Who is the X2D for?

[Paul Spinnler]

Yes, except I find that full frame 645 essentially references the sensor size, since it is so close to the actual film capture size (56mm x 41.5mm). I was not aware that anyone is ubiquitously using the term full frame for medium format. But I have found it helpful at times to convey to someone the size of the sensor relative to film.

But again - the term full frame should not live in a vacuum, as not only 35mm is full frame. My opinion, anyway.

No one should reference "crop" in any demeaning way, but if there is a crop, in other words, if the viewfinder of the camera does not present the full view of the ground glass, then it is relevant that one knows that it is indeed cropped. This matters to some people. This is pretty much only the domain of optical viewfinders, as EVF will show only the image, with no outside areas that have been cropped out visible.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Steve, what's your take on the mirrorless P1 rumors? There would be a market for it, no? I'd get one if it combined P1 IQ5, class leading DR and Res and EVF + compatibility with tech cams through modularity ...

 

[anyone]

I'm usually not into defending cameras, but I think in this thread, the GFX100s is portrayed a bit worse than it is. I might be too easily satisfied, but I couldn't complain about my GFX files, apart from the tricky color situation that was mentioned earlier.

 

[MartinN]

My opinion is that Full frame is reserved for strictly 35mm frames. Otherwise, is 6x12 full frame or is it 6x17, perhaps. I am by the way eagerly waiting for 6x8 sensors, that eventually will come (or not in my lifetime). Sensor size should be a commodity for every medium format camera accepting interchangeable backs, and my Fuji GX680III is waiting. In the meantime I play with Mamiya RZ and 645 backs.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

My opinion is that Full frame is reserved for strictly 35mm frames. Otherwise, is 6x12 full frame or is it 6x17, perhaps. I am by the way eagerly waiting for 6x8 sensors, that eventually will come (or not in my lifetime). Sensor size should be a commodity for every medium format camera accepting interchangeable backs, and my Fuji GX680III is waiting. In the meantime I play with Mamiya RZ and 645 backs.

Well wouldn't a 6x12 sensor be full frame 6x12? Why is "full frame" exclusive to 35mm when there are other sensors that approximate certain film sizes? I think my itch is that - sort of the inverse of what SRMPhoto referenced feeling they were being demeaned with the "crop sensor" designation - mine is that full frame sounds like a very positive attribute, but one that has unfairly been bestowed upon 35mm exclusively.

I don't really care that much, this is more for curiosity sake than anything else. But still ...


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve, what's your take on the mirrorless P1 rumors? There would be a market for it, no? I'd get one if it combined P1 IQ5, class leading DR and Res and EVF + compatibility with tech cams through modularity ...

Other than that PhotoRumors (???) take, I've heard nothing. Where would PhotoRumors even get such info, are they that versed with Phase One? Are they just mistakenly getting some info about a larger XT or maybe a 2nd XC and calling that the new Phase One mirrorless? Who knows.

But - it would shock me. Creating a brand new camera and new lenses, I don't see them recouping the investment. I wish/hope I'm wrong, because I'd love to see it. As it stands, their strong suit is the best capture solution for technical/view camera use, so they've logically leaned harder into that. I feel like they've lost so much ground on the mainstream camera use side to Fuji GFX (and to lesser degree Hasselblad) that they would be fighting a tremendous uphill battle with a new mirrorless camera system. That said, for some studio-based product photography, they still have some substantial advantages, but that is not a growth market.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[tcdeveau]

In the age of *digital* medium format, full-frame medium format has been thrown around for years to mean 40x54mm sensor whereas cropped is 33x44mm. It's all marketing talk and I think it's kind of a waste of time to discuss IMHO. It's all relative anyway, and what it means will change depending on what one's frame of reference is. IMHO it's less of an issue for ppl coming at it from a digital perspective than it is for ppl coming from a traditional film perspective.

To OPs Q, for me, the Hassy X2D is a great compact travel landscape camera that can do other stuff well too.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I have been contemplating updating my medium format (645D and 645Z) kit this year and have taken both the GFX/GFXII and X2D cameras for a spin. I'm curious how some of the folks on here approach both systems if they already have a full frame kit. My main interests are landscapes and people. Here are some of my observations:

1) The Fuji system is more versatile compared to the Hasselblad system assuming one does not have a full frame system already.
2) The Sony a7Rv is faster, even more versatile than the GFX, has access to better glass and given the last point can give the Fuji system a good run for its money if the 60MP can get fully utilized.
3) The Hasselblad X2D with a 55V lens or the 30mm 3.5 lens is smaller than the GFX 100s, can actually take up less volume than the Sony with the 24-70 (but is heavier).
4) The Hasselblad is very bad at most of the tasks the Sony is great at, especially anything that's more "run and gun". The GFX is better but still falls quite a bit short of the Sony.
5) The Hasselblad per pixel quality is better than both the GFX and Sony, same with the colors. It seems that both the Sony and GFX files require about the same work in LR, especially if people are in frame (skin) or mixed lighting is present. The Hasselblad files just look gorgeous with fewer "moves" required in post before any creative editing is applied.
6) When using portable strobes such as Profoto, the GFX system's 1/125th sync speed forces one to use HSS fairly quickly, the Sony's 1/250th is better but being able to sync at any speed with the leaf shutter lenses on the X2D opens more possibilities.

With some of this in mind, I wonder who the Hasselblad camera is for? It's not a system that can replace a Sony or GFX, it does not have the lens choices the other two systems have, but it does have colors and image quality that has a different sensibility to what I see coming out of the all made in Japan systems (realizing the sensors in all the systems are made by Sony).

I can comfortably fit a Sony a7Rv with a 24-70 GMII and a 70-200 GMII (and perhaps one 1.4 GM prime) and a X2D with two V lenses into my travel backpack along with a Profoto A2 and small click octa softbox for a high-quality travel setup. I can't really take both the Sony and GFX system the same way given the volume it would occupy and the functionality overlap it has with the Sony.

Is the X2D designed as a high-quality companion camera to a full frame setup, filling a few holes the full frame system has? It seems to me that the X2D and Its leaf shutter lenses complement a Sony A7RV system better than a GFX system (which is a higher resolution but less evolved in every other way Sony).

I think there's been some great input to your questions from the forum members. Im not sure the question - who is the X2D for is the right question. Like, you couldn't easily say it is for this type of photographer or that type of photographer. It would be easier to say who it is not for (sports photographer, for example). I think of one specific client who shoots a ton, I mean this photographer is on the road 200+ days a year shooting projects, everything from industrial environments to portraiture in and out of those environments. So what type of photographer are they - I don't know. A busy one!

He shoots with the X2D and with the Leica SL2. The SL2 is his workhorse. It comes close enough - performance wise - to what a mainstream 35mm system would do for him. He loves the APO lenses of the SL2 and appreciate the file quality (there's that word again), but for him, he means the color and the look. For the actual dynamic range, etc, it is adequate for his use.

But - he also uses the X2D and he uses it because yes, he appreciates the color and the look as well, but specifically for the leaf shutters in the lenses. This allows him to shoot in a variety of situations with more creativity and ease than he could otherwise. The size and weight matters to him, as he is on the road so much. But that said, he hasn't ruled out returning to a Phase One technical camera system at some point (he was a user in the past).

For X2D, the biggest and most common deal breaker that is presented to me is the lack of Capture One compatibility.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Other than that PhotoRumors (???) take, I've heard nothing. Where would PhotoRumors even get such info, are they that versed with Phase One? Are they just mistakenly getting some info about a larger XT or maybe a 2nd XC and calling that the new Phase One mirrorless? Who knows.

But - it would shock me. Creating a brand new camera and new lenses, I don't see them recouping the investment. I wish/hope I'm wrong, because I'd love to see it. As it stands, their strong suit is the best capture solution for technical/view camera use, so they've logically leaned harder into that. I feel like they've lost so much ground on the mainstream camera use side to Fuji GFX (and to lesser degree Hasselblad) that they would be fighting a tremendous uphill battle with a new mirrorless camera system. That said, for some studio-based product photography, they still have some substantial advantages, but that is not a growth market.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Ok so IQ5 it is, at least because they can recoup the investment across their businesses from integrating the ne sensor and adding new components, I/O, etc. which should help to create a compelling new product. WIFI standards for example have advanced so much since 2018 ...

 

[tcdeveau]

I think there's been some great input to your questions from the forum members. Im not sure the question - who is the X2D for is the right question. Like, you couldn't easily say it is for this type of photographer or that type of photographer. It would be easier to say who it is not for (sports photographer, for example). I think of one specific client who shoots a ton, I mean this photographer is on the road 200+ days a year shooting projects, everything from industrial environments to portraiture in and out of those environments. So what type of photographer are they - I don't know. A busy one!

He shoots with the X2D and with the Leica SL2. The SL2 is his workhorse. It comes close enough - performance wise - to what a mainstream 35mm system would do for him. He loves the APO lenses of the SL2 and appreciate the file quality (there's that word again), but for him, he means the color and the look. For the actual dynamic range, etc, it is adequate for his use.

But - he also uses the X2D and he uses it because yes, he appreciates the color and the look as well, but specifically for the leaf shutters in the lenses. This allows him to shoot in a variety of situations with more creativity and ease than he could otherwise. The size and weight matters to him, as he is on the road so much. But that said, he hasn't ruled out returning to a Phase One technical camera system at some point (he was a user in the past).

For X2D, the biggest and most common deal breaker that is presented to me is the lack of Capture One compatibility.


Steve Hendrix/CI

The only thing remaining I'd like to see with the X2D is a longer zoom to accompany the 35-75, like a 75-150. Hopefully I'm not alone there.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

The only thing remaining I'd like to see with the X2D is a longer zoom to accompany the 35-75, like a 75-150. Hopefully I'm not alone there.

I think it is fair to say that counts as a hole in the lens lineup.

To expand upon that in the context of the thread, certainly the lens lineup would be one of the more significant differentiating factors between Hasselblad and Fujifilm. Fuji offers more lenses, a wider lens focal length range, faster lenses, and 5 zooms. Hasselblad has fewer lenses, a more restrictive range, one zoom, but substantially smaller/lighter lenses, and they include leaf shutters.

Hasselblad Current Lens Lineup - 5 lenses
25mm V, 28mm, 38mm V, 55mm V, 90mm V

Hasselblad Total Lens Lineup - 12 lenses (some XCD lenses may be discontinued without warning)
25mm V, 28mm P, 30mm XCD, 38mm V, 45mm P, 45mm XCD, 55mm V, 65mm XCD, 80mm XCD, 90mm V, 135mm XCD, 35mm-75mm XCD

Fujifilm Current GF Lens Lineup - 16 lenses
23mm, 30mm, 45mm, 50mm, 55mm, 63mm, 80mm, 110mm, 120mm, 240mm, 500mm, 20mm-35mm, 32mm-64mm, 35mm-70mm, 45mm-100mm, 100mm-200mm


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[larkis]

I think there's been some great input to your questions from the forum members. Im not sure the question - who is the X2D for is the right question. Like, you couldn't easily say it is for this type of photographer or that type of photographer. It would be easier to say who it is not for (sports photographer, for example). I think of one specific client who shoots a ton, I mean this photographer is on the road 200+ days a year shooting projects, everything from industrial environments to portraiture in and out of those environments. So what type of photographer are they - I don't know. A busy one!

He shoots with the X2D and with the Leica SL2. The SL2 is his workhorse. It comes close enough - performance wise - to what a mainstream 35mm system would do for him. He loves the APO lenses of the SL2 and appreciate the file quality (there's that word again), but for him, he means the color and the look. For the actual dynamic range, etc, it is adequate for his use.

But - he also uses the X2D and he uses it because yes, he appreciates the color and the look as well, but specifically for the leaf shutters in the lenses. This allows him to shoot in a variety of situations with more creativity and ease than he could otherwise. The size and weight matters to him, as he is on the road so much. But that said, he hasn't ruled out returning to a Phase One technical camera system at some point (he was a user in the past).

For X2D, the biggest and most common deal breaker that is presented to me is the lack of Capture One compatibility.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Thank you for that input Steve. What would you pick, knowing what you know about all those systems as an additional camera to a Sony a7rv setup? Let's say you know from the get go that that is your workhorse and you are not switching, do you add a GFX or a X2D in order to get the maximum total versatility in one backpack? (This assumes you photograph people, travel and landscapes)

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Thank you for that input Steve. What would you pick, knowing what you know about all those systems as an additional camera to a Sony a7rv setup? Let's say you know from the get go that that is your workhorse and you are not switching, do you add a GFX or a X2D in order to get the maximum total versatility in one backpack? (This assumes you photograph people, travel and landscapes)

In my line of work, what I would choose is often immaterial. When I must help someone determine the best solution for their objectives, then only knowing what someone photographs, ie; people, landscapes, etc, does not tell me enough to recommend a system to them. I have to ask many more specific questions.

Are you using strobe? Do you find yourself in situations where you would value leaf shutters (overpowering sunlight, blacking out ambient in a studio, for examples)

Is size and weight important to you? Does the availability of specific lens focal lengths trump size/weight?

How much do you rely upon auto focus?

How patient a person are you in general, and specifically, how methodical (or not) is your workflow when shooting?

Do you care how a camera feels or looks? Or are you intensely pragmatic?

Do you ever tether to a computer? What is your current software workflow?

What are you shooting with currently?

Can you articulate what you hope to improve upon with your new system (whatever it ends up being)?


And on and on - these are just a small sampling of what could be many questions. What really determines the camera someone should choose often does not show up on a datasheet, it is the result of a thorough and detailed discussion of the work they wish to do and many situational details. The main specs and attributes only serve to point to - Hey, this one may be a candidate. As a result of this specific process, we have very few returns, people who buy cameras from us are typically very satisfied they made the choice they did.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[tcdeveau]

Thank you for that input Steve. What would you pick, knowing what you know about all those systems as an additional camera to a Sony a7rv setup? Let's say you know from the get go that that is your workhorse and you are not switching, do you add a GFX or a X2D in order to get the maximum total versatility in one backpack? (This assumes you photograph people, travel and landscapes)

Id add the X2D if money weren’t an option and I was hanging on to the Sony setup. The UI for the HB is one of the best out there, I love the simplicity, and I love the IQ from the lenses. The Sony would fill any gaps in performance/lens lineup left by the HB, and some of the advantages in my book of the GFX are moot with the Sony.

If sticking to a single digital asset manager (like LR or Capture One) for post-processing with the Sony, I’d go GFX. I’ve always used phocus in combo with Lightroom for HB files, others do it diff. You may or may not want to add in Phocus to your workflow pipeline (you can also just use Lightroom with the HB files). Cant use capture one with HB without a workaround, unless they’ve changed it since I checked last.

If I were moving to only one system, I’d go GFX. It acts more like a FF35 camera and has a more versatile lens lineup IMHO.

If money was a concern or I didn’t want to spend a lot, I’d go used GFX100S or stick with the Sony.

im at a point in my own life and shooting where I’ve learned traveling with two systems in one backpack is more of a PITA and hindrance to shooting than advantageous, and it’s easier just to stick with one system (one set of batteries, one charger, one set of memory cards formatted the same, less to carry, more focus on shooting instead of worrying about which camera to use, etc). I’ve traveled with Nikon/Hasselblad, Sony/Pentax 645z, P1/HB, Leica/HB, etc, my own days of doing it are likely done. Some of best images are a product of just being there with a camera in hand instead of which camera I took the shot with. YMMV.

 

[Ai_Print]

I have been contemplating updating my medium format (645D and 645Z) kit this year and have taken both the GFX/GFXII and X2D cameras for a spin. I'm curious how some of the folks on here approach both systems if they already have a full frame kit. My main interests are landscapes and people. Here are some of my observations:

1) The Fuji system is more versatile compared to the Hasselblad system assuming one does not have a full frame system already.
2) The Sony a7Rv is faster, even more versatile than the GFX, has access to better glass and given the last point can give the Fuji system a good run for its money if the 60MP can get fully utilized.
3) The Hasselblad X2D with a 55V lens or the 30mm 3.5 lens is smaller than the GFX 100s, can actually take up less volume than the Sony with the 24-70 (but is heavier).
4) The Hasselblad is very bad at most of the tasks the Sony is great at, especially anything that's more "run and gun". The GFX is better but still falls quite a bit short of the Sony.
5) The Hasselblad per pixel quality is better than both the GFX and Sony, same with the colors. It seems that both the Sony and GFX files require about the same work in LR, especially if people are in frame (skin) or mixed lighting is present. The Hasselblad files just look gorgeous with fewer "moves" required in post before any creative editing is applied.
6) When using portable strobes such as Profoto, the GFX system's 1/125th sync speed forces one to use HSS fairly quickly, the Sony's 1/250th is better but being able to sync at any speed with the leaf shutter lenses on the X2D opens more possibilities.

With some of this in mind, I wonder who the Hasselblad camera is for? It's not a system that can replace a Sony or GFX, it does not have the lens choices the other two systems have, but it does have colors and image quality that has a different sensibility to what I see coming out of the all made in Japan systems (realizing the sensors in all the systems are made by Sony).

I can comfortably fit a Sony a7Rv with a 24-70 GMII and a 70-200 GMII (and perhaps one 1.4 GM prime) and a X2D with two V lenses into my travel backpack along with a Profoto A2 and small click octa softbox for a high-quality travel setup. I can't really take both the Sony and GFX system the same way given the volume it would occupy and the functionality overlap it has with the Sony.

Is the X2D designed as a high-quality companion camera to a full frame setup, filling a few holes the full frame system has? It seems to me that the X2D and Its leaf shutter lenses complement a Sony A7RV system better than a GFX system (which is a higher resolution but less evolved in every other way Sony).

It's for me, because I have not tried those other cameras and have no interest in doing so. It's for me because I also shoot film with my Hasselblad V system and it's nice to have the X2D along on projects with a V adapter for the occasional digital shot.

It's for me because I like the image quality I get from it and the way it operates. Those other cameras are not for me because I will not choose them. Back to making pictures....

 

[glennedens]

Rob, thank you for the kind words, Glenn

Thanks for this Glen. I enjoyed your gallery. In a few cases I saw why you took the photo before I saw your caption (which confirmed that I was seeing correctly as it were). A good example is 'Waiting' -- which leapt out at me. I would have been disappointed if you'd called it anything else.

You are right that we are living in the golden age of equipment options. People often obsess over minutiae. The cameras we have today are miraculous, and I'm thinking just of the "affordable" ones!

 

[Mexecutioner]

Hold on Phaseone is creating a mirrorless camera like Fuji/Hassy?

If they are I don’t think it’s going to be that cheap, also the lenses will probably be priced much higher to not lose the “premium appeal” if that still means something these days.

 

[larkis]

Id add the X2D if money weren’t an option and I was hanging on to the Sony setup. The UI for the HB is one of the best out there, I love the simplicity, and I love the IQ from the lenses. The Sony would fill any gaps in performance/lens lineup left by the HB, and some of the advantages in my book of the GFX are moot with the Sony.

If sticking to a single digital asset manager (like LR or Capture One) for post-processing with the Sony, I’d go GFX. I’ve always used phocus in combo with Lightroom for HB files, others do it diff. You may or may not want to add in Phocus to your workflow pipeline (you can also just use Lightroom with the HB files). Cant use capture one with HB without a workaround, unless they’ve changed it since I checked last.

If I were moving to only one system, I’d go GFX. It acts more like a FF35 camera and has a more versatile lens lineup IMHO.

If money was a concern or I didn’t want to spend a lot, I’d go used GFX100S or stick with the Sony.

im at a point in my own life and shooting where I’ve learned traveling with two systems in one backpack is more of a PITA and hindrance to shooting than advantageous, and it’s easier just to stick with one system (one set of batteries, one charger, one set of memory cards formatted the same, less to carry, more focus on shooting instead of worrying about which camera to use, etc). I’ve traveled with Nikon/Hasselblad, Sony/Pentax 645z, P1/HB, Leica/HB, etc, my own days of doing it are likely done. Some of best images are a product of just being there with a camera in hand instead of which camera I took the shot with. YMMV.

Thanks for this post. It’s probably closest to my general hunch about which system I should add. I also travelled with my sony and 645z setup (through the Himalayas with solar panel) and it was definitely a pain switching between the systems. I did get shots I was happy with from both, the MF files always printed nicer though.

 

[Thorkil]

If sticking to a single digital asset manager (like LR or Capture One) for post-processing with the Sony, I’d go GFX. I’ve always used phocus in combo with Lightroom for HB files, others do it diff. You may or may not want to add in Phocus to your workflow pipeline (you can also just use Lightroom with the HB files). Cant use capture one with HB without a workaround, unless they’ve changed it since I checked last.

I just export the 3FR raw files as TIFF files through Phocus, and import them in C1 with no problems.
Works just easy for me
But it take some space on the harddrives, though.
So a professional who takes a lot of pictures might need some solid harddrives installed in the stationary.
Got 4 inside. The only advantage to the X1D, smaller files

 

[tcdeveau]

Thanks for this post. It’s probably closest to my general hunch about which system I should add. I also travelled with my sony and 645z setup (through the Himalayas with solar panel) and it was definitely a pain switching between the systems. I did get shots I was happy with from both, the MF files always printed nicer though.

no prob! Can’t argue there.

this IQ4 150 achro print in my house makes me happy every time I walk by. It got to be exhibited in a local museum for a months too. Was happy others got to enjoy the print for what it was! It’s next to a wall of prints from hasselblads and Sony’s and Nikons and I prefer the HB prints on the wall over the Sony/nikon ones.

 

[Godfrey]

Regards the "full frame" stuff, thanks Steve (and everyone). I think the term is only truly relevant for 35mm format cameras and sensors, personally, because there are simply too many different "medium format" (aka 120/220 roll film) camera formats out there (645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, et al). For me, the 'definitive' full frame 120 roll-film format camera has been and always will be the Rolleiflex TLR and Hasselblad SLR 6x6 cameras, with a full-frame film format of 56x56 mm. And this despite the fact that I've owned and used more 6x4.5 and 6x9 cm format film cameras ...

You missed my favorite Hasselblad X lens, the (evidently now discontinued) XCD 21mm f/4. I don't use it so much as I use the 45P or 65, but it *is* my favorite, just like the Hasselblad SuperWide with Zeiss Biogon 38mm f/4.5 was always my favorite film Hassy...

But it's not worth going on about the full-frame nomenclature, I agree. I'm much more interested in sensor proportions and FoV with available lenses than how the digital sensor compares to a film camera. I often shoot the 907x/CFVII 50c set to square format—that is essentially a 33x33 mm format sensor—which provides close to classic Hasselblad SuperWide (38mm), 80mm, and 120mm on an A12 film back when used with XCD 21, 45P, and 65 mm lenses. Using Rui Salguiero's FoV calculator:

Width = 56 mm, Length = 56 mm, Diagonal = 79.196 mm
f - Hor Vert Diag H/V
38.0 - 72.7687 72.7687 92.3595 1.0000
80.0 - 38.5801 38.5801 52.6685 1.0000
120.0 - 26.2680 26.2680 36.5240 1.0000

Width = 33 mm, Length = 33 mm, Diagonal = 46.669 mm
f - Hor Vert Diag H/V
21.0 - 76.3145 76.3145 96.0285 1.0000
45.0 - 40.2726 40.2726 54.8175 1.0000
65.0 - 28.4869 28.4869 39.4955 1.0000

Those three FoV options have been the basis of my medium format shooting since 1966. Yeah, I'm old. ... And I do have a couple of other choices, but they never get used as much.

35mm cameras have been mostly standardized on 24x36mm format since Oskar created the first leicht Kamera ... and because of the small film format, a much wider variety of focal lengths has been essential to getting quality results. So calling that a "full-frame" standard makes a lot more sense; although it was originally considered "double-frame" since the invention of the 35mm camera was tied together with 35mm cine format of 24x18 mm "single-frame" dimensions. (The original leicht Kamera was intended to be an exposure test device for cine work...)

Ah, words.

G