They definitely looked better. Would have been nice to see more examples spread out throughout the video. It also would have been nice to see more of Bern. Otherwise, what's the point of telling us where you are?
@@mdozaphotography This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her… 1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.) 2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy. I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard you saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony.
And I think that's what confuses so many people, that 135 film type is 35mm tall. The coincidence in the numbers makes ppl think that all other formats have that numerical relationship.
Just a note: we do have the 4:3 aspect ratio with another crop sensor, m43. Olympus has a great color output as well. of course, right towards the opposite spectrum, as the m43 gear is really versatile and compact, fast and small.
The hasselblad is actually a cropped medium format camera and the sensor inside it is nearly five years old + the X1D (1st version has the same sensor). I've used both the A7rIV and the X1D and to the naked eye you cant really tell the difference to the overall quality of the files straight out of camera on a 5K IMac screen, obviously apart from the aspect ratio. What I did find was that the Hasselblad had slightly better shadow and highlight recovery but the new sensor on the A7RIV is so good (IMO) its very hard to tell the difference. Its best to go with the Sony because of the superior AF, cheaper lenses (the Hasselblad lens prices are brutal) & IBIS.
@@andrewward7042 if he is shooting jpgs and his final output is his computer screen Web only content then must cameras output encluding phones cameras made in the last 5 years may look similar.
Lots of thoughts -- but the main one is that people I know who have the X1D II 50C (which is way better than the previous version) prefer their H5D's and almost exclusively don't use the X1DII, but then these folk have paid 4-6 times the amount than the cost of a D850 with top of the line lenses (not otus). That said what you avoided mentioning was that the H shoots 16-bit RAW not "just" 14 or 10 bit which is the best one can get from a FF. This provides much more colour/tonal information to work with. I agree the H colour palette has been superbly profiled for skin tones, but you can replicate this in LR or PS on a 14-bit raw image with the correct adjustments.
The question is actually if the people using H5D's have larger sensors in those setups? This X1D series is only 44x33, and you can get 54x41 sensors for H5D, which makes a big difference.
@@KNURKonesur -- Lizzie's vid was- nice piece, but there was so much more to say about Hasselblad Raw shooting in 16-bit than Sony (nikon/cannon) in 14-bit - in terms of colour depth and the resulting image quality. As always with H -vs- other small format questions the key test is between Cost and Value (to you as owner/user). I would like to see the Hasselblad compared to the D850 and the H6D-100c -- it fits in the middle - price wise too - H6D-100c (40k - with one good lens, say the 150mm), X1D II (15k - with their 120mm macro), and the D850 (6k with either of the 105mm) -- compare shots of landscape, natural light portrait and studio light portraits at various lighting conditions. I would like each camera to be tested tracking slow/mid speed action -- but no cheetah chases. There is no way for the 300mm+T/C on the H6D can remotely get close to my D850 and 600mm f/4 and its 9fps (with grip). But I doubt anyone is up for this. The H6d-100c has a 53x40mm sensor, whereas the H6D-50c's sensor is smaller 44x33mm the same size as the XCD II -- vs- 24x36mm FX body
Would like facts comparing the 2 cameras besides dimensions... "color science" shouldn't be the main seller for a Medium format camera and as a photographer whose audience is other photographers (hopefully not people who haven't picked up a camera), we would like to see some actual facts behind why should you make your choice. Like card slots, how practical it is, lens selection, customer care, more on dynamic range, bit depth (not just color science), medium format aperture compared to full frame, leaf shutter vs actual shutter, and then an editorial piece or opinions. The kind of people watching this video aren't just sony haters or medium format junkies, they're people actually in the market for a high megapixel, professional quality, wide dynamic range cameras with a good lens lineup.
You always make what you talk about interesting. But I have a couple of corrections for you: - 120 film is not 120mm. It was name 120 because it was the 20th film format Kodak created, their first having been called 101. - a 4:3 ratio isn’t what gives medium format its look (otherwise everyone would simply be cropping to that aspect ratio). The MF look is created when you are using a longer lens to get the same coverage as a smaller format film or sensor. In this case, using a 75 or 80mm lens to achieve the same coverage of a 45 to 50mm lens for 35mm full frame. Using that longer lens gives you the same angle of coverage but with the perspective characteristic of its longer focal length.
The way you phrase this I have to disagree. Focal lengths don't have a look. it's your position in relation to your object and the field of view that create this look, not the focal length. If you take an image from the same position with both a 24mm and an 135mm lens, the look (concerning depth perception) will be the same once you crop into the 24mm shot. Sure, the aperture has an influence but looking at both the Hasselblad and the Fujifilm medium format lens lineup you actually have "worse" effects in regards to shallow depth of field. Now what those larger sensors can offer is superiour dynamic range by about 1-2 stops. But that's sort of it. Oh and an addition to the aspect ratio: funny enough the MFT system has 4:3 as well and actually most medium format cameras did not have this aspect ratio. This is only the case for the small/baby medium format with 6x4.5cm images. There was also 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. Currently I think only PhaseOne has something close to actual (small) medium format on offer with their IQ3/4 digi backs. Even the Hasselblad H6D is pretty off in this regards (same 43.8 x 32.9mm, just like the X1D ii and the GFX line).
I disagree. You would be right when you compare both lenses in your example on the same film format/sensor size. But when you increase film size, an 80mm lens on medium format film/sensor will give you the same angle of coverage as a 50mm lens in Full Frame, both shot from the same distance (because the angle of coverage is the same.)
@@gottanikoncamera Apply the crop and choose the equivalent aperture and there is no difference. There is no look to focal lengths. There's only your position in relation to your subject. In regards to depth of field the mathematical approximation is DoF = (2u²C)/(fD) with u being the distance to the object, C being the Circle of Confusion, f the focal length and D the diameter of the entrance pupil. C can only be approximated, one common approximation would be d/1500 with d being the diagonal of the sensor - which only makes for roughly 1.1% of the overall result so the effect of the sensor is marginal with this approximation. There's another one based on thr Snellen criterion and it's f/1750. Again, a marginal effect. The circle of confusion is just an indication on how much the focus can be off in order for it to be still perceived as sharp. Obviously this entirely depends on the size of a photosite since this is the smallest possible size that can be perceived as a single point. We could no start arguing with Bayer CFA and the fact that one pixel is being interpolated from 4 adjacent photo sites but this would then start to get a bit out of hand. Now, the focal length has an effect, yes but it can be entirely countered with a larger entrance pupil aka aperture. The most important factor is always your position in regards to your subject as you can clearly see from the formula. The sole fact that there is not a single (!) modern (and vintage to my knowledge) medium format lens with a larger equivalent aperture than you can get on a full frame camera there is no advantage of medium format in this regard. As said before: there is however an advantage in regards to dynamic range and comparing same generation sensors also in ISO performance. That is all you get with medium format. Note: I've inserted some fractions into the original formula to get to a more readable one. The formula you usually find in textbooks is DoF = (2u²NC)/f² but since N=f/D (your f-number) you just insert it and you'll get the one I wrote above.
As a portrait shooter I’m in a toss up between one of these and a canon R5 when it comes out. The Hasselblad does mean changing my entire system, but after doing a test shoot with one recently I feel like it’s ruined my expectations of what a camera should produce. Also if I had seen you guys in Bern shooting this I totally would have been fan girling
the x1d ii actually has 14,8 stops of dynamic range :) not 14 I usually use it for studio work and travel where you have time. The pure and highly enjoyable user experience of the camera and the XCD lenses is somewhat the combo of aspect ratio, micro contrast, resolution, color depth, dynamic range, image information and dof falloff. It feels like a step closer to reality compared to fullframe.
This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her… 1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.) 2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy. I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard her saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony. Also 61mpx of the a7RIV are way way smaller since they’re packed inside a full frame sensor size while the 50mpx from the hasselblad are spread across the entire medium format size and that makes a tremendous difference in low light performance and DR. She’s wrong on so many levels..
...I really think you're asking for too much, @@costinvaly1 - I take the view that videos of this type are rarely aimed at thinking photographers. She knows her vacuous point-and-shoot audience. Welcome to the interweb.
4:3 isn't that unique. Older camera phones had it set as default as it was the aspect ratio of the sensor used. Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds before that are 4:3, kinda a give away in the name. Most compact cameras had 4:3 aspect ratio sensors. Medium format and any larger sensor choice is really down to detail and colour depth.
You failed to mention pixel pitch and difference in depth of field. Medium format also encourages you for more "mindful" photography with a slower pace. As far as aspect ratio, cropping can alter in either direction.
I prefer the Fujifilm GFX Medium format cameras over the Hassie. I may be wrong but I think they may use the same sensor, but there are other issues such as the Fuji colour science, the signal to noise ratio going on behind the sensor, and I have heard the Fujifilm cameras are less buggy than the Hassie. Just thought I would share my experience, hope it helps.
Fuji has made lenses for Hasselblad, dating back to the H series. They also collaborated on the XPan and TX-1. I love my GFX, ditched Nikon and haven’t looked back.
I used to shoot on film medium format (don’t get scared kids. You had to do your own focusing and loading back in the stone ages. Those days are gone haha). It really excelled at studio portraits and landscapes. I’m not super shocked they didn’t go nuts with a Sony style super fast AF. The camera looks really cool. I miss shooting medium format.
MKVD this one in particular i would say is. The x1d is more of a „point an shoot“ to get creative and play around with, just like the eos rbut with a bigger sensor. For the real pro use i prefer the h6d body for Studio and location shootings and a classic SLR or mirrorless like the a7iii or riii for things like weddings etc..
Superlative review! As you mentioned, I too have found the size of an imaging sensor to be a crucial determinant of image quality. Everything else being equal, a large sensor has larger individual pixel-units that offer wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller sensors in the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. Comparing the professional Hasselblad X1D II and Sony a9 cameras I own, the X1D II features a medium format sensor and the a9 a full frame sensor [both with a mirrorless design]. The sensor area in the a9 is 41 percent smaller than the X1D II. Apart from body and sensor, the cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. For instance, the two cameras I mention are similar with respect to both having an electronic viewfinder. However, the one in the X1D II offers a slightly higher resolution than the one in the A9 Herein lies the rub. I use the Sony a9 occasionally in studio - and always on locations. Alternately, I use the Hasselblad X1D [nearly] exclusively in studio - and rarely on locations. The a9 has on-sensor phase detect pixels, which results in fast and reliable autofocus acquisition when on locations. While the X1D II affords me the back to basics composition method of deliberate image focus on a tripod in studio. Another feature that makes the a9 my go to camera for location shoots is in-body image stabilization (IBIS). The a9 reduces the risk of handshake-induced blur with all attached lenses - nice to have shooting hand held on location, while the X1D II offers no in body or lenses blur reduction for optical image stabilization. For some folks, the relative strengths in the a9 may be the preferred camera. However, the various camera strengths between the two meet different aspects for my photography needs. Ultimately, when purchasing equipment at this level - the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.
This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her… 1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.) 2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy. I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard her saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony. Also 61mpx of the a7RIV are way way smaller since they’re packed inside a full frame sensor size while the 50mpx from the hasselblad are spread across the entire medium format size and that makes a tremendous difference in low light performance and DR. She’s wrong on so many levels in this video..
When we talk about pixels, we talk about inventions of the computer and firmware in the camera. How good colors are as a result of that, depends on what the camera manufacturer does in the camera - after the sensor. The electronics and firmware are crucial in that. Between sensor and all this is a stage called AD conversion (analog to digital - the sensor is analog) and how well this is built determines how repeatably reliable metered values per photosite are. It has some impact on noise and consistency. In older cameras, the AD conversation was done in a discrete piece of electronics. In newer cameras, the AD conversion may be baked onto the sensor chip and the limitations are a given. Hasselblad in the first X1D still used discrete AD conversion - it is the only way to get 16-bits gradation resolution per color channel. Along these lines, I'd liked to have been informed if the second version still has the discrete Hasselblad AD conversion and does 16-bits per color channel.
That is the knowledge that actually makes a difference. Everyone just talks about megapixels, frames per second, AF speed and nobody focuses on maximizing the capabilities of the sensors... Shame, but that's what is popular and what people can understand. What you mention isn't that deep for technically inclined people, but waaaay too deep for a lot of modern photographers who just look at how pictures look like and decide on that basis. They say it's still 16-bits, but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to answer your question with full certainty.
@@KNURKonesur - thanks. You know, in a Nikon Z, in RAW movie, camera set to "flat" profile, there is less sharpening than in other profiles. In cooking terms, our raw files are "well done" and to an extent that makes talking about sensors totally irrelevant. We can assume that the bits per channel per pixel in the raw file are not a linear representation of light levels. But more like film where the 10log I"t (density) curve showed dynamic compression at the low and the high lights. Or, gradation subtlety in the middle. All these details explain why the likes of Adobe and DxO test cameras: to figure out what the bits in raw pixels mean. In the meantime, Adobe seems to engage with camera brands to give this information so as to speed up adding support for a new camera in Camera Raw (and Lightroom).
Sorry, but you missed the point about the megapixels. The X1D has 50MP, and yes the Sony Alpha 7R IV has more. But what counts, especially when it comes to image quality in low light situations, it the pixel pitch (the size of the actual pixel). This relates to how much the light needs to be amplified and how noise you will have on your image. That is also the reason, why the color rendition is much better on the X1D than on almost any other camera.
nice video, just a couple of things at 3.13 you state it has 14 stops of dynamic range, it is in fact 14.8 stops so more than the comparison and second point it has 16 bit Raw capability so able to capture more subtle colours and tonal qualities.
love the Hasselblad pics, but as an aside Lizzie, a photographer called Karl Taylor, a Hasselblad ambasador, granted, but he did a video with the H6D and that exact sony a7r combo you were saying about, interesting viewing, and in this the colour, esp the red/green are more vibrant than the sony camera files, for the same MP's, and he did use the 85 G series more expensive lens to even up the comparison; so you are right, the colours are more saturated because of the Hasselblad colour science, but one other point, with the high iso problems with these larger sensors, they aren't as much of an issue as one may think; as with the larger print sizes you do make with these cameras, you look at it from further away, so any grain/noise is less aparent, also you are in a studio with these cameras, using high output studio lights, so you don't need to use the high iso as often as you may with a dslr / micro_4/3rds or mirrorless camera, you manily use the 50/100/200 iso range, so you are not in the problem zone too often.
Large format is NOT 10x12 cm as shown at 1:13 in the video but 4x5", 8x10" or even larger instead. Manufacturers redefined what large format means purely for marketing purposes because it sounds better for the bit larger than full frame sensors. Traditional medium format is smallest 4.5x6 cm, and normal as 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 cm. This will be a big difference - to really use medium format, use film.
You realize that 4x5" is almost exactly 10x12cm? And up until a couple years ago you could buy 9x12cm AND 4x5" film cause different manufacturers of large format cameras had different sheet film holders? There was also 5x7" AND 13x18cm film between the ones you mentioned. Also all the "traditional medium format" sizes you mention all use 120 format film. What about 127 format film and multiple others that allowed bigger frames than 135 format, but smaller than 120 format? What are those?
@@KNURKonesur You seem to hit on semantics and fully ignore my point that the current digital medium format is much smaller than any traditional medium format film. 127 format (no longer available!) is only 2 cm smaller than 120 film but also considered medium format. So assuming the current smallest medium format film size - 4.5 x 6 cm as I mentioned - is in the smallest size and about the same as the 127 roll film which is 4.6 cm. This is still larger than the largest digital medium format sensor size in its sensor length, and certainly in the sensor height.
I love my Sony A7R III and I'm gonna be real, I've never considered a Hasselblad before... but I really liked the color depth on the photos coming out of it. I was impressed! The comparatively long wait for the autofocus I think would have reacted the same way you guys did 😂
I came across someone's Instagram post and my comment to them was "sometimes I really can't tell whether his photos were taken in real life or they were 3D rendered completely." Because they look really clean and smooth. And he responded by saying it's the Hasselblad medium format, which in my 3 years of videography/photography was not something I really know much about or even looked into. Which is what led me to Googling and YouTubing up to this video. Now I do have a better understanding of what medium format is and what the Hasselblad brand is known for after watching this, but now it brings up another question. I want to replicate the same Hasselblad quality and look. I already have a Nikon Z6. Do I spend extra money buying a Hasselblad X1D or are there certain filters/editing in Photoshop I could do to mimic it?? Thank you so much for the informative video!
The Sony A7 series is a brilliant system. Incredibly advanced autofocus, and packed full of features. It’s plenty good enough for 99% of photographer, and is priced very competitively (the body, at least). Comparing it and the X1D II is like comparing an F22 with a 747 - they both fly, but they aren’t designed for the same purpose. Firstly, medium format sensors offer superior colour depth and dynamic range. Please check out some full size raw files from the X1D on a good screen, I’m sure you’ll be amazed at how incredible the images look. Moreover, the leaf shutter makes this camera more suited to a studio setting. Flash can be synchronised at all shutter speeds up to 1/2000. Some people will say that you can buy an A7R4 for half the price of an X1D II, with even more MP. But does megapixels tell the whole story? They are different cameras aimed at different markets.
This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her… 1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.) 2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy. I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard her saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony. Also 61mpx of the a7RIV are way way smaller since they’re packed inside a full frame sensor size while the 50mpx from the hasselblad are spread across the entire medium format size and that makes a tremendous difference in low light performance and DR. She’s wrong on so many levels..
To have the best color science, use capture one, and then change your sony's color profile in "base characteristics" to a different profile. I highly recommend changing it to the "dxo one>>generic" profile.
Color science is often used to describe colors right out of camera and not whether you can fix them in post. But yeah, CaptureOne for raw processing no matter the camera
@@boyansyarov8136 yup and colors absolutely look different sooc in capture one. Theres a few videos around showing the difference in warm tones compared to lightroom
Have you tried to process the X1D in Capture One? or Lightroom? My Pentax 645z shines in Capture One just like a Phase one with accurate colors but in Lightroom the results are very poor especially skin tones.....Love your channel! Thanks for posting such great videos!
The main difference is missing: The sensor size ,not the megapixels. No matter if the A7RIV has more megapixels like you mentioned ,it has a smaller sensor than MF. Also,the size of the pixels are bigger in the medium format .This specific sensor is about 6years old and still beats every FF camera.That Hasselblad (or Fuji GFX) has a sensor that is x1.7 bigger than full frame.That means better dynamic range,better tonality,better iso performance .It's not about color science.Oh ,the Hassy's glass as well ,it's a slap in the Sony's face....and it's a crop medium format.Normal medium format is 54mm x 40mm where there are stratospheric differences .
So... I shot full frame 35mm and medium format... I'm currently shooting with a Phase One XF IQ350 system. It's the same sensor size and resolution as that Hasselblad in your video. I wouldn't go back to 35mm if I had a choice. There are pro's and con's to both systems, with Medium Format, the sensors will blow away anything on 35mm. The bit depth will be deeper than 35 sensors every day of the week. The only downside that I've found with shooting medium format, the lens variety is not as prolific as you would find in the 35mm world. A thing I do enjoy with my Phase is that I can adapt old Hasselblad V series lenses to my system and shoot with some nice old glass.
For me as a portrait photographer, there already were enough good lenses for medium format way back in the 1980s. The tricky bit is to adapt them to modern cameras, but it's doable :D
@@KNURKonesur unfortunately, I just had to part with my Phase due to this whole pandemic screwing up finances and work. I am back to shooting 35mm (Canon 5DsR). I will likely get back to DMF within the next two years.
i'm looking to upgrade to a mirrorless and w outstanding low light function but the hasselblad vs nikon vs sony is still making it hard for me to choose. i'm curious what you think about the new z2 from nikon?
Searched 'what is a medium frame camera good for'. Watched 2 mins and hit subscribe. Great presentation skills. You answered questions I didn't know I had 🤣🤣
Only difference is perspective. You get the telephoto compression even with less telephoto angle of view. Because medium format could use greater focal length for same wide shot , this will cause less distortion when shooting wide. Aspect ratio is bluff , even an apsc can use 4:3 aspect ratio, so what is the difference between medium format and apsc ? Watch the movie Joker dance scence. You would understand what medium format look is.
Lizzie , You is BRAVE! Shooting off a balcony with a Hasselblad, no straps ! O-M-G ! I can't even pick up my crop sensor Canon without my Black Rapid Strap securely attached. Wooo gimmieh the willies it does ! Of course you have insurance, why wouldn't you‽ Oh and talking about specs, hot. Makes a person's inner geek squee with happiness.
Medium to full format is not made for run and gun. Why does almost every TH-camr compare them? by the way, I own a D850 and the Hasselblad 50c X1d II you can't even compare those.
Cool Video. Some fun facts... - You can put the A7Riv into 4:3 Aspect Ratio and still end up with a 51MP file. But yeah, you still have Sony color science = meh compared to Hassy - Don't be afraid of Micro Four Thirds if you're diggin' the 4:3 aspect ratio. Olympus (OM Systems) and Panasonic both have wonderful color science, a crap ton of lenses, and image quality that is good enough for plenty of "pros". - GFX line is also pretty amaze. And the Fuji film simulations, yes please.
I am using Fuji GFX now but this Hasselblad is charming ! I especially liked the video images of this report. Beautiful shots. I would like you to let me know what camera and lens you have used. It must be a very bright lens with high quality. Sony?
I think the Hasselblad X1D II would make a great landscape photography camera or like you said Lizzie, for editorial style photos, but with the slow auto focus, and how I work with models from time to time as well as for general portrait photography or for weddings, it would not be the ideal camera. For myself, my Nikon Z6 and Nikon Z7 meet all my needs for both photos and video, especially with the fast auto focus and now improved face detect and Eye AF with the latest firmware release 3.0 the other day. Plus honestly Nikon's colour science is and just overall colour is better than both Sony and Canon in my honest opinion. I do love the colour out of the Hasselblad but again, I couldn't see myself getting one just due to the slow auto focus.
Awesome video!! Love that camera and dream with having one in my hands. About the editing, love the new style but I feel some resources have been over used, and the typing sounds are way too loud for my style. At the beginning I loved the color little distortion. Awesome, but way too used. Hope this is helpful! Cheers!
4:3 is close-ish to some poster sizes but 3:2 is closer to a magazine as that's not far off A4. The medium format sensor is more suited to print for its extra detail not it's aspect ratio.
Camera shoots a certain size should not really be a criteria. You can crop it afterwards. The tonality and image size will allow this. Hasselblad lenses and most importantly color should be the main reason. Light does not have many quantifiable qualities: the amount, color, and the color distribution over image, the tonality. A camera that can do one thousand things but not get light itself right is not much of value -- if that is what one values(as opposed to autofocus speed). So, with Hasselblad it is just: ergonomics, lenses, and ultimately color rendition.
The Hassleblad X1DII looks super nice, the colors depth are a massive plus but to move from Sony - well i guess i have both as two of my drones have hassleblad cameras but i cannot see me move from the Sony Alpha, theyre just too flexible for what I shoot. Great video Lizzie
36 seconds and trembling at the possibility of her accidentally dropping the Hasselblad over the wall😅... Great video; didn't really know much about MF cameras.
I've wanted a Hasselblad for a while now, because I really love that medium format look/feel that you get, plus the colour science obviously. They're just so damn expensive. Plus the extra glass. Uff.
I'm a Nikon shooter but I'm impressed with the Hasselblad and I couldn't help but be impressed with the specs but since I shoot portraits most of all that slow focus would probably bother me after all but boy.. I'd love to shoot some landscapes with it for a day :) Thanks for making this video.
Good video! I was just surprised you said nothing about the depth of field difference with medium vs full frame. The medium format has such a unique look to it because of the bigger censor size.
Isn't the whole point of having a larger sensor is to have better ISO? If so it seems all you are paying for is 2 bits of extra depth which admitted is significant though.
Every digital camera is great. Every camera is great in general, if you use it to do cool stuff. Going to the gym is also a good remedy for your broken back :P
You made kind of a small mistake but you was still right. At 0:24 when you clicked the 3:2 onto the 4:3 people will think full frame is just long which it is but 4:3 is taller.
Nice video... ignore the anoraks correcting you on the film size stuff, seriously guys who cares. Just bought the a7r4 and love it and it compares very well to my phase
I'm a little surprised that a medium format camera with relatively large pixels doesn't keep up with the Sony R3 for low light, and I'm not sure the aspect ratio is that big of a thing when you can change it both in camera and in post, but it was a fun video regardless :)
doesn't really matter. My sensor is way bigger then the x1d, and I can't shoot over iso 200. I'm pushing it with iso 200 actually. there are many more things than pixel pitch that influence iso performance. That being said the dinamic range at iso 100 or 50 vs any other camera is unparalleled.
It's for pro photographers that want to be taken seriously, bring it on a shoot then switch. Now if you already have a studio of lenses and a digital back doesnt cut it for you it makes sense
I think your right they do have there own look, I have had the first version of theX1D and just love the results. But it a tool and as such does not suit every type of photography so that is why I have a Nikon system too. So if I what fast action or long lenses I use my Nikon system but in the studio and landscape I use the Hasselblad. Nice video and thank you for see the X1D as a tool .
@@Theeuanshields nah i have two 501 C/M bronicas are cheap, good quality, tiny, super light, and sturdy. Also they where produced till 2004 i think. A bronica etrsi with lens costs around 250 bucks, so why not try it out :) Me personally it would miss 6x6 on a 645 cam so ..
Inevitable Crafts Lab Theres a reason bronica went out of business. They had a very bad reliability rep. Buy something that can still be fixed by the original manufacturer
i don't think the mpx is a comparison thingy, for medium format v/s full frame, even the a7r4. i hope medium format doesn't become the INSTAGRAM camera :S Nice video :))
Don't know enough about medium format cameras (prior to this video) and honestly, I don't have the money for them either. Just wanted to say I'm digging the background music, especially the sax. Thanks for the informative and short video!
The budget camera everyone wants this year is the Canon R6. It's all about the RF system for me. I'm really interested in the R5 and also the Red Komodo. Hopefully, Canon will announce their first RF cinema camera soon.
This video was really precise and to the point. Great job Lizzie keep bringing more of such comparisons if possible. It's always good to learn about different types of sensors and cameras used in photography industry.
You can pick up some older Hasselblads of the H-line for about as much as a brand new full frame. But yeah, my H4D-40 isn't a low light camera either. These cameras, in my opinion, are for photographers with a studio.
This is the first video of yours I watched, and I must say, I'm already a big fan of your work :) Amazing videos Lizzie. Love the way it's edited. Keep up the great work!
Great edits, great looking person, great personality, great energy, great colour and sharpness and light in the video... Now just to get the facts right about the cameras and it's going to be all great :D
![[Gegagedigedagedago] NEW Help Gegagedigedagedago Nugget escape from Nikocado Avocado Challenge](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hJWnwRC2Fz8/mqdefault.jpg)
How did you guys like those Hasselblad pics?!
loved them
It really seems to be a bit better on the color depth! Thanx for the comparison!! 👍🏻
Photos look great! Those colors are definitely no joke.
Those Hasselblad pics look really good, like more 3D somehow then the sonys
They definitely looked better. Would have been nice to see more examples spread out throughout the video. It also would have been nice to see more of Bern. Otherwise, what's the point of telling us where you are?
1:06 Dear Lizzie, it's not 120mm film, it's actually called 120 film (wothout the millimetres). Loved the video as usual🔥
martim sousa Added a correction in the description!
@@LizziePeirce a long time ago Kodak standardized film formats and they had serial numbers, e.g. 120, 127, 135.
This triggered me
So I'm not the only one who noticed this
I’m just going to say this. The Hasselblad isn’t for anyone who is a instagramographer.
jup
Cuz you said so…..GTFOH
Takes creditability away from the status of what Hasselblad has created
@@mdozaphotography This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her…
1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.)
2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy.
I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard you saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony.
That's true Full Frame and medium format cameras are used by Professional Photographers
120 film is 60mm, not 120mm. '120' is just the type, just like 35mm is '135 film' type.
And I think that's what confuses so many people, that 135 film type is 35mm tall. The coincidence in the numbers makes ppl think that all other formats have that numerical relationship.
I think there is a hashtag in instagram something like 120not120mm
Just a note: we do have the 4:3 aspect ratio with another crop sensor, m43. Olympus has a great color output as well. of course, right towards the opposite spectrum, as the m43 gear is really versatile and compact, fast and small.
when you got money you can hold a hasselblad with no camera strap and you aint shook haha
The hasselblad is actually a cropped medium format camera and the sensor inside it is nearly five years old + the X1D (1st version has the same sensor). I've used both the A7rIV and the X1D and to the naked eye you cant really tell the difference to the overall quality of the files straight out of camera on a 5K IMac screen, obviously apart from the aspect ratio. What I did find was that the Hasselblad had slightly better shadow and highlight recovery but the new sensor on the A7RIV is so good (IMO) its very hard to tell the difference. Its best to go with the Sony because of the superior AF, cheaper lenses (the Hasselblad lens prices are brutal) & IBIS.
I have had both and I disagree. The Hasselblad images are far superior.
@@andrewward7042 if he is shooting jpgs and his final output is his computer screen Web only content then must cameras output encluding phones cameras made in the last 5 years may look similar.
Lots of thoughts -- but the main one is that people I know who have the X1D II 50C (which is way better than the previous version) prefer their H5D's and almost exclusively don't use the X1DII, but then these folk have paid 4-6 times the amount than the cost of a D850 with top of the line lenses (not otus).
That said what you avoided mentioning was that the H shoots 16-bit RAW not "just" 14 or 10 bit which is the best one can get from a FF. This provides much more colour/tonal information to work with.
I agree the H colour palette has been superbly profiled for skin tones, but you can replicate this in LR or PS on a 14-bit raw image with the correct adjustments.
The question is actually if the people using H5D's have larger sensors in those setups? This X1D series is only 44x33, and you can get 54x41 sensors for H5D, which makes a big difference.
@@KNURKonesur -- Lizzie's vid was- nice piece, but there was so much more to say about Hasselblad Raw shooting in 16-bit than Sony (nikon/cannon) in 14-bit - in terms of colour depth and the resulting image quality. As always with H -vs- other small format questions the key test is between Cost and Value (to you as owner/user).
I would like to see the Hasselblad compared to the D850 and the H6D-100c -- it fits in the middle - price wise too - H6D-100c (40k - with one good lens, say the 150mm), X1D II (15k - with their 120mm macro), and the D850 (6k with either of the 105mm) -- compare shots of landscape, natural light portrait and studio light portraits at various lighting conditions. I would like each camera to be tested tracking slow/mid speed action -- but no cheetah chases. There is no way for the 300mm+T/C on the H6D can remotely get close to my D850 and 600mm f/4 and its 9fps (with grip). But I doubt anyone is up for this. The H6d-100c has a 53x40mm sensor, whereas the H6D-50c's sensor is smaller 44x33mm the same size as the XCD II -- vs- 24x36mm FX body
Would like facts comparing the 2 cameras besides dimensions... "color science" shouldn't be the main seller for a Medium format camera and as a photographer whose audience is other photographers (hopefully not people who haven't picked up a camera), we would like to see some actual facts behind why should you make your choice. Like card slots, how practical it is, lens selection, customer care, more on dynamic range, bit depth (not just color science), medium format aperture compared to full frame, leaf shutter vs actual shutter, and then an editorial piece or opinions. The kind of people watching this video aren't just sony haters or medium format junkies, they're people actually in the market for a high megapixel, professional quality, wide dynamic range cameras with a good lens lineup.
wow maybe u should make ur own comparison then...
@@puppybeagle1024 okay
Do you recommend the Hasselblad X1D II for street photography?
You always make what you talk about interesting. But I have a couple of corrections for you:
- 120 film is not 120mm. It was name 120 because it was the 20th film format Kodak created, their first having been called 101.
- a 4:3 ratio isn’t what gives medium format its look (otherwise everyone would simply be cropping to that aspect ratio). The MF look is created when you are using a longer lens to get the same coverage as a smaller format film or sensor. In this case, using a 75 or 80mm lens to achieve the same coverage of a 45 to 50mm lens for 35mm full frame. Using that longer lens gives you the same angle of coverage but with the perspective characteristic of its longer focal length.
The way you phrase this I have to disagree. Focal lengths don't have a look. it's your position in relation to your object and the field of view that create this look, not the focal length. If you take an image from the same position with both a 24mm and an 135mm lens, the look (concerning depth perception) will be the same once you crop into the 24mm shot. Sure, the aperture has an influence but looking at both the Hasselblad and the Fujifilm medium format lens lineup you actually have "worse" effects in regards to shallow depth of field. Now what those larger sensors can offer is superiour dynamic range by about 1-2 stops. But that's sort of it.
Oh and an addition to the aspect ratio: funny enough the MFT system has 4:3 as well and actually most medium format cameras did not have this aspect ratio. This is only the case for the small/baby medium format with 6x4.5cm images. There was also 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9. Currently I think only PhaseOne has something close to actual (small) medium format on offer with their IQ3/4 digi backs. Even the Hasselblad H6D is pretty off in this regards (same 43.8 x 32.9mm, just like the X1D ii and the GFX line).
I disagree. You would be right when you compare both lenses in your example on the same film format/sensor size. But when you increase film size, an 80mm lens on medium format film/sensor will give you the same angle of coverage as a 50mm lens in Full Frame, both shot from the same distance (because the angle of coverage is the same.)
i disagree too, simply because i tested this over and over again. there is no difference, just math
@@gottanikoncamera Apply the crop and choose the equivalent aperture and there is no difference. There is no look to focal lengths. There's only your position in relation to your subject. In regards to depth of field the mathematical approximation is DoF = (2u²C)/(fD) with u being the distance to the object, C being the Circle of Confusion, f the focal length and D the diameter of the entrance pupil. C can only be approximated, one common approximation would be d/1500 with d being the diagonal of the sensor - which only makes for roughly 1.1% of the overall result so the effect of the sensor is marginal with this approximation. There's another one based on thr Snellen criterion and it's f/1750. Again, a marginal effect. The circle of confusion is just an indication on how much the focus can be off in order for it to be still perceived as sharp. Obviously this entirely depends on the size of a photosite since this is the smallest possible size that can be perceived as a single point. We could no start arguing with Bayer CFA and the fact that one pixel is being interpolated from 4 adjacent photo sites but this would then start to get a bit out of hand.
Now, the focal length has an effect, yes but it can be entirely countered with a larger entrance pupil aka aperture. The most important factor is always your position in regards to your subject as you can clearly see from the formula.
The sole fact that there is not a single (!) modern (and vintage to my knowledge) medium format lens with a larger equivalent aperture than you can get on a full frame camera there is no advantage of medium format in this regard.
As said before: there is however an advantage in regards to dynamic range and comparing same generation sensors also in ISO performance. That is all you get with medium format.
Note: I've inserted some fractions into the original formula to get to a more readable one. The formula you usually find in textbooks is DoF = (2u²NC)/f² but since N=f/D (your f-number) you just insert it and you'll get the one I wrote above.
Which camera did you take this video..? Looks good
As a portrait shooter I’m in a toss up between one of these and a canon R5 when it comes out. The Hasselblad does mean changing my entire system, but after doing a test shoot with one recently I feel like it’s ruined my expectations of what a camera should produce. Also if I had seen you guys in Bern shooting this I totally would have been fan girling
the x1d ii actually has 14,8 stops of dynamic range :) not 14
I usually use it for studio work and travel where you have time. The pure and highly enjoyable user experience of the camera and the XCD lenses is somewhat the combo of aspect ratio, micro contrast, resolution, color depth, dynamic range, image information and dof falloff. It feels like a step closer to reality compared to fullframe.
i dont think a medium sensor can be outperformed by a full frame in low light. is there something i am missing?
This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her…
1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.)
2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy.
I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard her saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony. Also 61mpx of the a7RIV are way way smaller since they’re packed inside a full frame sensor size while the 50mpx from the hasselblad are spread across the entire medium format size and that makes a tremendous difference in low light performance and DR. She’s wrong on so many levels..
...I really think you're asking for too much, @@costinvaly1 - I take the view that videos of this type are rarely aimed at thinking photographers. She knows her vacuous point-and-shoot audience. Welcome to the interweb.
4:3 isn't that unique. Older camera phones had it set as default as it was the aspect ratio of the sensor used. Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds before that are 4:3, kinda a give away in the name. Most compact cameras had 4:3 aspect ratio sensors.
Medium format and any larger sensor choice is really down to detail and colour depth.
I shoot the 645z. It's a little older but has the same 50mp sensor. It produced wonderful files!
You didn't mention portrait photography. Which one among them produces great skin tones? Thanks!
You failed to mention pixel pitch and difference in depth of field. Medium format also encourages you for more "mindful" photography with a slower pace. As far as aspect ratio, cropping can alter in either direction.
Hi,
Which camera you use to shoot this video?
I like the colors acience and sharpness.
Hi, wich camera use for tris video; the colours is very nice👍🤗
2:04, Hasselblad has the (leaf) shutter in the lenses, too.
Which is the only thing stopping me from buying one already...
KNUR Konesur ? The leaf shutter is actually the best feature of any Hasselblad system. I don‘t get your point.
This video feels like you had nothing to upload to you made a quick video on medium format. Not that informative smh
And not really correct, either.. :-)
I prefer the Fujifilm GFX Medium format cameras over the Hassie. I may be wrong but I think they may use the same sensor, but there are other issues such as the Fuji colour science, the signal to noise ratio going on behind the sensor, and I have heard the Fujifilm cameras are less buggy than the Hassie. Just thought I would share my experience, hope it helps.
Fuji has made lenses for Hasselblad, dating back to the H series. They also collaborated on the XPan and TX-1. I love my GFX, ditched Nikon and haven’t looked back.
I used to shoot on film medium format (don’t get scared kids. You had to do your own focusing and loading back in the stone ages. Those days are gone haha).
It really excelled at studio portraits and landscapes.
I’m not super shocked they didn’t go nuts with a Sony style super fast AF.
The camera looks really cool. I miss shooting medium format.
BassasaurusRex I shoot medium format film, it’s so much fun. I wouldn’t trade it for anything else
A Hasselblad isn't for a "pro-sumer" wtf
MKVD this one in particular i would say is. The x1d is more of a „point an shoot“ to get creative and play around with, just like the eos rbut with a bigger sensor. For the real pro use i prefer the h6d body for Studio and location shootings and a classic SLR or mirrorless like the a7iii or riii for things like weddings etc..
We use Hasselblad in the studio. It’s for commercial purpose. It’s not a walk around the street camera.
Exactly!
the hasselblad pro series, the h5 or h6 are studio camera. the x1d is really the street, travel camera version
Did you just try and talk about colour science and then flog your presets at the same point 😒
Superlative review! As you mentioned, I too have found the size of an imaging sensor to be a crucial determinant of image quality. Everything else being equal, a large sensor has larger individual pixel-units that offer wider dynamic range, and richer color-depth than smaller sensors in the same technological generation. Furthermore, a large sensor camera will give the photographer more possibilities to use shallow depth-of-field in order to isolate a subject from the background. Comparing the professional Hasselblad X1D II and Sony a9 cameras I own, the X1D II features a medium format sensor and the a9 a full frame sensor [both with a mirrorless design]. The sensor area in the a9 is 41 percent smaller than the X1D II. Apart from body and sensor, the cameras can and do differ across a variety of features. For instance, the two cameras I mention are similar with respect to both having an electronic viewfinder. However, the one in the X1D II offers a slightly higher resolution than the one in the A9
Herein lies the rub. I use the Sony a9 occasionally in studio - and always on locations. Alternately, I use the Hasselblad X1D [nearly] exclusively in studio - and rarely on locations. The a9 has on-sensor phase detect pixels, which results in fast and reliable autofocus acquisition when on locations. While the X1D II affords me the back to basics composition method of deliberate image focus on a tripod in studio. Another feature that makes the a9 my go to camera for location shoots is in-body image stabilization (IBIS). The a9 reduces the risk of handshake-induced blur with all attached lenses - nice to have shooting hand held on location, while the X1D II offers no in body or lenses blur reduction for optical image stabilization. For some folks, the relative strengths in the a9 may be the preferred camera. However, the various camera strengths between the two meet different aspects for my photography needs. Ultimately, when purchasing equipment at this level - the decision which camera is best and worth buying is often a very personal one.
This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her…
1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.)
2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy.
I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard her saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony. Also 61mpx of the a7RIV are way way smaller since they’re packed inside a full frame sensor size while the 50mpx from the hasselblad are spread across the entire medium format size and that makes a tremendous difference in low light performance and DR. She’s wrong on so many levels in this video..
When we talk about pixels, we talk about inventions of the computer and firmware in the camera. How good colors are as a result of that, depends on what the camera manufacturer does in the camera - after the sensor.
The electronics and firmware are crucial in that. Between sensor and all this is a stage called AD conversion (analog to digital - the sensor is analog) and how well this is built determines how repeatably reliable metered values per photosite are. It has some impact on noise and consistency. In older cameras, the AD conversation was done in a discrete piece of electronics. In newer cameras, the AD conversion may be baked onto the sensor chip and the limitations are a given. Hasselblad in the first X1D still used discrete AD conversion - it is the only way to get 16-bits gradation resolution per color channel. Along these lines, I'd liked to have been informed if the second version still has the discrete Hasselblad AD conversion and does 16-bits per color channel.
That is the knowledge that actually makes a difference. Everyone just talks about megapixels, frames per second, AF speed and nobody focuses on maximizing the capabilities of the sensors... Shame, but that's what is popular and what people can understand. What you mention isn't that deep for technically inclined people, but waaaay too deep for a lot of modern photographers who just look at how pictures look like and decide on that basis. They say it's still 16-bits, but unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to answer your question with full certainty.
@@KNURKonesur - thanks. You know, in a Nikon Z, in RAW movie, camera set to "flat" profile, there is less sharpening than in other profiles. In cooking terms, our raw files are "well done" and to an extent that makes talking about sensors totally irrelevant. We can assume that the bits per channel per pixel in the raw file are not a linear representation of light levels. But more like film where the 10log I"t (density) curve showed dynamic compression at the low and the high lights. Or, gradation subtlety in the middle. All these details explain why the likes of Adobe and DxO test cameras: to figure out what the bits in raw pixels mean. In the meantime, Adobe seems to engage with camera brands to give this information so as to speed up adding support for a new camera in Camera Raw (and Lightroom).
I love the frame animations you added while explaining medium format. Thanks Lizzie!
Sorry, but you missed the point about the megapixels. The X1D has 50MP, and yes the Sony Alpha 7R IV has more. But what counts, especially when it comes to image quality in low light situations, it the pixel pitch (the size of the actual pixel). This relates to how much the light needs to be amplified and how noise you will have on your image. That is also the reason, why the color rendition is much better on the X1D than on almost any other camera.
Lizzie at 0:25: "That was quite a mouthful!"
Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K Pro: "Hold my beer."
nice video, just a couple of things at 3.13 you state it has 14 stops of dynamic range, it is in fact 14.8 stops so more than the comparison and second point it has 16 bit Raw capability so able to capture more subtle colours and tonal qualities.
love the Hasselblad pics, but as an aside Lizzie, a photographer called Karl Taylor, a Hasselblad ambasador, granted, but he did a video with the H6D and that exact sony a7r combo you were saying about, interesting viewing, and in this the colour, esp the red/green are more vibrant than the sony camera files, for the same MP's, and he did use the 85 G series more expensive lens to even up the comparison; so you are right, the colours are more saturated because of the Hasselblad colour science, but one other point, with the high iso problems with these larger sensors, they aren't as much of an issue as one may think; as with the larger print sizes you do make with these cameras, you look at it from further away, so any grain/noise is less aparent, also you are in a studio with these cameras, using high output studio lights, so you don't need to use the high iso as often as you may with a dslr / micro_4/3rds or mirrorless camera, you manily use the 50/100/200 iso range, so you are not in the problem zone too often.
What camera did you use to film this? Nice!!!!
Why do you compare the sensor sizes to large format film and not to medium format film? :D
Large format is NOT 10x12 cm as shown at 1:13 in the video but 4x5", 8x10" or even larger instead. Manufacturers redefined what large format means purely for marketing purposes because it sounds better for the bit larger than full frame sensors. Traditional medium format is smallest 4.5x6 cm, and normal as 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9 cm. This will be a big difference - to really use medium format, use film.
You realize that 4x5" is almost exactly 10x12cm? And up until a couple years ago you could buy 9x12cm AND 4x5" film cause different manufacturers of large format cameras had different sheet film holders? There was also 5x7" AND 13x18cm film between the ones you mentioned. Also all the "traditional medium format" sizes you mention all use 120 format film. What about 127 format film and multiple others that allowed bigger frames than 135 format, but smaller than 120 format? What are those?
@@KNURKonesur You seem to hit on semantics and fully ignore my point that the current digital medium format is much smaller than any traditional medium format film. 127 format (no longer available!) is only 2 cm smaller than 120 film but also considered medium format. So assuming the current smallest medium format film size - 4.5 x 6 cm as I mentioned - is in the smallest size and about the same as the 127 roll film which is 4.6 cm. This is still larger than the largest digital medium format sensor size in its sensor length, and certainly in the sensor height.
I love my Sony A7R III and I'm gonna be real, I've never considered a Hasselblad before... but I really liked the color depth on the photos coming out of it. I was impressed! The comparatively long wait for the autofocus I think would have reacted the same way you guys did 😂
I came across someone's Instagram post and my comment to them was "sometimes I really can't tell whether his photos were taken in real life or they were 3D rendered completely." Because they look really clean and smooth. And he responded by saying it's the Hasselblad medium format, which in my 3 years of videography/photography was not something I really know much about or even looked into. Which is what led me to Googling and YouTubing up to this video.
Now I do have a better understanding of what medium format is and what the Hasselblad brand is known for after watching this, but now it brings up another question. I want to replicate the same Hasselblad quality and look. I already have a Nikon Z6. Do I spend extra money buying a Hasselblad X1D or are there certain filters/editing in Photoshop I could do to mimic it??
Thank you so much for the informative video!
To me that makes no sense, as the Instagram photo resolution sucks.
Well, you can set 4:3, 1:1, 16:9 on FF cameras... You lose a few MP of course. Color, ok I buy that. How about bokeh, noise, etc?
Leopoldo Manuel Ramirez Mena yes you can but not with the Hasselblad. Noisey in low light and the bokeh is lovely - has a very unique look I think.
@@LizziePeirce Also there are and were other digital medium format camera aspect ratios than just 4:3 :D
The Sony A7 series is a brilliant system. Incredibly advanced autofocus, and packed full of features. It’s plenty good enough for 99% of photographer, and is priced very competitively (the body, at least). Comparing it and the X1D II is like comparing an F22 with a 747 - they both fly, but they aren’t designed for the same purpose. Firstly, medium format sensors offer superior colour depth and dynamic range. Please check out some full size raw files from the X1D on a good screen, I’m sure you’ll be amazed at how incredible the images look. Moreover, the leaf shutter makes this camera more suited to a studio setting. Flash can be synchronised at all shutter speeds up to 1/2000. Some people will say that you can buy an A7R4 for half the price of an X1D II, with even more MP. But does megapixels tell the whole story? They are different cameras aimed at different markets.
This is one of the worst reviews of the hasselblad X1D especially when compared against a Sony. I’m so disappointed to see so much disinformation coming from her…
1. The Sony isn’t better in low-light at all, if she’s talking primarily about iso performance the hasselblad with its way larger pixels lays way better low light results (some other TH-camr already compared it against the A9 and there was a huge difference in hasselblads favour.)
2. The hasselblad has also way more DR, not just color accuracy.
I think she mixed up “low light performance” with “sports/high-pace photography”, in that case indeed the Hasselblad lacks due to the nature of its design. When I heard her saying the Sony has better low light performance I had to rewind because I thought I was tripping. I’ve worked/compared both myself and there’s significantly less noise on a hasselblad shot at 25600iso when compared to the Sony. Also 61mpx of the a7RIV are way way smaller since they’re packed inside a full frame sensor size while the 50mpx from the hasselblad are spread across the entire medium format size and that makes a tremendous difference in low light performance and DR. She’s wrong on so many levels..
To have the best color science, use capture one, and then change your sony's color profile in "base characteristics" to a different profile. I highly recommend changing it to the "dxo one>>generic" profile.
Color science is often used to describe colors right out of camera and not whether you can fix them in post. But yeah, CaptureOne for raw processing no matter the camera
@@boyansyarov8136 yup and colors absolutely look different sooc in capture one. Theres a few videos around showing the difference in warm tones compared to lightroom
first video I've seen on Hasselblad, I just knew it's an expensive brand of camera, cool to see it against a camera I do own.
Hey Lizzie, I really like the look and feel of this video. What lens are you using to shoot this video with? Thank you!
Have you tried to process the X1D in Capture One? or Lightroom? My Pentax 645z shines in Capture One just like a Phase one with accurate colors but in Lightroom the results are very poor especially skin tones.....Love your channel! Thanks for posting such great videos!
Loved that "we're in Burn, Switzerland" intro 🙂
The main difference is missing: The sensor size ,not the megapixels. No matter if the A7RIV has more megapixels like you mentioned ,it has a smaller sensor than MF. Also,the size of the pixels are bigger in the medium format .This specific sensor is about 6years old and still beats every FF camera.That Hasselblad (or Fuji GFX) has a sensor that is x1.7 bigger than full frame.That means better dynamic range,better tonality,better iso performance .It's not about color science.Oh ,the Hassy's glass as well ,it's a slap in the Sony's face....and it's a crop medium format.Normal medium format is 54mm x 40mm where there are stratospheric differences .
In which camera the video was recorded. Full frame?
Hi actually I like the video quality and colours in this video ...may I know what video camera you have shot this video please ?
So... I shot full frame 35mm and medium format... I'm currently shooting with a Phase One XF IQ350 system. It's the same sensor size and resolution as that Hasselblad in your video. I wouldn't go back to 35mm if I had a choice. There are pro's and con's to both systems, with Medium Format, the sensors will blow away anything on 35mm. The bit depth will be deeper than 35 sensors every day of the week. The only downside that I've found with shooting medium format, the lens variety is not as prolific as you would find in the 35mm world. A thing I do enjoy with my Phase is that I can adapt old Hasselblad V series lenses to my system and shoot with some nice old glass.
For me as a portrait photographer, there already were enough good lenses for medium format way back in the 1980s. The tricky bit is to adapt them to modern cameras, but it's doable :D
@@KNURKonesur unfortunately, I just had to part with my Phase due to this whole pandemic screwing up finances and work. I am back to shooting 35mm (Canon 5DsR). I will likely get back to DMF within the next two years.
i'm looking to upgrade to a mirrorless and w outstanding low light function but the hasselblad vs nikon vs sony is still making it hard for me to choose. i'm curious what you think about the new z2 from nikon?
Searched 'what is a medium frame camera good for'. Watched 2 mins and hit subscribe. Great presentation skills. You answered questions I didn't know I had 🤣🤣
What type of cameras do those ppl use to take poster pictures for a movie? The posters infront of the cinema
It’s incomparable ...!!!
Depends :D
@@KNURKonesur not really, they're two different cameras for two different markets
Indeed. Autofocus speed and colour sience as almost non issues when comparing medium format to full frame. They are two completely different use cases
Only difference is perspective. You get the telephoto compression even with less telephoto angle of view. Because medium format could use greater focal length for same wide shot , this will cause less distortion when shooting wide. Aspect ratio is bluff , even an apsc can use 4:3 aspect ratio, so what is the difference between medium format and apsc ? Watch the movie Joker dance scence. You would understand what medium format look is.
love your videos Lizzie. Quick question, what sliding font text did you use in the video? thanks
proxima nova!
Lizzie , You is BRAVE! Shooting off a balcony with a Hasselblad, no straps ! O-M-G ! I can't even pick up my crop sensor Canon without my Black Rapid Strap securely attached. Wooo gimmieh the willies it does ! Of course you have insurance, why wouldn't you‽ Oh and talking about specs, hot. Makes a person's inner geek squee with happiness.
Medium to full format is not made for run and gun. Why does almost every TH-camr compare them? by the way, I own a D850 and the Hasselblad 50c X1d II you can't even compare those.
Hi, Lizzie. I would like to know which camera and lens you use for this video. Thanks a lot.
Cool Video. Some fun facts...
- You can put the A7Riv into 4:3 Aspect Ratio and still end up with a 51MP file. But yeah, you still have Sony color science = meh compared to Hassy
- Don't be afraid of Micro Four Thirds if you're diggin' the 4:3 aspect ratio. Olympus (OM Systems) and Panasonic both have wonderful color science, a crap ton of lenses, and image quality that is good enough for plenty of "pros".
- GFX line is also pretty amaze. And the Fuji film simulations, yes please.
I love this girl , She's cute very straightforeward...and the vid is perfectly timed... I'm sold..But who the Hell questions HASSELBLAD!??.. Really..
I am using Fuji GFX now but this Hasselblad is charming !
I especially liked the video images of this report. Beautiful shots.
I would like you to let me know what camera and lens you have used.
It must be a very bright lens with high quality. Sony?
the sony sensor that is in the x1d/645z/gfx/phase one 44 x 33 mm cameras has much better lowlight than the a7rIII. check dxo mark
I think the Hasselblad X1D II would make a great landscape photography camera or like you said Lizzie, for editorial style photos, but with the slow auto focus, and how I work with models from time to time as well as for general portrait photography or for weddings, it would not be the ideal camera. For myself, my Nikon Z6 and Nikon Z7 meet all my needs for both photos and video, especially with the fast auto focus and now improved face detect and Eye AF with the latest firmware release 3.0 the other day. Plus honestly Nikon's colour science is and just overall colour is better than both Sony and Canon in my honest opinion. I do love the colour out of the Hasselblad but again, I couldn't see myself getting one just due to the slow auto focus.
Awesome video!! Love that camera and dream with having one in my hands.
About the editing, love the new style but I feel some resources have been over used, and the typing sounds are way too loud for my style. At the beginning I loved the color little distortion. Awesome, but way too used. Hope this is helpful! Cheers!
Can anyone tell me why 4x3 is so commonly used for print and magazines?
4:3 is close-ish to some poster sizes but 3:2 is closer to a magazine as that's not far off A4. The medium format sensor is more suited to print for its extra detail not it's aspect ratio.
How about the dynamic range (specially in backlighting situations)? Which one wins?
Camera shoots a certain size should not really be a criteria. You can crop it afterwards. The tonality and image size will allow this. Hasselblad lenses and most importantly color should be the main reason. Light does not have many quantifiable qualities: the amount, color, and the color distribution over image, the tonality. A camera that can do one thousand things but not get light itself right is not much of value -- if that is what one values(as opposed to autofocus speed). So, with Hasselblad it is just: ergonomics, lenses, and ultimately color rendition.
I love how in the thumbnail you’re pointing just slightly above the camera and at yourself😂
The Hassleblad X1DII looks super nice, the colors depth are a massive plus but to move from Sony - well i guess i have both as two of my drones have hassleblad cameras but i cannot see me move from the Sony Alpha, theyre just too flexible for what I shoot. Great video Lizzie
36 seconds and trembling at the possibility of her accidentally dropping the Hasselblad over the wall😅...
Great video; didn't really know much about MF cameras.
I've wanted a Hasselblad for a while now, because I really love that medium format look/feel that you get, plus the colour science obviously. They're just so damn expensive. Plus the extra glass. Uff.
EV Dubs The H series is actually damn cheap nowadays including the lenses.
@@Funktrainer 5 grand a pop on most of the lenses you'd use on it
@@TJIzzy Any lens for the H series is available for under 1,5 grand, that‘s a great value.
I'm a Nikon shooter but I'm impressed with the Hasselblad and I couldn't help but be impressed with the specs but since I shoot portraits most of all that slow focus would probably bother me after all but boy.. I'd love to shoot some landscapes with it for a day :) Thanks for making this video.
I also shoot portraits and I use manual focus :P
Good video! I was just surprised you said nothing about the depth of field difference with medium vs full frame. The medium format has such a unique look to it because of the bigger censor size.
Exactly, this is the greatest difference
I do have film medium format camera Zeiss Ikon Nettar 512/2 version D from 1937. Medium format is awesome with great detail. 📷
Isn't the whole point of having a larger sensor is to have better ISO?
If so it seems all you are paying for is 2 bits of extra depth which admitted is significant though.
Meeeh I still keep shooting my Olympus gear doesn't break my bank acount and doesn't break my back
Olympus is great in so many aspects!
Every digital camera is great. Every camera is great in general, if you use it to do cool stuff. Going to the gym is also a good remedy for your broken back :P
Plus it is 4:3 already 😜
What is the life of camera sensor? Can you please do a vlog on that? Low cost camera vs High ...?
Thanks for the video, but I didn't see that much difference between the pictures ? I went back and looked them over 4-5 times...
what picture profile do you use for sony?planning to buy ur luts
Can full frame lenses be used or coupled to medium format camera ?
You made kind of a small mistake but you was still right. At 0:24 when you clicked the 3:2 onto the 4:3 people will think full frame is just long which it is but 4:3 is taller.
Nice video... ignore the anoraks correcting you on the film size stuff, seriously guys who cares. Just bought the a7r4 and love it and it compares very well to my phase
Very nice comparison, I don't have Sony but still good info for the future.
Was there any difference to a crop sensor camera compared to the Hasselblad and the Sony..
I'm a little surprised that a medium format camera with relatively large pixels doesn't keep up with the Sony R3 for low light, and I'm not sure the aspect ratio is that big of a thing when you can change it both in camera and in post, but it was a fun video regardless :)
doesn't really matter. My sensor is way bigger then the x1d, and I can't shoot over iso 200. I'm pushing it with iso 200 actually. there are many more things than pixel pitch that influence iso performance.
That being said the dinamic range at iso 100 or 50 vs any other camera is unparalleled.
It's for pro photographers that want to be taken seriously, bring it on a shoot then switch. Now if you already have a studio of lenses and a digital back doesnt cut it for you it makes sense
Please say the gear uses in description
I think your right they do have there own look, I have had the first version of theX1D and just love the results. But it a tool and as such does not suit every type of photography so that is why I have a Nikon system too. So if I what fast action or long lenses I use my Nikon system but in the studio and landscape I use the Hasselblad. Nice video and thank you for see the X1D as a tool .
Are there different kinds of lenses for the Hasselblad X1D?
What camera did u use to shoot this video???
Medium format: Go for the Pentax 645Z or the classic 645N
nope, go for a bronica etrsi or a zeiss ikon folder :)
Inevitable Crafts Lab never buy a bronica, buy quality first time around and get a hasselblad h1/2 or v series !
@@Theeuanshields nah i have two 501 C/M
bronicas are cheap, good quality, tiny, super light, and sturdy. Also they where produced till 2004 i think.
A bronica etrsi with lens costs around 250 bucks, so why not try it out :)
Me personally it would miss 6x6 on a 645 cam so ..
Inevitable Crafts Lab Theres a reason bronica went out of business. They had a very bad reliability rep. Buy something that can still be fixed by the original manufacturer
@@Theeuanshields They went out of business because tamron bought them, there was no digital back and then tamron killed them :)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts 👍 how about video features?
i don't think the mpx is a comparison thingy, for medium format v/s full frame, even the a7r4.
i hope medium format doesn't become the INSTAGRAM camera :S
Nice video :))
Don't know enough about medium format cameras (prior to this video) and honestly, I don't have the money for them either.
Just wanted to say I'm digging the background music, especially the sax. Thanks for the informative and short video!
good info. I wonder is it good for video?
The budget camera everyone wants this year is the Canon R6. It's all about the RF system for me. I'm really interested in the R5 and also the Red Komodo. Hopefully, Canon will announce their first RF cinema camera soon.
Nice video 😊✌🏻 I needed a comparison with a Hasselblad so thank you
Oh and the Outro makes me thinking of Pete’s Style 😁
This video was really precise and to the point. Great job Lizzie keep bringing more of such comparisons if possible. It's always good to learn about different types of sensors and cameras used in photography industry.
You can pick up some older Hasselblads of the H-line for about as much as a brand new full frame.
But yeah, my H4D-40 isn't a low light camera either. These cameras, in my opinion, are for photographers with a studio.
if you wanna go bananas, look at the H6D Multishot and its price tag.
Precise it was not. Filled with wrong or misleading information...yes.
This is the first video of yours I watched, and I must say, I'm already a big fan of your work :)
Amazing videos Lizzie. Love the way it's edited. Keep up the great work!
Great edits, great looking person, great personality, great energy, great colour and sharpness and light in the video... Now just to get the facts right about the cameras and it's going to be all great :D