xcd 38 experiences, and compared to 30 and 45

[dmecham]

Yes I do understand that. From what I've read even the older XCD lenses give as high of quality image as the new V lenses. I would way my 38V lens is not any better than my 28P, 45P and 65mm lenses when it comes to image quality. but of course that could be because of the 50mp sensor.

 

[Ai_Print]

I’ve been using the Hasselblad 38v lens on my X1Dll body for about 2 weeks now. It’s a very unique lens with it’s angle of view that I enjoy greatly. The focusing and shutter are as quiet as my 28P lens. Because of its faster speed of F2.5 the optimum F stops for image quality are in the F5.6 to F8 area. With proper focusing I capture images with a great DOF all tack sharp at F5.6. Great for hand holding as this design allows the photographer to use faster shutter speeds. Using Phocus 2 software for the conversion any optical issues like distortion, vignetting, etc. are completely resolved during the conversion from RAW to a variety of formats. The lens is light weight and silent and balances well on the camera. Since I manually focus and using back button AF I found using the focus scale of the V lenses not really as quick and easy as the fore mentioned process. I do like being able to assign the Lens Control Ring to adjusting ISO without taking my eye from the EVF. I did take a little time to get the feel of this lens as the new V lenses are of a new design with some very nice features added. I had read about issues with edge performance at wider apertures. On tests I made on a flat object at various aperture from F4 (the lowest I could ever see me using) to F16. Even at F4 the corners were as sharp as the center. I would recommend this lens even though the price was a bit concerning. Now that I own it and have learn to get the most out of it I feel now it was worth the price. I've added 2 images here both shot at F5.6.

It's possible I got bad lenses and so did my friends, they have been slow to fill stock so maybe there are QC issues. I might try them again at some point.

 

[dmecham]

I had to wonder when the V lenses were released it seemed like after a short period of time they weren't availble for many months. Did they detect some issues with the new designs then postpone deliveries until things were resolved? Who knows. I would say with this 38V being the only V lens I had tried took me a few days to figure it out. It does function in different ways than the XCD lenses. But once I learned it's personality it's worked great. I would also have to mention that it seems like often when photographers have any issues with image quality they aren't using Phocus 2 for the conversion. At least some of Hasselblad color Science and optical corrections are made in Phocus 2. Using other software for the conversion seem to compromise results.

 

[jng]

The 50MP sensor puts a lot less performance pressure on any lens due to the much higher pixel pitch - those pixels are twice the size of those found in the x2d, so much easier to fill with detail. On the 100 MP x2d all lenses are pushed much harder - so performance issues will become aparent! What you show here would look a lot different if shot on an x2d.

Actually, the higher resolution sensor will not make the performance of a particular lens look worse, provided you're comparing images - either on screen or in print - of the same final dimensions. Of course, you may discover flaws at 100 Mp that you didn't notice at 50Mp if you're pixel peeping at 100%, but then you're effectively viewing a more highly magnified image.

John

 

[TechTalk]

Actually, the higher resolution sensor will not make the performance of a particular lens look worse, provided you're comparing images - either on screen or in print - of the same final dimensions. Of course, you may discover flaws at 100 Mp image that you didn't notice at 50Mp if you're pixel peeping at 100%, but then you're effectively viewing a more highly magnified image.

John

Thanks for your concise and accurate explanation. For anyone looking for more details regarding why image quality improves when you increase either lens resolution or sensor resolution, Roger Cicala of Lensrentals explains it well in the appendix at the bottom of the article linked below.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments

 

[dmecham]

Thanks. A good article. We can get too caught up in all this. My friend who owns as X2D I've seen many of his images and even though I haven't done a side by side comparison the differences between the cameras is not that great when it comes to image quality. Yes the X2D is ever so slightly better but it's not significant.

 

[nazdravanul]

Actually, the higher resolution sensor will not make the performance of a particular lens look worse, provided you're comparing images - either on screen or in print - of the same final dimensions. Of course, you may discover flaws at 100 Mp that you didn't notice at 50Mp if you're pixel peeping at 100%, but then you're effectively viewing a more highly magnified image.

John

Let’s not play here - 100% is not actually a magnified image, it is the native resolution. It‘s magnified only in relation to a display medium who cannot display, without magnification, the native resolution of an image.
For web display all these differences we are talking about are effectively moot - and 50 Mp or 100 Mp are meaningless. But, if you’re printing 1.60m / 1.20m or higher (I sometimes double that), for gallery viewing distances, then you end up with an image that goes way beyond 100% and that is indeed, a truly magnified image, relative to the native resolution of the sensor.
In this case , if you “pixel peep”, as in you evaluate an image at the limit of the natural resolution of the sensor (100% magnification) or beyond, you will most definitely find differences betweeen the various lenses, that may not show up at 50MP but will definitely show up at 100MP (same senzor size).
That’s why Rodenstock, for example, clearly states the pixel pitch (the pixel size in microns) for which it’s various lens lines have been designed / tested / optimized.
For my large prints, I always “pixel peep” between 200% and 400%. . For web display this could be indeed futile (cropping aside) .
And maybe restating the obvious: a 5k Imac screen will display a 14.7 MP unmagnified image, and that is not “web” display, that’s your living room display, going from that to web, will require further heavy compression of your image, mandated by the apps & websites you use for displaying your work. So, there is no 50MP or even 100 MP in that “unmagnified” image -oh, and your 50MP or 100 MP MF gear is definitely overkill if that’s your “final dimension” of display
Going back to the thread: only when viewing images at 100% and beyond, will there be meaningful IQ differences between the x2d and x1d, or between the 30xcd and 38v when both shot on an x2d.
Figure out what your final image display medium, dimensions and viewing distance are and then select gear & evaluate IQ accordingly.

 

[jng]

Let’s not play here - 100% is not actually a magnified image, it is the native resolution. It‘s magnified only in relation to a display medium who cannot display, without magnification, the native resolution of an image.
For web display all these differences we are talking about are effectively moot - and 50 Mp or 100 Mp are meaningless. But, if you’re printing 1.60m / 1.20m or higher (I sometimes double that), for gallery viewing distances, then you end up with an image that goes way beyond 100% and that is indeed, a truly magnified image, relative to the native resolution of the sensor.
In this case , if you “pixel peep”, as in you evaluate an image at the limit of the natural resolution of the sensor (100% magnification) or beyond, you will most definitely find differences betweeen the various lenses, that may not show up at 50MP but will definitely show up at 100MP (same senzor size).
That’s why Rodenstock, for example, clearly states the pixel pitch (the pixel size in microns) for which it’s various lens lines have been designed / tested / optimized.
For my large prints, I always “pixel peep” between 200% and 400%. . For web display this could be indeed futile (cropping aside) .
And maybe restating the obvious: a 5k Imac screen will display a 14.7 MP unmagnified image, and that is not “web” display, that’s your living room display, going from that to web, will require further heavy compression of your image, mandated by the apps & websites you use for displaying your work. So, there is no 50MP or even 100 MP in that “unmagnified” image -oh, and your 50MP or 100 MP MF gear is definitely overkill if that’s your “final dimension” of display
Going back to the thread: only when viewing images at 100% and beyond, will there be meaningful IQ differences between the x2d and x1d, or between the 30xcd and 38v when both shot on an x2d.
Figure out what your final image display medium, dimensions and viewing distance are and then select gear & evaluate IQ accordingly.

By my understanding, both of the following statements are true:

A higher resolution sensor will not make the same lens perform worse.

The resolving power of a lens may exceed that of the sensor - for example, a 50 Mp sensor may not reveal the full glory of a Rodenstock lens (agreeing with "you will most definitely find differences between the various lenses, that may not show up at 50MP but will definitely show up at 100MP (same senzor size).")

c.f. Roger Cicala's article, cited above.

I will stop here.

John