New Mirrorless King? Hasselblad X1D Announced

<p>50mp, compact size, 1/2000 sync, leaf shutter, $9000, $11,200 w/ lens. </p>

<ul>

<li>DPR announcement <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1988725790/medium-format-mirrorless-hasselblad-unveils-x1d">here</a>.</li>

<li>Ming Thein commentary h<a href="https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/06/22/announcing-the-hasselblad-x1d-50c/">ere</a>.</li>

<li>Thom Hogan commentary <a href="http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/hasselblad-announces-mirror.html">here</a>.</li>

</ul>

<p>A game-changer? maybe. At $9000 for the body, the new Hassy isn't for everyone. The price will disqualify everyone but pros and well-heeled enthusiasts. But its announcement does appear to shift the goalposts for IQ junkies, with obvious implications for Nikon's 8xx line and the Sony A7Rs. Fuji is also said to be launching a MF mirrorless at Photokina, so things could get interesting in the high-end market. </p>

<p>I think that if a sensor is not 100% larger than 36x24mm it can't be called medium format - so it definitely is the 'mirrorless king', not the 'digital MF king'. I think it is basically a check-mate to DSLRs, other mirrorless systems and even some 'medium format' SLRs as far as image quality is concerned. It's smaller than a D810! Mind you, the lenses are bigger, so let's not get too carried away. ;-)</p>

<p>Cost aside, I would much prefer this to any DSLR save for the D4/5, simply because the latter can do something very, very well that the X1D cannot match (not relevant to my needs but maybe to someone else's). I don't know if I'd prefer it to the Leica SL, which I think is its closest (and so far only) competitor. D810s and 5Ds are a distant third, IMHO. The A7 Mark II series comes in at second place for me. The Leica M and Q cameras are in a class of their own, as is the RX1.</p>

<p>So, which is it: SL or X1D? :-)</p>

<p>If you don't like Medium Format, how about Macro 4/3?</p>

I'm in with 1 incher crowd

<p>It's mirrorless, but it's not in the same product class as virtually all the mirrorless offerings from the rest of the pack.<br /><br />It's a pro studio camera, basically. No interest for me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a pro studio camera, basically</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not exactly. there are already plenty of those already like Phase One, Pentax 645D, etc., as well as the Hasselbad H5 and H6. The compact size of the body almost certainly means the X1D will see considerable time outdoors, and opens up new possibilities for travel and field use. It's only 100g heavier than an A7RII, so anywhere you might use one of those, you could also use the new Hassy. The biggest limitation right now is lenses; only 2 are available at launch, none of which are wide. The body itself doesnt have a shutter (it's in the lenses), which limits adaptability with other lenses. In any event, this camera will be used for landscapes, portraits, and architecture, as well as commercial photography. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> I don't know if I'd prefer it to the Leica SL, which I think is its closest (and so far only) competitor. D810s and 5Ds are a distant third, IMHO. The A7 Mark II series comes in at second place for me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The SL has 1/2 of the resolution in a bigger package, and is more of a competitor to full-frame bodies like the Sony A7II and Nikon D750, based on specs. Costwise, anyone considering the SL might also consider the X1D -- when you add a lens, the prices are about the same. The SL has more advanced video and a faster frame rate, two things which may not matter to a prospective X1D buyer. I dont know that the X1D has any real competition at this point, since it's a new class of camera.</p>

<p>People who think the X1D is just another camera have probably never experienced medium format digital. I have a CFV16 (16 MP) back for an Hasselblad V camera, which I have used almost exclusively for landscapes, pictorals and portraits for the last 9 years. The image quality is better than the 24 MP A7ii but not quite that of the 42 PM A7Rii. That's with a square sensor, 36x36 mm, 4080 pixels on a side. In terms of area, it is 70% larger than a FF Sony. This means less noise (or more pixels), and a full 16 bit depth. Greater pixel spacing places fewer demands on the lens (and the lenses are very good indeed). A resolution of 50 MP will put the X1D over the top compared to comparable FF cameras.</p>

<p>According to the release, the X1D is also sealed against the weather. While you probably won't see them on the sidelines of NFL games, this is a very valuable attribute for outdoor photography, including landscapes, commercial travel, and fashion. The short flange distance makes it easier to design wide angle lenses, which are seriously lacking for MF SLRs, digital or otherwise. A rectilinear 30mm lens (23 mm equivalent) is not only feasible, but rumored to be the next in line for the X1D.</p>

<p>The prices are surprisingly low, considering the ridiculous pricing of re-labeled Hasselblad/Lumix cameras. $9000 is a little more than the cost of a CFV16 back alone in 2007, and half that of a comparable Hasselblad H or Leica S, or a CFV50C (before the recent sale price of $13,500). The first two lenses, 45 and 90 mm, are priced a little over $2K, a threshold which has already been breached by Sony, and far below the original price for existing Hasselblad and Leica lenses.</p>

<p>There are rumors that Sony and others will enter the mirrorless MF arena, but Hasselblad is first. and that counts for a lot in the field of marketing. Furthermore, Hasselblad has the credentials and resources attractive to those who make money from MF photography, or would like to step up to the next level. I don't think the X1D will languish on the shelves.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think the X1D will languish on the shelves.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hard to imagine a $9000 camera being bargained-priced, but the sensor costs $4k alone, and it's "handmade in Sweden," FWIW. What i like about the X1D is the clean aesthetic. there dont seem to be any extraneous bells and whistles, and the UI seems well thought out. i agree they probably wont show up at major sports events, but they're small enough to be a second camera in a bag, which opens up editorial possibilities. You could shoot a concert with a DSLR, then do a pictorial backstage with an X1D.<br>

<br>

What i think this release does is not only attract current MF shooters, but may also pause folks considering a major investment in a FF system. if you're mainly considering full-frame for IQ, you may decide you can make do with the limited lens selection. and as an object of lust, it seems a bit more practical than the Leica SL.</p>

<p>It's a nice looking portable MF system for a (relatively) decent price. I like that it can adapt older Hassy lenses. Smart move. I look forward to all the inevitable comparisons. I could have gone all day without the "Handmade in Sweden" marketing stroke job but a nik pik. It could be sweet. Time will tell.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I could have gone all day without the "Handmade in Sweden" marketing stroke job</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think Hassy knows who their target market is. </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>i think Hassy knows who their target market is.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

 

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a><br>

<br />Rolex? Check. Tesla Model X? Check. Young blond wife? Check. X1D? The obvious fit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The SL has 1/2 of the resolution in a bigger package</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Incorrect. 50Mpx is about 50% more resolution than 24Mpx. To double the resolution of a 24Mpx sensor, you need 96Mpx.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What i like about the X1D is the clean aesthetic</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! It's amazingly well thought out. <br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You could shoot a concert with a DSLR, then do a pictorial backstage with an X1D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No reason why not. But one could shoot an entire gig just with the X1D, provided that you are okay with adapted telephoto lenses. You could easily use 35mm SLR lenses with a 1.4x teleconverter. A 180/2.8 becomes a 270/4, and the image circle should be big enough, based on rough arithmetic.<br>

<br>

Also, you could use SLR shift lenses with the X1D, as their image circle is slightly wider than the sensor's. You won't get much shift but you'll get a cheap wide-angle lens. Hopefully you won't have to stop them down too much.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>one could shoot an entire gig just with the X1D, provided that you are okay with adapted telephoto lenses. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>not really. it's just 2.3 fps, and both the lenses are on the slow side for concert shooting. i mean, it could be done, but it would be far from ideal. i'm sure one could get some artsy shots, but you want something more responsive for action and documentary-style live music. also not sure how good AF-C tracking is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You could easily use 35mm SLR lenses with a 1.4x teleconverter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>unless the lenses have shutters in them, im not sure this is possible.</p>

<p>Back in the day, photographers took excellent shots with manual film winding and limited focal lengths. Not a problem. Also, f/4.5 on modern digital cameras is not slow, IMHO.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>unless the lenses have shutters in them, im not sure this is possible.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

Ah, I forgot about that! Maybe for video then - which, incidentally, I don't care about. I do wonder if they will enable an electronic shutter. Probably not.

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

<p>It's a pro level system. Will it attract possible Sony A7xxx users? Maybe (unless they need a fast frame rate of course). But no one who is looking seriously at the bulk of mirrorless systems for its small size and extreme portability (in other words, Fuji and µ43) is looking at it.<br /><br />Pro MF shooters mostly if not completely.<br /><br />DSLR shooters from Nikon and Canon probably need or already have invested in systems that they are already going to stick with. 2.3fps will keep those folks away.<br /><br />Great for nature shooting, studio shots, portraits... everything that MF is really great for. Not so good for the things that people who can't afford it anyway don't gravitate towards.</p>

<p>I forgot to add weddings to the application list, for which the X1D is arguably the ideal camera. In addition to stellar image quality for formal portraits and groups, it looks like a "professional" camera. I'm not being cynical when I say appearances are important to your bottom line. At a recent wedding I saw three shooters using Hasselblads. The studio is highly regarded in an upscale community, and charges accordingly. It sets you apart from the crowd. Furthermore a lens shutter is quiet - much quieter than a Leica M of any vintage - and there is no film to wind nor mirror to flop.</p>

<p>I am somewhat skeptical about a lens shutter working at 1/2000. Years ago, Kodak produced a shutter capable of 1/1000, but the blades turned a complete circle rather than reciprocating. I think there's an electronic shutter lurking in the X1D. That would be a logical choice, and easy to implement. It would also permit completely silent operation (which is unnerving, at times, to your subjects) and almost unlimited flash sync speed. (My D2x would work with flash at any speed, up to 1/8000, or was it 1/16000? Only the firmware, easily circumvented, limited sync to 1/500.)</p>

<p>I don't see the X1D replacing the Sony A7Rii for candids, landscape and nature photography. In my case, it was the other way around. Beyond the cost (which isn't that high compared to the flagship Nikon and Canon DSLRs), you must use a tripod (or studio flash) to get 50 MP quality, or even 16 MP quality (my Hasselblad). The effectiveness of image stabilization (IBIS) and wide range of lenses makes the Sony better for my purposes, although I still need a tripod for best results. It has a higher ISO limit than the X1D, and the dynamic range is better than that of my CFV16, which dates from 2007. The 50 MP CMOS sensor is undoubtedly better in this regard.</p>

<p>Edward, it is the ULTIMATE high-end wedding camera, even with only those two lenses you can probably get everything you want/need.<br /><br />That said, I have worked in churches since 2005, and most of the people who get married probably couldn't afford or wouldn't see the value in hiring the photographer who used this kind of rig and was therefore priced accordingly. Small market, but it's there...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>no one who is looking seriously at the bulk of mirrorless systems for its small size and extreme portability (in other words, Fuji and µ43) is looking at it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i disagree. the X1D's small size and portability completely flips the MF paradigm. cost is the limiting factor here. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>DSLR shooters from Nikon and Canon probably need or already have invested in systems that they are already going to stick with. 2.3fps will keep those folks away.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you're chasing IQ, in which case fps is irrelevant. There are folks who bough the D800/D810 on the strength of "medium format"-like quality. This is obviously one step closer to that ethos. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>most of the people who get married probably couldn't afford or wouldn't see the value in hiring the photographer who used this kind of rig and was therefore priced accordingly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think it's safe to say that all weddings arent equal. Certainly for high-end weddings, this is a possibility.<br>

<br>

i dont think it's the type of camera you'd use for casual shots and/or candids -- although it would be intriguing for street shooting in some situations-- and point taken about the in-body stabilization of the Sony's, but i think this will be attractive to A7RII shooters who print large nonetheless. If you aren't making large prints, you dont really need 50mp</p>

<p>Eric, cost is indeed the factor, putting it in the purely professional and pro-wannabe range.<br /><br />It's not gonna sell in the numbers the Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus do even. It's many times the price. I mean... get real...</p>

<p>I don't visit galleries on a regular basis, but in touristy places out west the abound with large prints of local scenery, mostly taken with large or medium format cameras. The owner/photographer of one in Colorado preferred a Mamiya 7 (rangefinder 6x7). Photos with horses and indigenous animals are very popular, but you usually have to take a lot of shots to get everything just so with uncooperative critters. I think the X1D will be a hit, and well within the gear budget for many of these people.</p>

<p>Fifty years ago, the "journalistic" style of wedding photography was well established in the Chicago area - Leica or Nikon and dozens of rolls of film - volume over quality. Coming from a hick town, I used a Rolleiflex for formal shots and a Leica for the rest. Each has its place. That's pretty much how it still goes on the North Shore in metropolitan Chicago.</p>

<p>If the bride gives me a list of 60 groupings, I give up and use a DSLR, so I can shuffle people in and out quickly without fussing with a tripod and lens changes. Wedding photography is 80% people management and 20% art. I haven't had (nor solicited) any wedding jobs since getting the Sony, but all things considered, it would be pointless to bring my Hasselblad. </p>

<p>Using a Hasselblad on the street or tourist locations brings some interesting reactions, mostly "old fashioned" and "is that a video camera?" A compendium shade makes it a "view camera." After a dozen years, I'm still waiting for someone to recognize it for what it is, or better yet, ignore me.</p>

<p>I like the concept, but one really has to have a load of disposable income to make a leap like this without knowing the gremlins. There is a, "get real," factor in this.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's not gonna sell in the numbers the Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus do even. It's many times the price. I mean... get real...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At $9000, obviously, the X1D is not a mass market camera. but then, it doesnt have to be. it's the most affordable digital Hasselblad ever. it's in a different league than DSLRs in terms of image quality, and comes to market with proven sensor technology. Safe to say it's not for everybody, but it does raise the bar considerably for mirrorless. Hasselblad is claiming the camera is already backordered in the US throughout 2016, so that should say something about market demand. As for the "gremlins," the AF is contrast-detect only, and there's no stabilization either in body or lenses. However, the 1/2000 flash sync speed mitigates this a bit. Overall, though, there appear to be far more goodies than downsides, other than price. For instance, the in-lens shutters are rated to 1,000,000 exposure cycles, which is more than 3x the shutter life of a pro DSLR like the Nikon D5. That's worth considering if you are looking at this as a long-term investment. <br>

<br>

</p>

<p>Wel, yes, the real soul searching truth is, the wanting of X1D is just painful, so I'll turn away, verses saying something about this jaw dropping Camera that isn't true! Ha!</p>

<blockquote>

<p> the wanting of X1D is just painful, so I'll turn away</p>

</blockquote>

<p>haha, i agree it's a lustworthy bit of tech, and certainly out of my price range at the moment. looking forward to seeing some tests and real world reviews, though. </p>

<p><em>For instance, the in-lens shutters are rated to 1,000,000 exposure cycles, which is more than 3x the shutter life of a pro DSLR like the Nikon D5.</em></p>

<p>But the shutter replacement cost is just a few percent of the purchase cost of the D5 so it's like having a car serviced - normal practice and nothing to be concerned about.</p>

<p>In my view the flash sync speed in itself creates a market for the new Hasselblad camera for those who do location portraiture with flash outdoors. However the system is limited in its introduction and if it is becomes successful then it should become very attractive, both for flash based formal photography as well as a portable high quality system for landscape. I don't see how it could be used to shoot a wedding in a candid style however, since the lenses are slow and often one needs to shoot in extremely dimly lit churches with no flash allowed. As a complement to a 35mm format DSLR it should be nice. But then the question is will the client actually notice anything... ;-)</p>