpx sensor is not any larger than the D810 sensor, nor does it have larger photosites. The sensor of the Sony A7R II has about the same size as that of the D810, and it has smaller photosites, but more of them. What were you trying to say here?
-
I think he's talking about the Sony 50MP sensor with 33mm x 44mm dimensions that is used by several medium format cameras.
-
Michael, did you wait for the A7RII to offer uncompressed 14bit RAW after the firmware update?
-
Larger sensors like the Sony 50 Mpx are not just larger; they have larger photosites that capture more light. Haselblad has its own take on color, etc. and etc. I did not really like the Sony A7r II and sold it.
Medium format cameras give the medium-format look, at least until Nikon comes up with a larger sensor. I am getting the X1D and I will return it if it does not give me what I am looking for.
Michael,
What I had in mind was not for you to repurchase the Sony A7R mkII, but to wait and see, if Nikon in a few months will offer a D820 with the same 42mp sensor, or maybe an even better sensor. Nikon is known to be able to extract even more quality from Sony sensors, than Sony do themselves.
Another aspect of Hasselblad X1D is that the operation of the camera is very modern with command wheels and a touch menu interface. This makes me think that you should try before you buy, if you didn't like Sony. This since Sony has a very modern, almost computer like interface. (Yes, Sony needs to work on the user interface.)
I hope this helps. :)
-
Michael, did you wait for the A7RII to offer uncompressed 14bit RAW after the firmware update?
Some say it doesn't matter, but I for one think that 14 bit RAW offers better colours and gradations.
-
I have to ask, is there no one else who finds the Haselblad X1D interesting? By all means, read Ming Thein’s articles on this new camera. Here is one of them:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-impressions-with-samples/#more-13288
And here is an excerpt about the sensor: “Sensor image quality: at least identical to, if not slightly better than, the H5/6 – I think it’s because of accuracy of focus more than anything or newer lens designs. High ISOs are perhaps half a stop cleaner, and there’s now both auto ISO, 12k and 25k settings. I have requested the ability to adjust the auto-parameters. Color, dynamic range, and tonal response are identical to the H5/6 – which in my opinion, is the best you can get, period. Think 14-15 stops and almost zero profiling required, with a very natural highlight rolloff. See for yourself, in any case.”
I am and have been waiting for the Nikon D820 (or whatever number) IMO too long and I’m moving on. Should they come out with a larger sensor, 50 Mpx or larger, I no-doubt will order one the first day they are offered. Why try and talk me out of it? I am not sticking my head in the sand as far as new cameras, but taking action to keep my progress alive and moving. I believe I have given all my reasons why I like the X1D, including that I want a small kit to travel with, now that I am retired. Perhaps I will show up at a gathering near you and we can meet? Or you might like to come here and see the beauty of Michigan?
-
I don't think that's how it works. Nikon doesn't "extract more quality" out of an off the shelf component that Sony makes. The different characteristics are a result of different design of the electronics and optics of the sensor. If they used the same component they'd get essentially the same data. Additionally, the 42MP sensor may be a component Sony developed internally for use in their own cameras. Nikon probably isn't interested in making their top of the line camera out of old parts bin components of one of their competitors. What they're looking for is using a sensor that gives them a competitive edge and that involves incorporating their own expertise in the design.
-
Image quality is not just a product of the sensor, the digital signal processing (Nikon Expeed or Sony Bionz) also plays a very important part.
Sony's camera division doesn't develop sensors. The sensor development whether for Sony or other companies is done by a separate unit/division. The 42mp sensor may be made in several iterations and versions, so there is no "old parts". E.g. Fuji claims their 50mp medium format sensor is different from the one Hasselblad uses.
-
I think he's talking about the Sony 50MP sensor with 33mm x 44mm dimensions that is used by several medium format cameras.
Thanks, that might be. Nevertheless, I sometimes sense a little bit of confusion in the room about what a larger sensor is. This term seems to be used for both resolution and physical size, but it would IMHO best be left to describe a larger physical size.
-
I was talking about the Sony 50 Mpx sensor that is in the larger Hasselblads, whose quality (and color) has been fully documented for ages. What is this glass half-empty rather than half-full syndrome?
If Nikon brought out the X1D, we would be all over it, and it might be a little less expensive, but probably not that much.
I have yet to hear from anyone on this thread who is getting the X1D. Anyone else in that boat?
-
I played with the new Hassy and did not like the ergonomics. Image quality is very much dependent on which software you use and your processing skills.......this applies for all digital cameras.
I still have an Alpa PhaseOne gathering dust as using it ends up not using it to answer every Dick Tom and Harry what the hell it is!
As ultimate quality is your game. Why don't you use Sinar with PhaseOne Digi back or a PhaseOne FX? Surely you must have looked at these....too expensive?.....Image quality?.......What gives?
Probably you also know this site: http://www.largesense.com/
.......Only 100k 8)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/Duke_1/Sinar_zps7xs1fcoz.jpg)
-
As mentioned, I have enough bellows and technical cameras, which I can use with the Nikon D810.
Not interested in a giant, expensive, heavy technical camera. The Rollei X-Act 2 that I have is 14 lbs. and more than heavy enough.
I like the compactness, light-weight, and small profile of the X1D. I am content with the 50 Mpx Sony sensor in the Hasselblads, since I am not doing tilt/shift, but rather portraits and smallish landscapes.
-
I have to ask, is there no one else who finds the Haselblad X1D interesting? By all means, read Ming Thein’s articles on this new camera.
Ming Thein is paid by Hasselblad. His remarks are worth as much as any other advertisement.
As to your question, I do not find the X1D interesting for three reasons.
The first is the cost: as sensors get bigger, performance increases linearly with the sensor diagonal (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Ideal%204/3,Ideal%20CX,Ideal%20DX,Ideal%20FX), but the cost is proportional to the square of the sensor diagonal. Small improvements in sensor performance cost a lot of dollars/euros. It is not just that I don't want to spend that much on a camera, it is that spending those dollars on a slightly bigger sensor is a poor choice: a fraction of the cost of the X1D and a couple of lenses would buy much larger improvements spent elsewhere - eg on a better tripod and head.
The second issue is the lack of lenses. That is not just a start-up issue: there will never be a long focal length lens or a fast portrait lens, because of the choice to use leaf shutters and have fast shutter speeds. The reason to have leaf shutters is, of course, to synchronise with flash at any shutter speed, and the reason to do that is so you can use flash to stop very fast action without turning off the lights. I can see that might be useful, once or twice, although the number and low price of the Schneider-Kreuznach leaf shutter lenses for Mamiya 645 on the second-hand market suggest that there may be less market for pictures of women being splashed with milk than a lot of folk hoped. Whatever, that makes the X1D a studio camera.
That leads to the third issue: the X1D is a fundamentally irrational concept. It is a studio camera, so why have all the things that make a studio camera functional been ditched to make it small and light?
-
Ming Thein is paid by Hasselblad. His remarks are worth as much as any other advertisement.
Ming Thein has only recently become a representative for Hasselblad. I have followed his Hasselblad work way before that, so I consider your comment not balanced.
-
For the Hasselblad H system (DSLR) there is a 100mm f/2.2 leaf shutter lens, so quite fast leaf shutter lenses are aqtually possible.
The Hasselblad mirrorless X1D and lenses are quite lightweight, so there is no reason to limit it to studio use, rather it should be very well suited for landscape photography. It is rather the PhaseOne/Mamiya and Hasselblad DSLRs that may be more limited in their use, due to weight issues. If a Hasselblad X1D were limited to studio use, then that would have applied also to Nikon pro DSLRs...
The Mamiya 7 system certainly was not limited to studio use, and could be compared to the Hasselblad X1D system in size and weight.
-
Whatever signal processing happens to the data in the digital domain (after A/D conversion) before the data is stored in the raw file can only make the data worse, it cannot add information, it can either maintain what information there is, or lose some of it. Thus the signal processor is not relevant to the quality of the data, if they apply signal processing to the raw data, it is a stupid (and irresponsible) thing to do. It cannot create any more information than was digitized in the first place. Thus the raw data should be left alone and stored in the raw file and any processing done in post. I'm aware that some manufacturers "cook" the data in some ways but this is to the detriment of the users' best interest. The less cooking, the better the file will be. I'm not saying that removal of hot pixels and hardware specific structural noise should not be done, to ease the raw conversion, but that's it.
-
I, for one, am looking forward to your experience with the X1D. I used to have a Bronica 6x6 system at one time and longed for a RB 6x7... I didn't have thousand of lenses then and it worked nicely for me :o
I wouldn't be against a light semi-medium format camera that would allow me to travel easily... :D
-
The main application for leaf shutters is to allow outdoor portraiture with fill flash using less flash energy to light the subjects while in bright sunlight. 1/2000s flash synchronization means that the photographer needs three stops less flash energy than they would with a camera that can be used only at a top speed of 1/250s or 1/200s. This is a massive benefit. It basically mean the lights will weigh a fraction of what would be needed for similar results using cameras that support only slow sync speeds.
The X1D is not a studio camera. If you look at Hasselblad's example images
http://www.hasselblad.com/inspiration/gallery/x1d-gallery/
Every single one of them is an example of location portraiture, not studio. Of course you can use it in the studio but that's not its primary forte.
Also there is no need for high dynamic range in a studio camera, as the lighting contrast range is 100% controlled by the photographer.
-
The main application for leaf shutters is to allow outdoor portraiture with fill flash using less flash energy to light the subjects while in bright sunlight. 1/2000s flash synchronization means that the photographer needs three stops less flash energy than they would with a camera that can be used only at a top speed of 1/250s or 1/200s. This is a massive benefit. It basically mean the lights will weigh a fraction of what would be needed for similar results using cameras that support only slow sync speeds.
The X1D is not a studio camera. If you look at Hasselblad's example images
http://www.hasselblad.com/inspiration/gallery/x1d-gallery/
Every single one of them is an example of location portraiture, not studio. Of course you can use it in the studio but that's not its primary forte.
Also there is no need for high dynamic range in a studio camera, as the lighting contrast range is 100% controlled by the photographer.
Your post speaks to me. From what I have gleaned from all that I could read about the X1D, unless there is something terribly wrong with the camera, it is just what I could use at this point. Aside from attempts to disparage Ming Thein by some posters, I have read him carefully and for a long time. I have seen him patiently answer questions hundreds and thousands of times. Since I know something about Nikon cameras and lenses that can be mounted on a Nikon, I have compared Ming Thein's advice with my own experience and find an almost direct correlation. His comments and experience with an an actual X1D has been more than just helpful in my deciding to order the X1D.
While I would do studio work in winter here in Michigan, most of the year I would use the X1D for outdoor shooting, on-location or indoor while traveling. I seldom use flash, but I am interested in what you say and want to learn more about using flash with the X1D. Where would I learn more or can you offer more info here?
-
The main application for leaf shutters is to allow outdoor portraiture with fill flash using less flash energy to light the subjects while in bright sunlight. 1/2000s flash synchronization means that the photographer needs three stops less flash energy than they would with a camera that can be used only at a top speed of 1/250s or 1/200s. This is a massive benefit. It basically mean the lights will weigh a fraction of what would be needed for similar results using cameras that support only slow sync speeds.
Right, so it's a camera you can use with lighter artificial lights when you do outdoor portraits in bright light. I am struggling to think of an important portrait taken under those conditions, but OK. If you have artificial lights, whether the pictures are physically within the studio or outside is really not relevant, they are still studio pictures. The question remains the same: why is it important what the camera weighs if you have artificial lights, because whatever they weigh, they weigh vastly more than the camera?
But sure, if outdoor-portraits-in-bright-light as a supplement to naked women being splashed with milk is your business, you need a lens with a leaf shutter. And you needed one several years ago, and if you didn't buy it then why would you buy it now? Because the second-hand market does not lie, and the second-hand market says leaf shutter lenses are not as much use as people thought they were.
-
The first is the cost: as sensors get bigger, performance increases linearly with the sensor diagonal (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Ideal%204/3,Ideal%20CX,Ideal%20DX,Ideal%20FX), but the cost is proportional to the square of the sensor diagonal.
If you measure "sensor performance" on a log scale, as in that link, "sensor performance" scales linearly with any power of the sensor diagonal (the nice thing about logs).
-
Ming Thein has only recently become a representative for Hasselblad. I have followed his Hasselblad work way before that, so I consider your comment not balanced.
He has taken their money. End of story.
This is a research area of mine (or was, since I am retired, but I keep up). Most of the research in this area has been done on doctors, and we know that if doctors take even nominal gifts from drug companies - pens and coffee cups - that influences the doctor's prescribing decisions. The opinions of doctors who have taken actual money from a drug company are consistently and markedly biased in favour of the drug company's products. Maybe photographers have special intellectual qualities doctors don't have, but I take leave to doubt it.
As for his having been favourable to Hasselblad previously, why else would they give him money? The same thing happens with doctors. The drug companies don't choose doctors at random to give the big dollars to: they identify the ones who are already inclined to their position, and support them. That is why the doctors believe they have not been influenced - but they have.
-
He has taken their money. End of story.
This is a research area of mine (or was, since I am retired, but I keep up). Most of the research in this area has been done on doctors, and we know that if doctors take even nominal gifts from drug companies - pens and coffee cups - that influences the doctor's prescribing decisions. The opinions of doctors who have taken actual money from a drug company are consistently and markedly biased in favour of the drug company's products. Maybe photographers have special intellectual qualities doctors don't have, but I take leave to doubt it.
As for his having been favourable to Hasselblad previously, why else would they give him money? The same thing happens with doctors. The drug companies don't choose doctors at random to give the big dollars to: they identify the ones who are already inclined to their position, and support them. That is why the doctors believe they have not been influenced - but they have.
I respectfully disagree with you. Just because he has become a representative for Hasselblad does not mean he has sold out or is not reliable. IMO, Ming Thein is a very hard worker and a very fine photographer, willing to share an enormous amount of information with others. I trust his judgement to be able to work with Hasselblad and still be fair-minded and have seen no signs of any problems. Perhaps they gave him a discount on cameras, etc. More power to him.
-
He has taken their money. End of story.
This is a research area of mine (or was, since I am retired, but I keep up). Most of the research in this area has been done on doctors, and we know that if doctors take even nominal gifts from drug companies - pens and coffee cups - that influences the doctor's prescribing decisions. The opinions of doctors who have taken actual money from a drug company are consistently and markedly biased in favour of the drug company's products. Maybe photographers have special intellectual qualities doctors don't have, but I take leave to doubt it.
As for his having been favourable to Hasselblad previously, why else would they give him money? The same thing happens with doctors. The drug companies don't choose doctors at random to give the big dollars to: they identify the ones who are already inclined to their position, and support them. That is why the doctors believe they have not been influenced - but they have.
I would favor anyone who brings bread to the table, especially if my life depended on it.
-
If you measure "sensor performance" on a log scale, as in that link, "sensor performance" scales linearly with any power of the sensor diagonal (the nice thing about logs).
But each step in sensor size gives (roughly) one stop in dynamic range, and the same will be true of the steps up to "medium format". The same will be true of noise. But the first two steps cost nothing and the third step, from 24 x 18 to 36 x 24, costs about $1000. The step from 36 x 24 to 44 x 33 costs of the order of $5000, and the step from 44 x 33 to 54 x 40 costs $10,000.
Of course, cameras are not priced on a cost-plus basis, but a stop at the big end costs a lot more than a stop at the small end.
-
Any judgement of Ming Thein's review of the Hasselblad X1D will not tell us, if it is a good or bad camera. :)
-
Looking forward to your findings of the quality of the new Hasselblad and their lens series!
Yes the X1D could be interesting! As well as the Leica S range!
-
Since we are quoting "MT";
The crown jewel of the system, however, has to be the lenses. The S system lenses are hands down the most impressive optics I’ve ever used; they’re almost flawless wide open, even in the corners, and even more perfect than the best M system lenses. And they focus themselves!
-
One thing I found interesting on Ming's blog was when he wrote a little op piece about digital Hasselblad lenses. Apparently there are not many which are stellar. More than adequate certainly, but only one which could put up a fight with an Otus.
The MTF's for the X1D are quite good - better than the HC lenses. So, like many, while I'm waiting for actual tests of the X1D just for curiosities sake I remain very happy with my Leica S.
-
One thing I found interesting on Ming's blog was when he wrote a little op piece about digital Hasselblad lenses. Apparently there are not many which are stellar. More than adequate certainly, but only one which could put up a fight with an Otus.
The MTF's for the X1D are quite good - better than the HC lenses. So, like many, while I'm waiting for actual tests of the X1D just for curiosities sake I remain very happy with my Leica S.
The three lenses for the X1D are supposed to be very good. I don't need them at Otus level. I have the Otus lenses on the D810 for that. Ming Thein feels that at least the two (45mm and 90mm) X1D lenses are a cut about the HC lenses. I trust his judgment.
I am surprised that more folks here are not enthused about the X1D. I am.
-
Michael, I was excited at first because I've shot Hasselblad H series in the past. At the moment, the firmware is not firm, the sensor has heating issues and the EVF is a bit of a mystery. Let's see what happens...
-
The 8x10 square inch chip is great fun.
Thank you Almass, old pal!
PS. The P3 is not the camera you want to work with.
-
Michael, I was excited at first because I've shot Hasselblad H series in the past. At the moment, the firmware is not firm, the sensor has heating issues and the EVF is a bit of a mystery. Let's see what happens...
Where can I read more about the sensor-heat issue. How serious is it?
-
Michael,
I hope the X1D works well for you. I assume you don't feel a need for ultra wide angle lenses or longish telephotos (300mm) for landscape.
I don't feel a technical bellows with a dSLR is the same as a light weight 6x9cm technical view camera with full movements of both front and rear standards.
The X1D maybe just what you are looking for. I'm guessing many responding don't feel it would be ideal for them.
Long ago I traded a 6x9 Century Graphic on a Linhof Super Technical IV. I always missed the small size and weight of that folding press camera. It was so practical for hiking. The X1D will probably offer similar advantages to you.
Dave
-
The reason to have leaf shutters is, of course, to synchronise with flash at any shutter speed, and the reason to do that is so you can use flash to stop very fast action without turning off the lights. .
Why would you do that? It makes much more sense to freeze action with short flash duration as opposed to shutter speed, then you can leave the lights on to boot. This is after all the point of making strobes with 1/80,000s flash duration.
In my opinion a better argument for leaf shutters is the ability to set your aperture to something in the f/2.8 - f/5.6 range and not being limited to f/11 or above when combining strobes and bright ambient light, with out the need for ND's. This is a great benefit for portrait work.
-
Where can I read more about the sensor-heat issue. How serious is it?
Don't know. The people who have handled the camera at the intros remarked that the camera got hot thus raising the question of how long can you use it before it gets hot and long exposures, supposedly the camera is good for 60 minutes just like the H5D and H6D with the same sensor, could be a genuine concern.
getDPI has the most active MF forum I know of and several of the posters have handled the camera and actually used it (though no one has been able to put their own card in!) and have commented on it.
When I used an H5D-50c the longest exposure I tried was around 8 minutes and didn't notice any issues, but then the digital back has a much larger heat sink than is possible with the new mirrorless design.
-
There is a problem with very fast shutter speed and flash duration. With a shutterspeed of 1/2,000 and a T0.1 flash duration of 1/500 how much flash gets through? How efficient is the shutter at 1/2,000? I know about the issue of shutter efficiency at high shorter speeds but nothing specific. Certainly not with modern shutters.
Dave
-
Don't know. The people who have handled the camera at the intros remarked that the camera got hot thus raising the question of how long can you use it before it gets hot and long exposures, supposedly the camera is good for 60 minutes just like the H5D and H6D with the same sensor, could be a genuine concern.
getDPI has the most active MF forum I know of and several of the posters have handled the camera and actually used it (though no one has been able to put their own card in!) and have commented on it.
When I used an H5D-50c the longest exposure I tried was around 8 minutes and didn't notice any issues, but then the digital back has a much larger heat sink than is possible with the new mirrorless design.
So, that's not even a rumor, but something you just thought? I can find no discussion of that and I asked someone who should know, and they never heard anything about the sensor being too hot. Thanks for clarifying where this came from.
-
Why would you do that? It makes much more sense to freeze action with short flash duration as opposed to shutter speed, then you can leave the lights on to boot. This is after all the point of making strobes with 1/80,000s flash duration.
When the flash is the only source of light it does not matter that the shutter is open for longer than the flash, because the exposure during the non-flash period is negligible. But if the shutter is open for 1/200 sec and there is a significant amount of light for the whole period you get ghosts - partial images of the moving subject.
-
The shutter can close faster than the flash duration so the full power of the flash is not used. The faster the shutter speed the greater the loss.
At full power the flash duration of an SB-800 is longer than the shutter is open on a D800 at 1/320 and 1/250 so the tail of the flash is clipped. This causes a shading of the top of the frame. This problem should be gone by 1/200.
If a leaf shutter is too fast it will cut the flash exposure short but the loss will be uniform across the frame. If one is trying to "overpower the sun" this shutter v. flash duration can be a problem.
Dave
-
So, that's not even a rumor, but something you just thought? I can find no discussion of that and I asked someone who should know, and they never heard anything about the sensor being too hot. Thanks for clarifying where this came from.
Build-up of heat generated by the electronics is a problem for all sensors, because it creates noise. The problem is greater for CMOS sensors, because, although their power consumption is less than CCD sensors, they have a lot of circuitry generating heat next to the photosites, so they have high dark noise and reset noise (you can read the technical details at http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/cmosimagesensors.html). Because heat is not lost from the surface but from the edges, the bigger the chip the harder the heat is to control, and, obviously, longer exposures = more heat.
In cameras where size and weight are not a consideration you can have heat sinks next to the sensor. We don't know about the X1D. So asking about heat management is perfectly reasonable. The internet being what it is, a reasonable question may have been turned into a rumour that it is a problem, but it is not baseless.
-
Build-up of heat generated by the electronics is a problem for all sensors, because it creates noise. The problem is greater for CMOS sensors, because, although their power consumption is less than CCD sensors, they have a lot of circuitry generating heat next to the photosites, so they have high dark noise and reset noise (you can read the technical details at http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/digitalimaging/cmosimagesensors.html). Because heat is not lost from the surface but from the edges, the bigger the chip the harder the heat is to control, and, obviously, longer exposures = more heat.
In cameras where size and weight are not a consideration you can have heat sinks next to the sensor. We don't know about the X1D. So asking about heat management is perfectly reasonable. The internet being what it is, a reasonable question may have been turned into a rumour that it is a problem, but it is not baseless.
I see, so this is a generic problem for all CMOS sensors, rather than already a significant problem with the X1D, correct? I think this is how rumors start.
-
If a leaf shutter is too fast it will cut the flash exposure short but the loss will be uniform across the frame. If one is trying to "overpower the sun" this shutter v. flash duration can be a problem.
Good point but there are flashes with fast durations and I don't use my speedlights at M1/1 and I'd rather use them at around 1/8 or at 1/4 at most, to avoid slow recycle times and overheating.
I have two battery powered Elinchrom Quadra Hybrids, with the action head at 100% flash energy from the main port you get t.5 time of 1/2800s (400Ws) and from the "fast" port 1/5800s. The fast port output by itself is 1/3 of 400Ws which is 133 Ws. For outdoor photography with 1/200s sync, if it is a bright sunny day, and I'm shooting a group, using e.g. 200Ws or more, the flash can overheat and start missing shots after a while (there is no warning, it just won't fire until it has cooled down sufficiently). However, by using 1/500s or 1/1000s with a central shutter lens, I could reduce the flash output significantly and probably avoid overheating, even if at 1/2000s it might not quite give me 400Ws. I don't usually need that much light but what I need/want is consistency.
With Nikon flashes, At 1/4 maximum output if I am shooting outdoors with umbrella or softbox, 1/200s won't let me output enough light for a balanced exposure with sunlight; in fact I've used three speedlights (behind a shoot through umbrella) at around 1/2 and that was about right, but there can be overheating and missed shots. Again, by using a faster sync speed, I may be able to use just one speedlight, or run three at lower settings. SB-5000 flash duration (I assume t.5) at M1/2 is 1/1110s, at M1/4 it is 1/2580s, M1/8 1/5160s, so by using 1/4 or 1/8 I should be able to use 1/1000s which means each flash is quadrupled against the sun. The key is that by being able to use lower flash energy settings I get less heating and faster recycle times, and faster recycle means I can shoot at a fairly rapid rate, and get good expressions (since I don't want a forced smile, I need to get a number of shots of a group so that I can avoid closed eyes). Often when photographing a family or a group of kids, the going can be wild, and so I want to get a number of shots before they disperse. There is no way I can monitor all their expressions and just fire once every five seconds, things change much faster than that. A single speedlight might not be able to light a big group shot against the sun with softbox or umbrella but it can do more with a leaf shutter than a fp shutter.
However, I can't afford to spend 17k€ to get a single camera and two lenses (Leica S would cost even more). So I will lug around my Quadra and sweat, and wait for it to cool if it overheats, and hope that there are clouds, because if there are clouds I might be able to get away with just a little light and the sun is not going to contribute so much to my personal heating or the flash's.
-
I see, so this is a generic problem for all CMOS sensors, rather than already a significant problem with the X1D, correct? I think this is how rumors start.
I think sensor heat can be an issue if the body is closed and very compact. I believe that the sensor shaking image stabilization may be partly contributing to heating experienced in some cameras as if there is a mechanical system that moves the sensor, it can be more difficult to disperse of the heat. If the sensor is fixed then the heat should dissipate through fixed heat conducting structures to the body, assuming a good design. :)
However, I've never used a camera which heated appreciably in use. I've had flashes heat though, on sunny days. Not so much a problem in Finland except during peak wedding season.
-
I think sensor heat can be an issue if the body is closed and very compact. I believe that the sensor shaking image stabilization may be partly contributing to heating experienced in some cameras as if there is a mechanical system that moves the sensor, it can be more difficult to disperse of the heat. If the sensor is fixed then the heat should dissipate through fixed heat conducting structures to the body, assuming a good design. :)
However, I've never used a camera which heated appreciably in use. I've had flashes heat though, on sunny days. Not so much a problem in Finland except during peak wedding season.
I appreciate your comments. They are helpful. I was commenting on those who suggest that we have a heat problem with this particular camera (X1D), when that has not been established. Obviously, Hasselblad is tweaking the firmware and hopefully nothing in hardware. As a system programmer who founded the second oldest software company still on the Internet (the first being Microsoft), I well know how difficult it is to bring a new software product to market. It gives you fits, for sure.
-
Michael, I do not start rumors. I will repeat that the problem was mentioned more than once by people who have handled the camera. getDPI has a thread with 25 pages of comments on the X1D.
Do your own homework. I'm out of this conversation.
-
Michael, I completely agree, it is best to see real-world reports of the final release of the camera before judging it. Given Hasselblad's heritage and experience with medium format sensors it would be quite surprising if there is some problem.
-
Given Hasselblad's heritage and experience with medium format sensors it would be quite surprising if there is some problem.
But the company producing the X1D has no connection whatever with Hasselblad's heritage. Victor Hasselblad's company was sold in 1996, but Hasselblad management was involved in the buy-out. In 2002 the development of a digital camera was cancelled and the team working on it was dispersed. A majority stake in the company was sold in 2002, to Shriro, a Hong Kong-based firm which does mainly distribution and marketing. The new owners decided to restart the development of a digital camera, and bought Imacon, a scanner company, for its expertise in sensors and image processing. 100% of the company was sold in 2011 to a venture capital fund run by a guy called Helmut Vorndran (he is relatively progressive, as venture capitalists go, but the core strategy is buy, restructure, and re-sell, not long term management). These are the owners who made the Lunar and the Stellar, and have now made the X1D.
Nikon has a much longer experience with mirror boxes than Hasselblad has with sensors, but that did not prevent the D600 fiasco - and Nikon has not had three changes of ownership in 20 years.
-
Here is what I have been doing for a long time, this with the D810 and the Noct Nikkor. I like it, but I am ready for portraits and landscapes.
Wonderful capture, as a result, you may have 3 discrete systems in your 2017 future, Fujifilm, Hasselblad, and the D810 replacement, sounds like a grand adventure, happy shooting. When I listen to U2, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for..." I will fondly think of your quest. Sounds like fun. Thanks for sharing.
-
I see, so this is a generic problem for all CMOS sensors, rather than already a significant problem with the X1D, correct?
No, heat is a problem with all sensors, and that raises a question about the X1D specifically. The Hasselblad H3D digital back had a fan to disperse heat, like desktop computers. That did not work very well, and the H3DII and later backs had heat sinks. So Hasselblad believed it needed to manage heat build-up with the larger sensors. But, of course, they have not previously been concerned about size and weight, and now they are. So it is not unreasonable to ask if heat management is as effective in the X1D as in the larger backs using the same size sensor, or to be concerned that if it was not image quality might suffer - as it did in the H3D.
-
Wonderful capture, as a result, you may have 3 discrete systems in your 2017 future, Fujifilm, Hasselblad, and the D810 replacement, sounds like a grand adventure, happy shooting. When I listen to U2, "I still haven't found what I'm looking for..." I will fondly think of your quest. Sounds like fun. Thanks for sharing.
It is becoming clear that even if Nikon comes across with a 50 Mpx FF camera, it may be too little, too late. I believe I may get used to the MF Sony 50 Mpx sensor on MF cameras, which is not the same as a Nikon D810 with 50 Mpx FF. This failure to update the D810 may have wider repercussions in that folks like myself may discover that FF 50 Mpx does not measure up to MF 50 Mpx and switch over.
As for heat, my point is that let's wait until we have the camera in hand and its too hot before we declare a problem to be a fact. Very few people have this camera and the one person I know who does says only that it is warm, but not a problem.
-
It is becoming clear that even if Nikon comes across with a 50 Mpx FF camera, it may be too little, too late. I believe I may get used to the MF Sony 50 Mpx sensor on MF cameras, which is not the same as a Nikon D810 with 50 Mpx FF. This failure to update the D810 may have wider repercussions in that folks like myself may discover that FF 50 Mpx does not measure up to MF 50 Mpx and switch over.
As for heat, my point is that let's wait until we have the camera in hand and its too hot before we declare a problem to be a fact. Very few people have this camera and the one person I know who does says only that it is warm, but not a problem.
This is ridiculous. The Nikon D810 is only over 2 years old. There has been no "delay" in its successor at all, it's just that a lot of other cameras have gained in ability.
It took Canon 7 years to update the 7D, and you're complaining that the D810 hasn't had an upgrade in a mere 2 years? ::)
The simple fact is, the D810 is such a good camera that it was absolutely peerless when it came out 2 years ago ... peerless, unparalleled ... to the extent DP Review just did a recent review of it this year, citing that the D810 remains a benchmark (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810/18) in Base ISO capability to this day.
There is nothing wrong with you wanting to explore the Hasselblad, people have the right to do whatever they want.
But to "blame" the D810 for being anything other than a revolutionary camera ... and still a great camera ... is both offbase and wrong.
Jack
-
I have to ask, is there no one else who finds the Haselblad X1D interesting? By all means, read Ming Thein’s articles on this new camera. Here is one of them:
https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-impressions-with-samples/#more-13288
And here is an excerpt about the sensor: “Sensor image quality: at least identical to, if not slightly better than, the H5/6 – I think it’s because of accuracy of focus more than anything or newer lens designs. High ISOs are perhaps half a stop cleaner, and there’s now both auto ISO, 12k and 25k settings. I have requested the ability to adjust the auto-parameters. Color, dynamic range, and tonal response are identical to the H5/6 – which in my opinion, is the best you can get, period. Think 14-15 stops and almost zero profiling required, with a very natural highlight rolloff. See for yourself, in any case.”
I am and have been waiting for the Nikon D820 (or whatever number) IMO too long and I’m moving on. Should they come out with a larger sensor, 50 Mpx or larger, I no-doubt will order one the first day they are offered. Why try and talk me out of it? I am not sticking my head in the sand as far as new cameras, but taking action to keep my progress alive and moving. I believe I have given all my reasons why I like the X1D, including that I want a small kit to travel with, now that I am retired. Perhaps I will show up at a gathering near you and we can meet? Or you might like to come here and see the beauty of Michigan?
I am confused, has Nikon missed their announce/release schedule for the D810? Having said that, perhaps there is truth to be found in the level of precision that a small medium format sensor can provide over the limitations of the full format sensor. That appears to be the Fujifilm schema. I am rooting for them because of their customer service, technical prowess, wow factor with their optical lens development.
-
But the company producing the X1D has no connection whatever with Hasselblad's heritage. Victor Hasselblad's company was sold in 1996, but Hasselblad management was involved in the buy-out. In 2002 the development of a digital camera was cancelled and the team working on it was dispersed. A majority stake in the company was sold in 2002, to Shriro, a Hong Kong-based firm which does mainly distribution and marketing. The new owners decided to restart the development of a digital camera, and bought Imacon, a scanner company, for its expertise in sensors and image processing. 100% of the company was sold in 2011 to a venture capital fund run by a guy called Helmut Vorndran (he is relatively progressive, as venture capitalists go, but the core strategy is buy, restructure, and re-sell, not long term management). These are the owners who made the Lunar and the Stellar, and have now made the X1D.
Nikon has a much longer experience with mirror boxes than Hasselblad has with sensors, but that did not prevent the D600 fiasco - and Nikon has not had three changes of ownership in 20 years.
Nikon is traded on various tech stock markets. Here is a link to that information from Nikon, http://nikon.com/about/ir/stock_info/status/index.htm (http://nikon.com/about/ir/stock_info/status/index.htm). Nikon has many owners, some are long term, others buy the stock for speculation. The largest one hold 7.5% of the stocks in the company. Nikon management may continuously have to please the investors and stock market.
Although Hasselblad has switched owners, that doesn't mean they don't know digital sensors and digital design in 2016. That knowledge is just as good, even if it's inherited from Imacon. Whatever they knew in 1996 or 2002 would need to be updated by today anyway. Nikon was still using CCD sensors back then, and those were 2-6mp resolution devices and had no liveview.
What you see now is the shift from DSLR to mirrorless in the medium format world.
-
So none of the people working on the X1D are the same that were involved in the development of their other medium format products? I would think they share some of the same engineers and manufacturing personnel between these project. I am talking about their digital SLR heritage not the film. Making a film camera teaches nothing about thermal management in a large sensor digital camera, but making a MF DSLR or digital back does, or should.
The D600 oil came from the new, quieter shutter unit that they used for the first time; this has nothing to do with the mirror. Nikon's manufacturing infrastructure was largely destroyed in a series of natural disasters in Thailand and Japan in 2011, not to mention the infrastructure of Japanese east coast. It is surprising that they could manufacture anything at all as soon as 2012, let alone something that works correctly.
-
So, if heat becomes a problem with the X1D, maybe there'll be cheap used X1Ds that we can use in the winter in Norway and Finland... :D
-
I am confused, has Nikon missed their announce/release schedule for the D810? Having said that, perhaps there is truth to be found in the level of precision that a small medium format sensor can provide over the limitations of the full format sensor. That appears to be the Fujifilm schema. I am rooting for them because of their customer service, technical prowess, wow factor with their optical lens development.
Size matters and larger formats have advantages the APS-C format will never have. With a 36x24mm format camera one can blur the background quite easily when shooting candid photos of people and can do this while maintaining natural perspective. The APS-C formats can blur background also but when the perspective is natural then the blurring will usually be quite insufficient to make features of the background indistinguishable. To get the kind of blurring I want I have to use the same focal length lenses on APS-C as on FX. The first lens that does much for me is the 85/2.0 lens but to frame as I wish I'll have to backup and the perspective will flatten. Medium format 6x4.5 to 6x7 in an SLR format is even better in this regard. There are trade-offs and the APS-C formats offer more practical DoF. Background blurring is not DoF though most make this mistake. The absolute physical size or more correctly the entrance pupil size is responsible for the blurring of the background when the background is well outside the DoF zone.
Anyway APS-C or DX is for me no replacement for Full Format, 36x24mm or FX. I need that format first and APS-C later. Because of the cost of medium format I will probably never own one of these camera. In the film era I shots 35mm, 4x5 and 6x6 and 6x7.
At this point I have no interest in an EVF camera that is 36x24 or smaller. I'd have to see if I could get interested in an EVF that is 645 or larger.
Dave
-
Nikon is traded on various tech stock markets. Here is a link to that information from Nikon, http://nikon.com/about/ir/stock_info/status/index.htm (http://nikon.com/about/ir/stock_info/status/index.htm). Nikon has many owners, some are long term, others buy the stock for speculation. The largest one hold 7.5% of the stocks in the company. Nikon management may continuously have to please the investors and stock market.
Although Hasselblad has switched owners, that doesn't mean they don't know digital sensors and digital design in 2016. That knowledge is just as good, even if it's inherited from Imacon. Whatever they knew in 1996 or 2002 would need to be updated by today anyway. Nikon was still using CCD sensors back then, and those were 2-6mp resolution devices and had no liveview.
What you see now is the shift from DSLR to mirrorless in the medium format world.
As a generalisation, with all the limitations that implies, Japanese companies pay less attention to share price than US or European companies. The reason is the very high level of interlocking stock ownership among a group of Japanese corporations - the keiretsu system. Nikon, eg, is part of the Mitsubishi keiretsu. This is important because, provided the keiretsu is happy, companies can absorb losses on a product line that a US or European company could not tolerate - Olympus' camera business, eg.
You were the one who promoted Hasselblad heritage as a consideration, not me. If you now want to say that all knowledge about sensors is obsolete every two years so heritage doesn't matter, that is fine by me.
Why would we care that the X1D is the first mirrorless "medium format" (with a lot of makeup and the light behind it)? Saying that it represents "the shift", as if it had already happened, is a baseless claim.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2280876023/hasselblad-interview-at-photokina-2016
The body is made in three parts, all machined from a block of aluminium [...] As well as the way it feels, it’s also good for transferring heat from the sensor. We have a tight connection between parts, which also helps transfer heat away from the processor – it’s an efficient way of minimizing problems with internal heat.
-
As a generalisation, with all the limitations that implies, Japanese companies pay less attention to share price than US or European companies. The reason is the very high level of interlocking stock ownership among a group of Japanese corporations - the keiretsu system. Nikon, eg, is part of the Mitsubishi keiretsu. This is important because, provided the keiretsu is happy, companies can absorb losses on a product line that a US or European company could not tolerate - Olympus' camera business, eg.
You were the one who promoted Hasselblad heritage as a consideration, not me. If you now want to say that all knowledge about sensors is obsolete every two years so heritage doesn't matter, that is fine by me.
Why would we care that the X1D is the first mirrorless "medium format" (with a lot of makeup and the light behind it)? Saying that it represents "the shift", as if it had already happened, is a baseless claim.
Nikon has quite few owners, more than could belong to the keiretsu, and yes keiretsu is a known concept. Note that 29.9% of Nikon owners are foreign, i.e. not Japanese. You would have seen this in the link I provided.
I did not say that the Hasselblad X1D is "the shift" to mirrorless MF, but it's a part of that process. That process happens now.
Hasselblad has a very nice heritage, except the Lunar and Stellar cameras.
I think that the Hasselblad X1D will turn out to be a great camera, probably the finest since the 500 and 200 series.
-
I did not say that the Hasselblad X1D is "the shift" to mirrorless MF, but it's a part of that process. That process happens now.
I think that the Hasselblad X1D will turn out to be a great camera, probably the finest since the 500 and 200 series.
Well, the shift seems to this user to be at hand. Its a fact that the Hasselblad X1D is a mirrorless camera and it seems like a very good job of it as well. The difference, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, between a 50 Mpx sensor on a 35mm FF DSLR and the Sony 50 Mpx sensor as implemented on the various Hasselblad systems is very sobering for those of us who have been waiting for Nikon to issue a D820 -- another (but larger) FF DSLR. There is apparently a very real difference, enough for this user to see why a shift to a MF sized system is not just an alternative, but something perhaps more imperative than that.
The Sony 50 Mpx MF sensor has been fully explored on the existing Hasselblads and is quite wonderful IMO. I am not that technical, so I appreciate those here who are pointing out the difference between a larger FF sensor and a MF sensor/lens of the same size. I did not fully understand that before, so this thread has been very helpful. Whether it is the Hasselblad X1d or the new Fuju MF camera is not as important as the difference outlined above.
-
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2280876023/hasselblad-interview-at-photokina-2016
And the same guy went on to say "Of course, when a product gets warm it uses a lot of energy. It drains the battery faster." Nothing like marketing driven by science, is there?
The obvious weakness in the claim that the body of the X1D can be an effective heat sink is the fact that the all the previous backs with the same size sensor required internal heat sinks.
-
And the same guy went on to say "Of course, when a product gets warm it uses a lot of energy. It drains the battery faster." Nothing like marketing driven by science, is there?
The obvious weakness in the claim that the body of the X1D can be an effective heat sink is the fact that the all the previous backs with the same size sensor required internal heat sinks.
There is no reason why a heatspreader shaped like the body of an X1D would not be efficient. If you consider the shapes of heatspreaders in custom built PCs, it's clear thatvthe heatspreader inside a digital back on a DSLR will be quite small, compared to an X1D aluminum body. The heatspreader inside a digital back may have fins but they would still be small andcwithout a fan. In short the X1Dvaluminum body seems to be a smart solution. Btw. a copper body would lead heat even better...
The box shaped V1D concept camera would, if built, allow testing of the hypothesis that a digital back on a DSLR would provide better disipation of heat from the sensor.
-
When I asked Ming Thein, who has actually shot with an early version of the X1D, as to the difference between a 50 MPx Nikon D820 and the Sony 50 Mpx sensor in MF cameras, he responded:
"The difference is certainly tangible. I’ve shot somewhere in the 100,000 image range with the D810, 5DSR and 7RII combined; none of them can really challenge the 50MP 44×33 sensor. And that sensor can really run away under the right conditions…regardless of the implementation (confirmed from my own use of four different Hasselblad models, the Pentax, and the Phase One implementations). No question it is my sensor of choice now, and the Hasselblad implementation has the most natural looking tonal range rendition (the Pentax is too linear) and most natural color (the Phase is too cool)."
-
I have no experience with MF sensors myself, but I have an nalogous experience to the one Ming Thein describes. I had a 24mp APS-C senor (Sony A6000) and I (still have) the full frame 24mp A7 mkII. Though both are 24mp, the bigger sensor wins clearly due to the colours, tonality and gradation. I tried Zeiss lenses on both cameras on several occasions. I only shoot full frame today. What Ming Thein writes about 33x44mm MF compared to "full frame" Nikon 36mp and Canon 50mp makes perfect sense to me.
-
There is no reason why a heatspreader shaped like the body of an X1D would not be efficient. If you consider the shapes of heatspreaders in custom built PCs, it's clear thatvthe heatspreader inside a digital back on a DSLR will be quite small, compared to an X1D aluminum body. The heatspreader inside a digital back may have fins but they would still be small andcwithout a fan. In short the X1Dvaluminum body seems to be a smart solution. Btw. a copper body would lead heat even better...
What was the body of the Hasselblad digital backs that used this sensor and needed a heat sink made of? Wool?
Actually, the best material would be diamond. And I would bet money Hasselblad would have a red hot go at selling it.
-
I have no experience with MF sensors myself, but I have an nalogous experience to the one Ming Thein describes. I had a 24mp APS-C senor (Sony A6000) and I (still have) the full frame 24mp A7 mkII. Though both are 24mp, the bigger sensor wins clearly due to the colours, tonality and gradation. I tried Zeiss lenses on both cameras on several occasions. I only shoot full frame today. What Ming Thein writes about 33x44mm MF compared to "full frame" Nikon 36mp and Canon 50mp makes perfect sense to me.
No one is suggesting that bigger sensors do not have advantages - although it is a very dubious proposition that the impact of a bigger sensor is, for most subjects, large compared to, eg, superior auto-focus - of a D500 compared to a D610, eg). But there is no reason - outside Hasselblad's advertising - to confine the comparison to 44 x 33mm vs 36 x 24mm. If 44 x 33mm is meaningfully better than 36 x 24mm then 54 x 40mm is meaningfully better than 44 x 33mm.
Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then. No one needs them now who did not need them last year.
-
Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then. No one needs them now who did not need them last year.
I don't understand the logic. I can understand that YOU don't need them now, but to say that "no one" needs them defies logic. I, for one, am finding that I do need them, and did not feel I needed them last year, unless you mean that anything to come in the future we automatically need.
What is happening here, at least in my photo world, is that I am outgrowing (for my work) the 35mm DSLR and looking into something larger, like MF and LF cameras. And they are reaching down into mirrorless territory and becoming more affordable. For me, this is a big change.
-
No one is suggesting that bigger sensors do not have advantages - although it is a very dubious proposition that the impact of a bigger sensor is, for most subjects, large compared to, eg, superior auto-focus - of a D500 compared to a D610, eg). But there is no reason - outside Hasselblad's advertising - to confine the comparison to 44 x 33mm vs 36 x 24mm. If 44 x 33mm is meaningfully better than 36 x 24mm then 54 x 40mm is meaningfully better than 44 x 33mm.
Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then. No one needs them now who did not need them last year.
AF precision hasn't been an issue for me. It's only DSLRs that you will need to focus calibrate...
The price point has moved considerably downwards...
-
What was the body of the Hasselblad digital backs that used this sensor and needed a heat sink made of? Wool?
Actually, the best material would be diamond. And I would bet money Hasselblad would have a red hot go at selling it.
This makes no sense at all...
I'm out of this discussion, now.
-
....
MF and LF cameras. And they are reaching down into mirrorless territory and becoming more affordable. For me, this is a big change.
In my opinion, that is a big step , similar to what happened when m43 started coming out, but now with a large sensor, smallish body, no mirror
Hopefully the ergonomics is good , being Fuji , it probably is, at least better than the Sony's with their APS-C and FF initial offerings ;D
-
I am not that technical, so I appreciate those here who are pointing out the difference between a larger FF sensor and a MF sensor/lens of the same size. I did not fully understand that before, so this thread has been very helpful. Whether it is the Hasselblad X1d or the new Fuju MF camera is not as important as the difference outlined above.
The important distinction is really between two notions: pixel density on one hand and and physical size of the whole sensor (assuming you don't crop the image) on the other. You can also express everything in terms of pixels per square cm vs total number of pixels. I prefer to think about total physical area first (with its implications on signal-to-noise ratio) and number of pixels second (impacting spatial resolution). Some people like to speak of "large pixels", but I ask whether large pixels are worth anything if you only have a very small number of them? So there are different perspectives on the importance of these things. But we shall not confuse the two notions or we will run in circles.
-
The important distinction is really between two notions: pixel density on one hand and and physical size of the whole sensor (assuming you don't crop the image) on the other. You can also express everything in terms of pixels per square cm vs total number of pixels. I prefer to think about total physical area first (with its implications on signal-to-noise ratio) and number of pixels second (impacting spatial resolution). Some people like to speak of "large pixels", but I ask whether large pixels are worth anything if you only have a very small number of them? So there are different perspectives on the importance of these things. But we shall not confuse the two notions or we will run in circles.
What I would like to know is what is the difference between a FF DSLR 50 Mpx sensor with Nikon-sized lenses and the Sony MF 50 Mpx sensor with MF-sized lenses?
-
No one is suggesting that bigger sensors do not have advantages - although it is a very dubious proposition that the impact of a bigger sensor is, for most subjects, large compared to, eg, superior auto-focus - of a D500 compared to a D610, eg). But there is no reason - outside Hasselblad's advertising - to confine the comparison to 44 x 33mm vs 36 x 24mm. If 44 x 33mm is meaningfully better than 36 x 24mm then 54 x 40mm is meaningfully better than 44 x 33mm.
Sensors in both those bigger-than-35mm sizes have been around for several years, and whatever advantages Ming Thein and others consider them to have now they had then. No one needs them now who did not need them last year.
I don't have the money to buy the new Hasselblade but if I did my question is, is 44x33 a big enough step up in format dimensions to be worth a second system? I would think 54x40 is if one has a true need for a medium format camera.
36x24mm will always have more available lenses compared to other formats although 24x16mm can use many of these lenses and has a few of its own. 24x16mm however is a step down in format dimension and it's below the sweet spot for in dimension for much of my photography.
If money were no option I like a 24x16mm, 36x24, 6x4.5cm and 6x9cm technical view camera. The truth is I need time for my photograph more than anything else.
Anyway is the 44x33mm format enough of a step up from 36x24mm to be worth building a separate system. I don't think so, at least not for me. Perhaps for someone else.
Dave
-
Are you asking about the lenses or the sensor here?
Not a whole lot of difference regarding lenses I think,,, You all ready have lenses that cover the larger sensor,,, It's far more the difference in pixel density and the physical difference in the actual pixel size, well size - that will make the difference between the two results.
I think speculating about some 50 MP sensor for DSLR should more be like wishing for a 100 MP sensor in 44x33 to get the high resolution
My honest guess is that sharpness from the 50 MP 33x44 will be very similar to the 36-42 MP 24x36 we have now if the lenses perform similar in IQ - But the rendering, graduations, thin DOF will be much nicer.
Another rumor; It takes 7-8 seconds for the Hasselblad to warm up,,,
-
What I would like to know is what is the difference between a FF DSLR 50 Mpx sensor with Nikon-sized lenses and the Sony MF 50 Mpx sensor with MF-sized lenses?
The difference is in the processing of images.
-
The difference is in the processing of images.
What Ming Thein meant in his quote below (#105) had nothing really to do with lenses, since the Zeiss Otus could do fine on the X1D if that camera had a global shutter, was that what Thein he values in the Sony 50 Mpx sensor on the Hasselblad cameras has to do with the photosite well-size and as Eick Lund said "rendering, graduations, thin DOF will be much nicer." Is this assumption correct?
-
Otus is designed for the FX format and won't cover the full sensor area of X1D. You could extract, say, a square format that perfectly contacts internally in its image circle and its sides are longer than 24mm. But the image quality could be similar to what FX low-res sensor like the 24MP one, not 36MP one in D810.
-
What I would like to know is what is the difference between a FF DSLR 50 Mpx sensor with Nikon-sized lenses and the Sony MF 50 Mpx sensor with MF-sized lenses?
I cannot speak to the actual differences because I haven't studied that particular sensor and the Nikon sensor does not even exist. But I can give some general thoughts and expectations I would have.
Since the Sony sensor is 44x33mm you have about 68% bigger physical area to work with than on the FX sensor. This is a smaller step than going from a DX to an FX sensor, which is about a 125% increase in physical area. So I don't expect a dramatic difference in noise properties, like what you experience when going from micro 4/3 to FX for example.
Since the number of pixels is roughly the same, whether the resolution of the image changes depends a lot on the lenses, but as a rule of thumb it is a bit easier to design lenses for bigger sensors, especially without the constraints of a mirror box. So I would expect a higher level, but only testing can show whether the actual lenses live up to these expectations.
We discussed implications of changing sensor formats at length in http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3972.0.html), and those discussions map to the comparison between FX and bigger formats in the same way that they do for FX vs. smaller formats.
The degree to which these considerations are important to your photography you have to answer yourself. Obviously a lot of things drive the choice of a camera system and the sensor characteristics are only a very small part of that choice for most photographers.
-
No mirror means more flexibility for the lens designers.
On my mirrorless Fujifilm, they were able to create reasonably priced, good-performing prime lenses with much less distortion than almost any current DSLR optics, possibly including the Otuses. Distortion usually doesn't matter much for nature subjects, but matters a lot when photographing the human-built landscape. I expect that the newly available space between lens and sensor opens new possibilities for the Hasselblad designers as well.
-
This makes no sense at all...
I'm out of this discussion, now.
Heating of chips has been a problem for a long time and there are no secrets about dealing with it. How come the metal body of the X1D is adequate to control heat, when the metal bodies of all the other Hasselblad backs with the same sensor were not?
The reason is that the problem is not dissipating the heat to the environment, which is what the aluminium case of the X1D does, but getting the heat off the sensor to where it can dissipate to the environment. Suggesting diamond was not a joke: diamond has much greater heat conductivity than either copper or aluminium and diamond-copper and diamond silver compounds are used as substrates for chips where a lot of heat is generated and chips need to be closely packed. These compounds were developed for use in space, where dissipating heat is no problem at all, because the issue is getting heat off the chip.
The fact that the roadblock is getting heat off the sensor is why sensor size matters so much.
Temperature-related noise is the wolf that eats the sun of large sensor image quality if sensor heating is not really well controlled. Maybe Hasselblad has got it right this time, but to find out we will have to wait until someone who is not being paid by Hasselblad looks carefully for noise. However, (a) Hasselblad have a track record of getting it wrong, in the H3D - so much for heritage - and (b) they have put a temperature cut-off in the X1D to stop the internals frying, so they clearly do not believe that the body is 100% reliable as a heat sink.
-
What was the body of the Hasselblad digital backs that used this sensor and needed a heat sink made of? Wool?
Actually, the best material would be diamond. And I would bet money Hasselblad would have a red hot go at selling it.
Moderation remarks:
Please keep the comments on a suitable technical level, so in this case mentioning wool is way out of line with the context of the other posts.
When mentioning diamond, it would have been beneficial if you had made the reference to diamond composites.
Thank you :)
-
I don't understand the logic. I can understand that YOU don't need them now, but to say that "no one" needs them defies logic. I, for one, am finding that I do need them, and did not feel I needed them last year, unless you mean that anything to come in the future we automatically need.
What is happening here, at least in my photo world, is that I am outgrowing (for my work) the 35mm DSLR and looking into something larger, like MF and LF cameras. And they are reaching down into mirrorless territory and becoming more affordable. For me, this is a big change.
There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to use larger formats. The point is not to confuse wanting to do it with having photographic reasons to do it.
For example, shallower depth of field is often given as a photographic reason to move to medium format - but the X1D's 90mm f/3.2 portrait lens does not offer shallower depth of field or a larger entry pupil than an 85mm f/1.4 on FX.
Wanting 50MP instead of 36MP to print larger than 24 x 18 without compromising print resolution or stitching images is a photographic reason to move to medium format (though not for long). But there is a difference between a photographer who was printing larger than 24 x 18 last year by making do and printing 36MP at 260 dpi instead of 300 dpi or by stitching images, and a photographer who has never printed larger than 13 x 19 and been perfectly happy.
In the same way, Ming Thein may be right about the colour and tonal subtlety of the 44 x 33mm sensor, but it had exactly the same colour and tonal subtlety last year, so a photographer who did not want that sensor last year because she was happy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images has no reason to want it this year. Sure, if she was unhappy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images last year and did want the bigger sensor but could not afford it, a cheaper incarnation is welcome, but the point remains that no one who did not want the bigger sensor last year has reason to want it now. (And there are people who had never seen a good print from a large format camera until recently, so last year they didn't know what greater tonal subtlety looks like and that is why they didn't want the larger sensor last year, and now they do know so they want the bigger sensor - but I think we can neglect that possibility in this forum).
Sure, people can change the kind of photography they do, and that is different. To do underwater photography you need an underwater camera. But there are no kinds of photography a medium format camera can do that a 35mm camera cannot do. The reverse is true, because of the superior AF of 35mm cameras, and in the case of the X1D the very limited lens choice.
-
Moderation remarks:
Please keep the comments on a suitable technical level, so in this case mentioning wool is way out of line with the context of the other posts.
When mentioning diamond, it would have been beneficial if you had made the reference to diamond composites.
Thank you :)
I apologise. I meant no offence, but if any was taken I am sorry.
-
There is nothing at all wrong with wanting to use larger formats. The point is not to confuse wanting to do it with having photographic reasons to do it.......
.......
I agree.
Maybe we should go back to the original objective of using sheet film.
The reason sheet film was dropped is the lack of flexibility for shooting commercial images (for Advtg). Moving on to medium format allowed to scan on drum scans and process on Quantel platforms Paintbox - Harry - Henry....etc.
Full frame replica of 135 could not have the same resolution for masking and other manipulation and Medium was king........until mid to end 90's where Photoshop changed the equation.
I get rather restless when people talk about medium being better than full frame in 2016....etc.
I am ready to bet any amount of money that whomever will not be capable to tell whether a particular image is from a medium or FF high res camera.
Even Art at printed at 300dpi cannot tell the difference. Come on. An image goes to so many processes before being printed and displayed and for crying out loud, I hope no one is gonna say that printing above A1 needs the highest resolution.
Yeah right....... Shoot with a camera scan or digital camera. Color correct/crop....etc and send the file to an Agfa processor to produce the films.......use the films to produce a Cromalin....rinse an repeat and send to a GTO or Indigo digital or whatever.......Medium format vs full frame......my (insert expletive of choice)
......and I don't give a monkey on pay as you talk Ming Thein or whomever else......they would know jack about color even if it hits them in the face.
Color???? Tell me about color. I was a color consultant for a Soho studio Grading suite using Grass Valley and DaVinci (before DaVinci changed ownership).
All what medium format does today is compensate for the inadequacy of photographers post processing shortcomings and alleged pay as you talk reviewers.....There!
Medium format vs Full Frame......tell me about it and I will tell you what is an Arclight.
-
but the point remains that no one who did not want the bigger sensor last year has reason to want it now.
You make the strong assumptions that peoples preferences and priorities are constant over time. People may get married this year and get divorced the year after, so I think that assumption is not warranted.
-
I look forward to Michael's reporting on his experiences with the new system.
-
You make the strong assumptions that peoples preferences and priorities are constant over time. People may get married this year and get divorced the year after, so I think that assumption is not warranted.
If an adult says "Last year I was totally committed to being with this person for the rest of my life, but I have changed my values and preferences and now the relationship just doesn't work", the natural response is to wonder what they mean by the term "values and preferences". It is simply a marker of adult maturity that values and preferences are stable and do not undergo road-to-Damascus transformations. That is why we regard people who make major decisions on the spur of the moment as foolish and why we distrust politicians who abruptly change their allegiance. Unstable values and preferences are fine when people are just starting to learn about something, but when people are mature instability of values and preferences is a sign that they were reached for inadequate or superficial reasons.
Of course, preferences in trivial matters - dress, eg - can change. There is nothing wrong with treating trivial matters as if they were trivial. There is a spectrum of values and preferences from the trivial to the core, and photographic values and preferences can lie anywhere on the spectrum - for some people closer to whether you like wearing a tie and for others closer to whether you value honesty. But photography is no different to political opinion or food or music: the more you have thought about it the more stable your values and preferences will be.
And of course constant change in subject and style can be an over-riding value - as it was for Picasso, eg. But constant change in core values cannot, at least not without self-contradiction.
-
Political opinions, outlook on life, religious beliefs should hold much deeper significance than the choice of camera gear or brand, and thus not be compared to the mere choice of things like cameras and lenses.
-
I get rather restless when people talk about medium being better than full frame in 2016....etc.
I am ready to bet any amount of money that whomever will not be capable to tell whether a particular image is from a medium or FF high res camera.
There are differences in the image, background, foreground rendering that can't be duplicated by one formats v. another. I'm wondering and asking if the Hassleblad X1D's 44x33mm format is sufficiently different to be worth the change. That's why I ask about true medium format of at least 54x?? (nominal 6x4.5cm) format. From my own experience the difference between DX (24x16mm) and FX (36x24mm) is considerable.
The form factor of the camera is an other issue. If hiking with the camera the X1D might be perfect for Michael. That could be very important. True confession: I've been playing devils advocate to provoke thought.
I wonder about the lenses available. I firmly believe that FF, 36x24mm has the greatest array of options in terms of glass available. Since DX (nominal 24x16mm) usually can use FX glass it easily comes in second. If the lenses available for the X1D are sufficient for Michael it may be a good option. I do wonder if the X1D is a silver bullet however in this case. Silver bullets can be fun.
Don't under estimate the importance of liking a camera. If one likes their camera they are likely to use if more and produce better results with it. Camera A may not produce better or distinguishable results on a technical level than camera B but if one likes A better than B then camera A is the camera for them.
Dave
-
This new Hasselblad X1D seems to have struck an emotional note with folks. For me the reason is clear and that is that if I carefully consider the limitations of adding more pixels to the fixed-size FF-sensors format, it is crystal clear that the FF-sized sensor stuffed with still more pixels cannot compete with the larger MF sensors. I can agree that for many folks, it won't yet matter, but as the case is.... it is my own work I am considering here, not just the general publics.
I feel I need to go BEYOND the limitations of the FF-sized sensor. And that means something the size of MF, plain and simple. The limitations of the FF sensor are obvious, and not something that eventually can be remedied. Ultimately some of us will be using MF-sized sensors and loving it.
If the Medium Format cameras were priced the same as the FF cameras, we would not be having this discussion. Many of us would just be having MF cameras. It is not that I am leaving FF cameras to go to meet the MF cameras; they are coming down in price (eventually) to meet me.
Clinging to various reasons why we should not check out MF cameras (price, heat, not enough lenses, etc.) will not make the new breed of MF cameras go away. They are coming and the X1D tells me that they are already here for some of us. I am going to meet this trend by paying the rather high price that this new camera requires of me, not because I want to spend money (I had to raise it), but because I believe the MF sized sensors (even the smaller one in the X1D) will give me a degree of freedom I could use.
And once and for all: I continue to use my Nikon D810 every day and will do so for my close-up and macro work, if only because I have the best lenses for that work. I don’t “trash” Nikon by criticizing the FF sensor and it is totally fair to wonder why Nikon is not leading the industry when it comes to a high-end mirrorless camera or a successor for the D810. I will use the X1D for traveling with a smaller kit and shooting landscape and portraits.
And yes, the X1D may be a dud, but it also may be liberating. Let’s just see.
-
Political opinions, outlook on life, religious beliefs should hold much deeper significance than the choice of camera gear or brand, and thus not be compared to the mere choice of things like cameras and lenses.
OK, but you cannot erect a sharp divide between important things, where it is appropriate to think about values and preferences, and other things where it is not. Leaving aside the fact that some people regard photography as considerably more important than politics, even the least important aspects of life do involve values and preferences. When, eg, buying bananas do you consider the carbon footprint, and when buying running shoes do you ask about Nike's labour practices in Indonesia, and when looking for a new tripod head do you take Really Right Stuff's attitude to civil rights for gay people into consideration? I am not expressing an opinion on what the answer should be, but saying that buying bananas or running shoes or a ballhead does not involve a value choice is, obviously, itself a value choice. Value choices are most in need of questioning precisely when people cannot see that they are value choices: hegemony is when values are so ingrained that they are taken to be obviously true, or mere "common sense".
You seem to assume that "values and preferences" means ethical values and preferences. But there is no reason for that assumption. For example, suppose you agree with Henri Cartier-Bresson that the point of photography is capturing "the decisive moment": you will value flexibility and speed of response - and like him, you will prefer a 35mm camera. Suppose, on the other hand, that you agree with Ansel Adams that the point of photographs is to reveal the pristine beauty of wild landscape: you will not value flexibility or speed of response, and you will prefer large formats and very small apertures.
-
The point I wanted to make is that the assumption that preferences do not change is not warranted in general. Thus there is nothing irrational about making different decisions at different points in time if either preferences or other boundary conditions have changed, or based on new information that is gathered along the way. On the contrary, that sort of adaptation is perfectly sensible and has a solid basis in statistics and decision theory.
If you say "a photographer who did not want that sensor last year because she was happy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images has no reason to want it this year" you are assuming that the photographer did not change or learn new information between last year and now, which is not warranted IMO.
-
OK, but you cannot erect a sharp divide between important things, where it is appropriate to think about values and preferences, and other things where it is not. Leaving aside the fact that some people regard photography as considerably more important than politics, even the least important aspects of life do involve values and preferences. When, eg, buying bananas do you consider the carbon footprint, and when buying running shoes do you ask about Nike's labour practices in Indonesia, and when looking for a new tripod head do you take Really Right Stuff's attitude to civil rights for gay people into consideration? I am not expressing an opinion on what the answer should be, but saying that buying bananas or running shoes or a ballhead does not involve a value choice is, obviously, itself a value choice. Value choices are most in need of questioning precisely when people cannot see that they are value choices: hegemony is when values are so ingrained that they are taken to be obviously true, or mere "common sense".
Nikon still seems to have problems facing up to history: http://petapixel.com/2015/12/26/photographer-wins-suit-against-nikon-over-comfort-women-exhibition/ (http://petapixel.com/2015/12/26/photographer-wins-suit-against-nikon-over-comfort-women-exhibition/)
You seem to assume that "values and preferences" means ethical values and preferences. But there is no reason for that assumption. For example, suppose you agree with Henri Cartier-Bresson that the point of photography is capturing "the decisive moment": you will value flexibility and speed of response - and like him, you will prefer a 35mm camera. Suppose, on the other hand, that you agree with Ansel Adams that the point of photographs is to reveal the pristine beauty of wild landscape: you will not value flexibility or speed of response, and you will prefer large formats and very small apertures.
Your assumptions are not warranted, since each will decide what gear is suited for which task. I.e. some use M43 for landscapes.
-
If the Medium Format cameras were priced the same as the FF cameras, we would not be having this discussion. Many of us would just be having MF cameras. It is not that I am leaving FF cameras to go to meet the MF cameras; they are coming down in price (eventually) to meet me.
Medium format dSLR(s) will never supplant 36x24mm format dSLR(s). The smaller format will always be more versatile and more widely used. Give up the crusade or go on an all night crusade against the devil, either way enjoy your choice.
Dave
Look! the fool said, "never."
-
Medium format dSLR(s) will never supplant 36x24mm format dSLR(s). The smaller format will always be more versatile. Give up the crusade or go on an all night crusade against the devil, either way enjoy your choice.
Dave
Look! the fool said "never"
That same logic extends right on down to the smallest sensor. I believe that larger sensors will become de facto, the standard, sooner or later. As for telling me what to do, there is a reciprocal for that too. <G>
-
OK, don't enjoy your choice. :D
-
Why Nikon isn't focused on mirrorless is simple: they have a very good position in the much larger DSLR market with basically only one major competitor, an established customer base and a very comprehensive product line that took decades to build. They have no special skills or expertise which would make them do well in mirrorless against the competition which includes many competitors who have been doing it already many years, have lots of lenses etc. This year mirrorless ILC sales has declined at a similar pace compared to last year than DSLR sales so there doesn't seem to be much space for an additional competitor and product line especially if it is not in any particular way better than the competitors. It only takes brief experience with Nikon's live view in low light to make the guess that they would do really badly in mirrorless. Canon is now daring to enter APS-C mirrorrless but their live view has always been better and now they have a superior AF technology that is ideal for live view, video and mirrorless. Without such technology there is no chance of success in such a highly competed and currently declining market.
By contrast Nikon has an excellent product line for DSLR and the new Multi-CAM 20k is superb for focusing on moving subjects even in very low light. So it makes sense to put resources where they can excel. I like the OVF for people photography and I need the real time artifact free viewing of subject details of the subject's expression so I can anticipate how the situation will evolve. I am unable to make my photos of people subjects based on EVF viewing. I totally understand that there are photographers who can use and like an EVF. Plenty of products in this segment exist to choose from.
-
The point I wanted to make is that the assumption that preferences do not change is not warranted in general. Thus there is nothing irrational about making different decisions at different points in time if either preferences or other boundary conditions have changed, or based on new information that is gathered along the way. On the contrary, that sort of adaptation is perfectly sensible and has a solid basis in statistics and decision theory.
If you say "a photographer who did not want that sensor last year because she was happy with the colour and tonal subtlety of her images has no reason to want it this year" you are assuming that the photographer did not change or learn new information between last year and now, which is not warranted IMO.
No, I am not assuming that - on the contrary, I specified that if the photographer gained new insight into what, eg, "tonal subtlety" could mean her wants could change to match. I assumed only, as I think is reasonable in the context of this forum, that last year she thought about her photography and what could make it better. And my point was simply that, last year, thinking about what could make her photography better must have included consideration of a medium format camera with the same 44 x 33mm sensor the X1D has. And if she decided last year that such a camera would not make her photography better she has no reason to think otherwise this year. How can this possibly be controversial?
Sure, maybe last year the photographs she was taking were not ones that would benefit from (say) more dynamic range, and the photographs she is taking this year are. I am struggling to think how that could arise in practice, but let's suppose it did. In that case, however - and this is the key point - she will be able to show us actual pictures she has taken that would benefit from more dynamic range, not merely refer to pictures she imagines taking that she imagines would benefit from more dynamic range.
Of course, maybe last year she did not think about what could make her photography better, and did not want a larger format merely because she had never thought about it. But she did have reason to want a larger format last year and if she had thought about it last year she would have reached the same conclusion as now. The same is true of a photographer who last year did not know what dynamic range is, and so did not appreciate that her photographs would benefit from more of it. But in this case also she had reason to want a larger format last year, and if she had known then what dynamic range is she would have reached the same conclusion as now.
-
What I am looking forward to seeing is whether, with advances in sensor technology, if the FF sensor can have still smaller photosites, but retain the kind of dynamic range I see in the Nikon D810, which has been wonderful. That would extend the value of the many FF lenses that I have. But whether or not that is true, those same advances promise to make MF sensors even more useful and with even deeper/better photosites.
-
Your assumptions are not warranted, since each will decide what gear is suited for which task. I.e. some use M43 for landscapes.
Yes, but they have to make those decisions on the basis of reasons, and the reasons have to be based on fact, if the decisions are to be called rational. You can't say, eg, "I use 8 x 10 film for landscapes because I hate carrying a large, heavy camera". And you can't say "I use the X1D for portraits to get a shallow depth of field that 35mm cannot provide".
-
Why Nikon isn't focused on mirrorless is simple...
I agree with everything it that paragraph. I would be surprised if Nikon isn't working to address technology they lack but it would be foolish to enter the mirrorless market prematurely.
I like the OVF for people photography and I need the real time artifact free viewing of subject details of the subject's expression so I can anticipate how the situation will evolve.
Many would think of timing in connection with sports, action, wildlife and others that require precise timing but forget how important anticipating the expression and gestures of people before they are full and ready to photograph. One has to press the shutter in anticipation of these. In all action photography including a person's face the reaction time of the photographer and the camera, both need to be correct or the moment will be missed. I still need an optical viewfinder for my primary camera. Electronic viewfinders need more development.
Dave
-
Why Nikon isn't focused on mirrorless is simple: they have a very good position in the much larger DSLR market with basically only one major competitor, an established customer base and a very comprehensive product line that took decades to build. They have no special skills or expertise which would make them do well in mirrorless against the competition which includes many competitors who have been doing it already many years, have lots of lenses etc. This year mirrorless ILC sales has declined at a similar pace compared to last year than DSLR sales so there doesn't seem to be much space for an additional competitor and product line especially if it is not in any particular way better than the competitors. It only takes brief experience with Nikon's live view in low light to make the guess that they would do really badly in mirrorless. Canon is now daring to enter APS-C mirrorrless but their live view has always been better and now they have a superior AF technology that is ideal for live view, video and mirrorless. Without such technology there is no chance of success in such a highly competed and currently declining market.
By contrast Nikon has an excellent product line for DSLR and the new Multi-CAM 20k is superb for focusing on moving subjects even in very low light. So it makes sense to put resources where they can excel. I like the OVF for people photography and I need the real time artifact free viewing of subject details of the subject's expression so I can anticipate how the situation will evolve. I am unable to make my photos of people subjects based on EVF viewing. I totally understand that there are photographers who can use and like an EVF. Plenty of products in this segment exist to choose from.
Three comments,
Market outlook
All market data for all sorts of cameras from April 2016 onward may be skewed, due to the Kumanoto earthquake, that devastated Sony's sensor manufacturing capabilities. Almost every manufactuere except Canon source all or some of their sensors from Sony. Nikon specifically mentions this effect in their Q1 2016/17 financial report and lowered their sales forecast due to this.
Liveview quality
The last DSLR I had was the Nikon D800, and the liveview on that one was inferior to that of Sony A7 and Olympus OM-D E-M1 (the latter in good light). The D800 is after all an "old" model by now. Hasn't Nikon fixed the live view quality issues now? Aren't the D500 and D5 on par with the best liveview that Canon and Sony offer in their cameras?
Liveview AF
I know that Nikon still relies on contrast detect AF in liveview, but that should be a matter of sourcing sensors with PDAF from e.g. Sony, like Fujifilm and Olympus do. Afaik, the Nikon 1 system uses on sensor PDAF, so Nikon has the know how on how to implement those sensors in a camera, assuming now that Nikon 1 mirrorless is sufficiently similar to the liveview mode of a DSLR for know how to carry over.