eric_arnold

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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 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>

<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>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>

<blockquote> <p> most lens tests are single copy only </p> </blockquote> <p>this is true, and gives context/perspective, but LR does no real-world testing at all. it's perhaps too scientific, because most people dont shoot that way in real life. some lenses behave differently at different distances, but if you test all lenses at the same distance, you'd never know this. technical reviews are interesting, but shouldnt be a be all and end all of les performance. </p>

<blockquote> <p><em> it doesn’t really appear worse than most zoom lenses</em></p> </blockquote> <p>that's what you call damning with faint praise. for $1100 i want a little better than "adequate." </p>

<blockquote> <p>next year when I travel to the US /Canada for 6 weeks, I'm going to find it difficult to leave the 24-70mm behind......</p> </blockquote> <p>i think this maybe depends a bit on mode of travel and level of exertion while shooting, but i generally dont want to carry 20lbs worth of gear unless im on assignment. the 24-70 is a super-reliable lens with generally excellent image quality, but compared to other lenses in its class, its main advantage is focus acquisition speed (and build quality, which works against you if you're weight conscious). The weight isn't so bad with an FX body if that's the only lens you're taking, but with a 14-24 and a 70-200/4, you're loaded for bear and almost as heavy as one. however, you can shave almost 1/2 the weight, and only lose 4mm on the wide end and a sliver of sharpness at 2.8 with the perennially-underrated Tamron 28-75, and a few extra grams with the Nikon 24-85 VR, at the expense of constant aperture. I'm seeing new 28-75's for under $300, which is a bargain price for that lens.</p> <ul> <li>24-70/2.8 AF-S: 900g.</li> <li>Tamron 28-75/2.8: 508g.</li> <li>Nikon 24-85VR: 465g.</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>I couldn't care less about in body stabilization. To me it's just something that makes cleaning the sensor a stressful exercise in not damaging the camera</p> </blockquote> <p>i think legacy lens users and video shooters might disagree here. </p> <blockquote> <p>What I like most is what Nikon does with it's Sony sensors</p> </blockquote> <p>It's not just Nikon that uses Sony sensors, though. Pentax, Ricoh and Canon have also used them. Nikon has done well with them in their DSLRs, which perhaps explains some of the impetus behind Sony developing a mirrorless full frame line up where they could emphasize tricked-out features DSLRs dont have. Sony seems to have worked out <em>some</em> of the bugs in its UI, but the Nikons overall tend to have better ergonomics.<br> <br> Ultimately, i think mirrorless development is gonna hinge on two things: AF and EVF. if they can engineer these things to surpass DSLR performance, then there would be no reason, other than battery life and perhaps lens compatibility, to have a DSLR. But as it stands now, there are entry-level DSLRs which are better for action and sports than $3000 mirrorless bodies. Though there's a declining number of photojournalists, being able to capture action is still a thing PJs need to be able to do. </p>

<blockquote> <p>It does have a hybrid viewfinder. </p> </blockquote> <p>as Eric said, no it does not. It's an EVF only. meaning it's subject to refresh rate. you do get WYSIWYG but no framelines. the XP2's VF is switchable between OVF/EVF. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I don't see the focus breathing on the 70-200 as a major problem.</p> </blockquote> <p>that all depends. if you use the 70-200VRII as an event lens and shoot from the lip of the stage, it's noticeable enough to become annoying. if you're not using the lens like this, it's less of an issue, just something to keep in mind.<br> <br> i understand the psychology of having the 70-200. it's a bread and butter lens, no question, and as good for portraits as events. but it's super heavy as a travel lens, plus a bit ostentatious. if you're only taking that and a 28, i suppose it could work. better IQ than the 24-120/4, but perhaps less versatile as a dual-format lens. though when ive shot FX/DX combos, i tend to put the 70-200 on the DX body for extra reach. </p>

<blockquote> <p>The reason I like Nikon is primarily for IQ, so couldn't they bring those chops to their mirror-less.</p> </blockquote> <p>the reality is that the majority of Nikon bodies use Sony sensors. In some cases, they have gotten better performance out of these chips than Sony's bodies, but Nikon's issue here isn't IQ, you can get that from the D8xx series. What Sony has done is bring a lot of proprietary technology to their mirrorless cams which go over and beyond just IQ. things like the on-chip AF, in-body stabilization, etc. Nikon would essentially have to change their entire design philosophy just to catch up with Sony in mirrorless. that's a tall order for a company which prides itself on having a defined identity. It's probably more likely that they will wait to see how Canon is going to make a move on mirrorless before jumping in wholly. All this talk about Sony going for the jugular and what-not, but their market gains have been incremental, suggesting they are just treading water at the end of the day, at least in the current market. That's why all the chatter about a mirrorless revolution seems somewhat rhetorical and/or overhyped, and will continue to be as long as mirrorless bodies represent such a small portion of all camera sales. <br> <br> I keep pointing this out, but Nikon has attempted mirrorless lines at least twice before, and whiffed both times. They never had an idea of what the Nikon 1 should be, or delivered a feature set which maximized the format's potential. And they not only overestimated the value of the Coolpix A, but also undercut its performance, just as they did with the Df. Their latest attempt at a mirrorless line, the DL series, isnt even commercially available yet in the US. That being the case, any talk of future mirrorless Nikons is way premature IMO. They may have plans and patents of potential ML models, but they aren't going to rush those out before the DL cameras have even had a chance to create their own niche. </p>

<p>At <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/633-nikkor182003556vrii?start=1">50mm and f/8</a>, the 18-200 will deliver pretty even results across the frame. though not quite as sharp as the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/217-nikkor-af-50mm-f18-d-review--test-report?start=1">50/1.8 D at that same aperture</a>, that should still be in the acceptable performance range. for me, deciding how big to print a shot would depend on how much i liked the shot more than the lens. </p>

<p>the XT1 does not have a hybrid VF. and AFAIK, on the XP2, the EVF is WYSIWYG, with data overlays. the optical VF will maintain framelines for RF-style composition.</p>

<blockquote> <p> the larger the print, the more you'll see optical limitations. I imagine some wall-sized prints might start to look a bit ropey from the 18-200</p> </blockquote> <p>not necessarily. really depends on the shot. i concur that the 18-200's optical flaws might reveal themselves sooner rather than later with a big print, but the point i was trying to make was that a 50mm prime is really no better or worse than most lenses for enlargements. ive printed 16x20 and even 20x30 with a 12mp sensor, so it definitely can be done. but if you're going for huge prints, the gold standard is a high-MP FX body. </p>

<p>for that set up, i'd pick up a 50mm lens to give you a more reasonable prime range, and the 24-120/4. a hybrid system can work, but you need the right lenses for it. if 28mm is your widest lens, it's almost always going to be on the FX body. </p>

<blockquote> <p>That lens is a f/2.8 maximum aperture, if you need such a lens. They are larger, and heavier to walk around with. </p> </blockquote> <p>doesnt sounds like you've ever used the tammy 28-75. it's actually a very compact zoom, and only weighs 18 oz. The Pentax 16-85, fwiw, is 17 oz. </p> <blockquote> <p>More concerned about long end of 28-75 and not fixed on speed (f2.8). Image quality is key consideration.</p> </blockquote> <p>the 28-75 is a very sharp lens at f/4 and beyond. a little softish wide open, but nothing to worry about. it's fine for use on APS-C and full frame. i wouldnt hesitate to get one, if i didnt already own one. </p>

<blockquote> <p> The 50 will let you print easily to A4 or larger print sizes.</p> </blockquote> <p>printing sizes have nothing whatsoever to do with choice of lens. in fact, a shot taken with <em>any</em> lens on the D90 can be printed at A4.</p>

<blockquote> <p> when I started using SD cards a lot since 2010, I misplaced at least half a dozen SD cards in the first 2, 3 years. After I lost a $100 SD card in 2013 (which costs $30 now), I have become extremely careful with SD.</p> </blockquote> <p>it's pretty easy to not lose SD cards while on vacation: just keep them in a card wallet. if you only swap cards once you're back at your room, there is little chance of losing them. a large-capacity card is a good suggestion too, but i would always want to have a backup card or three. </p>

<p>if you're going to be on the beach a lot, i would protect the front element of your lenses with UV filters. sand is super-coarse and blows around a lot, and can damage glass surfaces without you realizing it. also make sure you have an extra battery. it's also a good idea with vacation pics to upload them to a hard drive after each day's shooting and/or take enough memory cards so that not all of your pics are on one card. if you lose a card or it gets corrupted, it's a real bummer. </p>

<blockquote> <p>looks like I'm getting the 50mm f/1.8 and possibly the 85mm f1.8</p> </blockquote> <p>i would get the G versions of both if you care about bokeh at all. the 50/1.8 AF-D's is fugly. </p>

<p>landscapes while hiking? i would swap out the 24-70/2.8 for something lighter. if you have an UWA and a tele, you can get by with a 50mm. </p>