It seems to me that a better comparison would be to put a 24-70mm on the Sony and make the comparison then. I expect the difference in quality would then favor the X2D. Medium and large format cameras are not well suited for telephoto work. The long lenses would be very large, very heavy and very expensive. And with a smaller maximum aperture to boot. So if telephoto is what you need, medium and large format cameras are the wrong tool to use. This was true in film days and remains true with digital capture also.
You cannot really compare Full-Frame and medium Format cameras, I think. I own both formats and each one has its pros and cons. I admit that is easier to compose a picture when you have a lot of zoom to get the subject well framed. With my Hasselblad it takes sometimes much more time to get a decent framing, but that is the fun with it. You have to rethink your composition routines that you get with the full frame format. This leads to training new skills, and this is always an enrichment, I think.
So, did Hasselblad give you a camera too? Seems like they are sending them to all the YT landscape photographers I know, lol. I'm surprised they haven't sent one to Adam Gibbs yet but then he's a big fan of his Fuji and that's their competition. Lately he's been wanting to pack light as he wants to do more distance hiking. For me not only is the price on the Hasselblad prohibitive but the weight to have to carry around is not something I'm willing to do. So, I'm sticking with full frame. Thanks for the comparisons with the Sony.
For your style of shooting Mads, stick with the Sony. Far more flexible, lighter and with a ton of lens options, especially telephoto and extreme telephoto. The X2D is a nice camera with beautiful industrial design that seems better suited for studio and other types of photography where you can work at a slower pace and where keeping size and weight down aren’t as important.
@@adventure_photo yeah, so far as also my conclusion. I’m off to Iceland soon and I’ll bring my Sony system :) - but it is interesting to see what the X2D can do.
I’m not sure why you didn’t use the 135 with the teleconverter on the Hasselblad. It’s an awesome lens. A fast long zoom for the Hasselblad would be enormous, heavy and tremendously expensive.
You might want to consider the Fuji GFX 100s system. It uses the same sensor and offers much more flexibility in terms of zoom lenses from wide angle to telephoto. The lenses are quite heavy compared to similar Tamron focal lengths but for what it’s worth, quite good. You might be pleasantly surprised.
I think Haselblad is still living in the old days of landscape photography, when virtually everything was wide angle. In the last couple years, landscape photographers have taken enthusiastically to😊 telephoto, but Haselblad seems to have missed the trend. Of course, a Haselblad 300mm equivalent would need a mule to carry it around. 😮
Not a camera that'd ever come into my life, but some nice shots in the video either way, and I enjoyed your honesty about the camera's shortcomings too.
A square format is the ultimate sensor shape to maximize area within the lens image circle. Imagine never having to choose between portrait and landscape orientation while shooting, just crop the desired orientation and aspect ratio in post.
@@chirsd666 yes and no, because with a rectangle you can go wider than a square and benefit from pixels within the circle you can’t cover with a square.
Interesting idea, but I think available papers, frames, screens, etc. would sway most of us to favor rectangular formats. I would like to see cameras with squareroot 2: 1 format to match ISO paper ratio.😊
My crystal ball says the Sony A7R9 (only 4 more versions to go) will offer hot swappable sensors including circular. The rear will technically be a Sony phone which can be swapped out with newer versions anytime. Every button and knob will be labeled via LCD only since they can be remapped to do anything.
There is no doubt Hasselblad need to produce something which approximates to a range within the scope of a 35mm 70-200mm zoom if it wants to catch landscape photographers with the X2D. Short telephoto zooms for this format are possible without requiring herculean strength to lug them. The GF 45-100 and 100-200 zooms are not especially heavy or bulky. The price of the XCD 20-35 mm lens ( just under £6000) compared to the Fuji GF equivalent suggests that if Hasselblad do ever produce such a mid range telephoto it is going to have a price tag of about £7-8000 and be like buying a second body or a Sony A7 R 5 and two cracking GM lenses.
For the better part of 25 years, most of my professional and personal photography was done with 4x5 cameras. With that equipment, you (almost) always choose your camera position first, then sort out what focal length of lens will give you the crop of the scene that you wanted. If you didn't have the "correct" lens to give you what you wanted, you'd just use the next-shorter (wider) focal length and then plan to crop in the darkroom or at the scanning stage.. Easy. And of course, there are no zoom lenses for large format cameras - only primes need apply. Because of that background, I've always thought that zooms could potentially make photographers lazy, as they would zoom in from wherever they happened to be. I've not used my 4x5 in a (too) long time, especially now that I have the X2D in my hands, but the same principle still applies - find where you want to stand (as Mads did in his video) and then sort out what focal length will give you the desired crop. As he suggests in his last 10 seconds of the video, his "problem" is that he just didn't have the focal length that he needed to give him the crop he envisioned - but now we appears to have the XCD 135mm ƒ/2.5 (an astoundingly beautiful lens) and.... problem solved (granted, with the application of funds and/or Hasselblad generosity).
Why don’t you use the in camera aspect ratio option Mads? Choose XPan for example. Compose whilst seeing the XPan format. Hasselblad’s Phocus software will open the file cropped but you can always change your mind and crop in a different format - the whole RAW file has preserved everything. I think that feature is the very best bit of the XCD. You seem to be missing the point entirely😮
A lens a lens my kingdom for a lens? Too dramatic? Still, cameras without lens support have limited use. Would the old Panorama by rows work/help? Also, your clothing(pants) you have intrigues me, only in the sense of improving my own gear choices, can you share a brand? softshell or hardshell? Another good thought provoking video. Thank you.
I am wondering why on earth Mads was wondering. The specs of the Hasselblad are well known and the specs of the zoom lens are well known. Quite clearly you either have to get closer to your subject - which delivers a different perspective - or stay at your distance and crop in afterwards - which is the equivalent of using a longer telephoto lens. This is optics at its simplest. And the largest rectangle you can cut out of a circle is obviously a square - i.e. 1:1. Anything not square will have a smaller area. I myself am on an RX10iv at the moment. It has an in-built optical zoom 24 - 600 mm equiv. Clearly, I would now experience considerable problems returning to full frame regards reach and the weight of the glass required to meet up to it. The very last thing I would do is go medium. Although I am not a dedicated landscape photographer the reduced DOF would drive me crazy. The same would hold for portraits. DOF too narrow and too sharp. The Hasselblad, apart from the price, would be ideal to photograph the whole page of a newspaper pinned up on the wall and to enthusiastically pixel peep at 500% in post afterwards. IMHO, extreme hi-res coupled to extreme low DOF is a bit peculiar. Astronomy could be a good use case. Of course, stopped down to f/8 it becomes more universal.
@@istuff4137 Yes, you are right. On a 1" sensor the more apparent problem is getting less DOF. This entails stepping back and zooming in to 100mm (equiv.} or more. Analog I was on 35 mm slides and my lenses covered focal lengths from fish-eye to 1000mm. Today I stitch or pan anything wider than 24mm and crop for the other end. Somehow or other I skipped APS-C and MFT.
@@simonpayne7994 "crop in afterwards - which is the equivalent of using a longer telephoto lens." not really equivalent given the stronger compression in telephoto lens
@InnerLightltd An absolute myth. The only factor is distance. The longer focal length simply magnifies. Whether I magnify within the camera or afterwards in post is - neglecting resolution - irrelevant. The impression of compression given to a viewer, who is looking at the photo from the "wrong" distance, is the same. To be more exact, something that took up say 2 degrees of the total scene as seen by a person standing next to the photographer is now taking up 20 degrees in the field of view of a person looking at the image. BTW. The same holds, more or less, for bokeh.
Resolution is not the most important quality in a camera. Of course I would always welcome more pixels than less, but I really don’t need more than 10 MP for an excellent canvas print. Pixel quality, micro-contrast and tonality are more relevant to me.
For nme that's also 10-16 MP AFTER CROPPING, and I want high MP sensors and sharp glass so I can crop instead of having to schlep heavy telephoto zooms.
Great video Mads! I've been considering someday going from full frame to medium format but the issues for me doing that are two-fold. One is the cost obviously as the X2D and even Fuji are very expensive compared to a decent full frame camera. The largest issue is the lens choices which to this day are limited in the medium format category. And all medium format lenses are comparatively more expensive that their full frame counterparts. Sony with the A7R5 and perhaps Canon and Nikon in the future will realize that a high resolution (>60 mp) full frame sensor with great dynamic range would be desirable and a profitable undertaking by these camera makers.
The Tamron lens is likely the limiting factor when testing the 7RV. Sony obviously does make the 70-200 that Mads is asking for from Hasselblad. Either of the new Sony 70-200 likely significantly outperform the Tamron. Both Hasselblad and Fuji need to make longer telephoto lenses for MF. Their long primes are not practical for landscape photographers. Slow lenses are fine. Too short zooms is not fine.
Not sure what you are smoking mate. Fuji make a 100-200 zoom, a 250 prime and a 500 prime. The GFX bodies are also easy to adapt to other lenses if that does not satisfy you. What more do you need ?
I still think the Fuji film GFX 100S II amd 100 II are better cameras a lot more affordable and also a lot more lens choice and better focusing but I'm biased because I use the GFX
Have you heard that phrase, "Good photographers choose Medium Format, average photographers get sent one for free to prove they don't know how to use Medium Format"
Yes crop....GFX at 16-9 is 60 megapixels approximately The image quality out of meduim format is mind blowing The GFX 100s ii is amazing with the 100-200 lens
It is of course not completely fair to compare the image quality between two cameras or formats when using drastically different focal lengths, but it is a good example how cropping in to a large megapixel sensor is not always a way of emulating a longer focal length. ie; the field of view may be the same, but the look, feel and quality of the image is different. I would say the Hasselblad would definitely be better than the Sony if the Hasselblad was using a similar focal length, so interesting to see what Part 2 has to offer!
ah but it is fair though if you regard it as a comparison of systems, rather than just bodies. He’s comparing this camera, with its best available focal length for the situation, to this other camera, with _its_ best available focal length lens for the situation. I think one of the most important factors of any ILC is what lenses are available for it.
I don’t think digital medium format is for you. Stick to easy photography maybe? I’ll take my Hasselblad with only 45mm over Sony with zoom any day. Medium format is a way better overall photography experience. And yes I have both.
Let me see. That must be the 20-35 and the 120 macro lens. But still far from a reach of 400mm Fullframe. Hate to say it, but the best diverse kit you can get are APSC 40 mp. On well exposed pictures you wont be able to tell the difference of what format it is from. After using it since it came out, the only "downside" are in the shadows when there are movements. But if you get a prime that wont be a problem either. Or you can stack if that is needed when the highlights are to strong. Another thing with the 40mp is you got to have a faster shutter on handheld. That pixeldensity are sensitive of movements. But there is always a way around it. An example of the possibillities it have is, I shot a macro of a dragonfly 7 meters away with a 400 mm. Beat that.
Is it a fair comparison? The Tamron lens is very average it terms of quality, so it’s not surprising the Hasselblad is better, even taking into account the resolution differences
You'd have been fine if you'd had the XCD 135mm often sold with the 1.7x teleconverter. It's all about lens selection. Having said that I wouldn't be in the least surprised of Hasselblad's next E lens after the recently released 20-35mm is a tele-zoom.
Sony is potentially changing their ways for the better. I’m an A7IV user and they finally gave us focus bracketing with a firmware update which meant I left my tripod at home on my most recent trip. If Sony keeps this up, some of us might just stay. I can now do handheld focus stacks. Which blows my mind. Hopefully you end up loving the Hasselblad though!
@@louisburley1597 yeah and the a7R5 just got focusing during bright monitoring which is amazing. I am working the HB to see if it in some cases can outperform my Sony but I’m not leaving Sony at all. It’s actually quite an interesting process of learning for me fiddling around with another system.
Give it away, send it back, or donate to a school. Seems the reviews of these expensive ( and free ? ) cameras draw quite a bit of criticism after reading comments in other videos? Just guessing it was free? Apologies if I am wrong.
The 2D obviously isn't the right tool for the way you shoot. A Hassy 70-200 equivalent would be massive, most people would not want to lug it around. The current 135 with 1.7 TC is alreay the size of a full frame 70-200. I think Hassy knows it's place. They know what works and they are introducing new lens to play in that niche. Sony is the right choice for you. As a side note, in the first image of the trees, it certainly looks like you have the option to zoom with your feet vs. standing way back and using a normal lens vs. the Sony zoom. If you shot the scene with a Sony 50mm and then the zoomed in frame, you would have gotten similar results.
Maybe you should like at cost per pixel to figure out which is better. I remain amazed at the marketing budget threshold DJI are pushing to put this on the map. The sensor is great, I use it from a different brand all the time and enjoy my Photography, but all modern cameras are great so we should focus on improving composition.
Having owned a hassleblad and also following you for many years. I don't understand why you have one! You're the best wildlife tog i know on YT, enough said :)
Hey Mads, what is your opinion on MFT, especially the OM1? Do you think it can keep up with the image quality of FUll Frame especially the A7RV? I'm thinking about downgrading but am afraid that I won't be satisfied with the IQ (I know all the other pors and cons of MFT)
@@roninthegoat2810 No, I don’t think it can keep up with the image quality of a 60MP FF camera, but the question is always what are you going to use it for and what do you require of it. I have a 75cm x 50cm print on my wall taken with the 7 times zoom of the Mavic 3 pro. It’s only 12MP and the quality when zooming in is relatively speaking super bad, but it is at the same time good enough :) if youre not going to use the OM1 for aurora photography you’ll probably be fine :)
@ first of all, thank you for answering! I’m mostly using it for online and sometimes to make photo books, big prints are really really rare. And although so many people argue that at a certain Megapixel count it doesn’t make a difference anymore (especially for online) and is only visible in pixel peeping my thought behind it is that yes you only see an instant difference when zoomed to 100%+ but still at full size I see a difference between 20,60 or even 100 megapixel, it just overall looks cleaner, crispier and just more high end if you know what I mean. What’s your opinion on that? Do you also think a 20 mp MFT (OM1) vs a 60mp FF (A7RV) picture if everything else is the same, base ISO and no blur, looks the same on Instagram for example and only makes a difference in very big prints or if I want to crop a lot? Not regarding color science of course.
@@roninthegoat2810 I though photography was all about the image, not the number of megapixels? I have, amongst others, a 5 MP old Canon Bridge camera that produces superb photos. I print them to A3, frame them and display them on my walls. Also friends have begged prints off me to frame, so they cannot be that bad, I would say. It is really all about the composition, subject and light. The camera really doesn’t matter!
@@MadsPeterIversen Why? it looked like you had room was there or is there another reason? This is coming from someone who shoots very little landscapes but I do a fair amount of city scape. Looking to learn and understand not troll.
Yawn 🥱 May be you can also switch out the Sony for Leica to become totally niche and pay £15,000-20,000+ for the Hasselblad and it’s 3 lens’s One of things that I used to enjoyed about your and fototrippers content was that you were able to make great images with good but obtaining equipment, even making some compromises to accommodate price and weight. I have zero interest in this corporate selling out and Hasselblad product placement
Looks like you have been good this year Mads and Father Christmas has arrived early in Denmark. Look forward to seeing the next instalment as I did find myself making the same argument, yes you can crop in but why would you want to considering what you would pay for the camera and also why lose the potential for maximising the camera's resolution
In respect to your "Quality of image" comparison in the Deer photo...You shot the Hasselblad at 0.3Secs/ISO1600, and the Sony at .5secs/Iso640. I would EXPECT the Sony to have a cleaner image when shot with a longer exposure time (.5secs VS .3secs for the Blad) and Lower ISO(640 VS 1600 for the Blad), and i think the pics just reflect the difference in exposure settings,,,,not quality of camera gear. Love your work and channel Mads. : )
Awesome ! One of your best endings!! I’m glad you kept the camera, and I am anxious to see the stellar work that you will be producing with it (and the new lenses that ‘magically’ appeared). 😂 Aside from the system, being a bit heavier than your Sony, I have a feeling that you’re really going to like your results…..
Sorry Mads but I’m not sure what the purpose or conclusions of this video are? The comparisons in result/detail conflict between the deer shot and later spiderweb examples. The former was clearly more a case of the X2D not being focused (back focused).
I was so close to thumbs down for this video when I knew there was a 135mm and a 1.7 converter. I only have the 38v for mine and would be interest in seeing your results with that pairing.
Maybe a correct comparison would have been using the same eq. focal length. If you shoot at 200mm with the Sony and at (eq.) 60mm with the HB, and then you zoom in digitally the HB to have the same image size, ie at 400% vs 100% of the Sony, well of course is the Sony more detailed, despite having fewer MP! What comparison is this? Btw, if you shoot trees, you could easily “zoom with your feet” when using the HB, or using a longer lens with the 1,7x multiplier. Finally, if you don’t like 4:3, then you could use one of the many crops the HB offers. But I guess you should simply let the MF go, sell your HB and focus on FF…
hasselblad is not a tool for everything. if you want a 70-200 equivalent for hasselblad it will look like the sigma 200-500 2.8, a oversized cartoon bazooka
I picked up the Fuji 100 II in the summer and when I compared shots that I framed the same as with my Canon R3 I didn't see much difference in image quality. I really expected to see a difference between 102mp and 24mp but it wasn't there so I traded the Fuji in on another Canon. The medium format does have much better dynamic range but that was the only benefit I saw.
I am sorry Mads, I love your videos and your style so this is nothing to do with you but if I see another RUclipsr sporting a Hasselblad I am going to puke. I agree with other comments below that the Fuji is more realistic for most people and I am not a Fuji fanboy (Shoot Nikon ZF and Olympus). I know they sent it to you for free so congrats on that I am just not interested in another video about a system that is so unattainable for most people. Again this is not a slight on you just tired of seeing this camera again and again. I could say the same thing about the X100VI, it just gets old and boring.
@@davidpearson3304 I am not being sarcastic here and I really appreciate the comment. I will take it into account for the future and own what I said. Really this was not so much about the camera per say just about the deluge of content around it. It is for me just like all of the content for the Fuji X100VI, it just gets old and boring. I love Mads videos and I learn a lot from them and for that I am grateful to him. I would just prefer his normal videos over this.
The best ratio would be a great big circle you could crop in camera to whatever you like. Personally I prefer the 4x3 ratio over 2x3, especially for vertical shots or stitching panos, I think it works best all round and doesn't seem to lose anything when cropping to more panoramic formats.
Mads, good thoughts well presented. Ever since your first video showing the 100 MP 'blad loaner in which you marveled at the pixel peeping, I've wished you'd mount an FE 2.8/24-70 GM ii on your a7Rv. Do this and I predict you'll not miss the 100 MP and Hasselblad glass. I have both the versatile Tamron 28-200 (which you introduced me to) and the 24-70 GM ii. Resolution and color pop of the GM ii is significantly better than with the 28-200, same as you've proved comparing the Hasselblad to the Tamron. Cropping the 20-70 GM ii to equivalent of 105mm, it remains superior, even cropping to equivalent of 150mm, these observations on the 61 MP bodies (I prefer my a7CR to my a7Rv, easier to tote and to hold) and viewed on my 5k Apple Studio Display. Try combining a 24-70 GM ii with your Tamron 50-400 when you are willing to carry two lenses and change in the field, but the 28-200 when going lightweight is paramount. Another observation: When recently in the Faroe Islands I compared handheld panos captured with the 24-70 GM ii with single frames using the 16-35 PZ G and in each scene the larger and taller background landscape of the panos shot at 35-50mm in portrait orientation pleased me more than did the single frame UWA ones. Thus my use of UWA has been whittled to showing foreground elements as the principle subject and for large landscapes in which important elements are moving, thus precluding pano merge. Of these three, the 4/24-105 G, 2.8/24-70 GM ii, and the Tamron 28-200, I get the most use from the 24-70 GM ii. Corollary is that with 61 MP we can take advantage of the resolution of the 24-70 GM ii, but with a sensor of only 24 or 33 MP we may be better off using the 28-200.
I agree 4:3 is ugly and 3:2 is much better. Maybe because it's closer to the golden ratio of 1.62 ? Idk maybe it's just personal preference like Thomas Heaton who prefers square crops
The idea that people with the disposable income to afford Hassleblad are going to be inflenced by YTubers is lost on me and getting increasingly dull when its in every bl00dy channel
Mads, please ditch the Hasselblad! It is not the sort of camera that most of your viewers will ever own. Hasselblad have become a disease amongst photographers on RUclips and you can see that viewers do not like it. Here in the UK most people are struggling to pay their energy bills, due to the mismanagement of the country. They are not rushing out to buy Hasselblads. Your channel is great, please do not spoil it. 🙂
Its simple. Fuji GFX is by far the superior middle format system for photographers who want to use long telephoto lenses. GF100-200, GF250, GF500. All very good, with the 250 being my favourite of the long lenses. Staying with Sony would be another good option. Hasselblad seems to be very desperate, the way the are handing out these X2D cameras left and right.
Wrong tool for the job. Surprised Hasselblad doesn’t send the free cameras just to people doing creative studio work, which is where it shines. Landscape is simply done better with different tools for the particular style of photography considered here.
Sigh....all the haters whining about Hasselblad sending cameras away for influencers to use and promote...all the while other brands have been doing the exact same thing for years.
Waking around with a nearly 15.000 €/$ Kit to photograph random trees in the distance nobody asked for.... eiiiiii, I don't know my friend, I don't know... anyways, I do enjoy watching your videos.
This is apples and oranges at best - and lazy misleading analysis at worst. You could have used a different Hassy lens and got to 180mm equiv. This would have been a much fairer comp - which begs the question what was the point of your comparison ? That apples are different to oranges ? If so, you nailed it - but we learned nothing. Also, the camera has functionality to allow different image formats that don’t require cropping from the native full-frame 645 format, including XPan.
Madds, I really like your videos, but come on.... You compare a 70mm with a 200mm lens and trash the 70mm for lack of detail. Get a 200mm lens for the X2D. And if you don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio then you shouldn't use the MF systems, which are all 4:3, even the film versions. The solution is get the right lenses and adapt, or send back the X2D. Bottom line: stop whining, it won't help you.
I don't like these gearvideos. Why does every photographer in RUclips test the same camera? You would take better pictures than I do with almost any camera. It's got nothing to do with gear. Cameras like Fuji GFX or Hasselblad are niche products for very special use cases. There are but a few photographers, who actually own and use these cameras in the long run. So, what would I expect from another review? It's a great piece of gear, but it's bulky and heavy and expensive. It's got a shallow depth of field and in the long end there isn't much choice in lenses.
It seems to me that a better comparison would be to put a 24-70mm on the Sony and make the comparison then. I expect the difference in quality would then favor the X2D.
Medium and large format cameras are not well suited for telephoto work. The long lenses would be very large, very heavy and very expensive. And with a smaller maximum aperture to boot. So if telephoto is what you need, medium and large format cameras are the wrong tool to use. This was true in film days and remains true with digital capture also.
You cannot really compare Full-Frame and medium Format cameras, I think. I own both formats and each one has its pros and cons. I admit that is easier to compose a picture when you have a lot of zoom to get the subject well framed. With my Hasselblad it takes sometimes much more time to get a decent framing, but that is the fun with it. You have to rethink your composition routines that you get with the full frame format. This leads to training new skills, and this is always an enrichment, I think.
So, did Hasselblad give you a camera too? Seems like they are sending them to all the YT landscape photographers I know, lol. I'm surprised they haven't sent one to Adam Gibbs yet but then he's a big fan of his Fuji and that's their competition. Lately he's been wanting to pack light as he wants to do more distance hiking. For me not only is the price on the Hasselblad prohibitive but the weight to have to carry around is not something I'm willing to do. So, I'm sticking with full frame. Thanks for the comparisons with the Sony.
Yup. I have had it since summer where I made a video on it, I just haven't had a proper chance to actually use it before now due to other projects.
According to hasselblad they don't give away cameras, the youtuber have to use them in a video then the youtuber can keep the camera as a payment
@@tiptop9909 As the old song goes, "Nice Work If You Can Get It."
For your style of shooting Mads, stick with the Sony. Far more flexible, lighter and with a ton of lens options, especially telephoto and extreme telephoto. The X2D is a nice camera with beautiful industrial design that seems better suited for studio and other types of photography where you can work at a slower pace and where keeping size and weight down aren’t as important.
@@adventure_photo yeah, so far as also my conclusion. I’m off to Iceland soon and I’ll bring my Sony system :) - but it is interesting to see what the X2D can do.
😂 that plop at the end. Love your style & authenticity.
Change the aspect ratio in the Hasselblad to 16:9 before taking the photo?
Exactly. It has XPan crop mode which is amazing
I’m not sure why you didn’t use the 135 with the teleconverter on the Hasselblad. It’s an awesome lens.
A fast long zoom for the Hasselblad would be enormous, heavy and tremendously expensive.
Your smile at the end - perfect.
You might want to consider the Fuji GFX 100s system. It uses the same sensor and offers much more flexibility in terms of zoom lenses from wide angle to telephoto. The lenses are quite heavy compared to similar Tamron focal lengths but for what it’s worth, quite good. You might be pleasantly surprised.
I think Haselblad is still living in the old days of landscape photography, when virtually everything was wide angle. In the last couple years, landscape photographers have taken enthusiastically to😊 telephoto, but Haselblad seems to have missed the trend. Of course, a Haselblad 300mm equivalent would need a mule to carry it around. 😮
Not a camera that'd ever come into my life, but some nice shots in the video either way, and I enjoyed your honesty about the camera's shortcomings too.
A square format is the ultimate sensor shape to maximize area within the lens image circle. Imagine never having to choose between portrait and landscape orientation while shooting, just crop the desired orientation and aspect ratio in post.
@@chirsd666 yes and no, because with a rectangle you can go wider than a square and benefit from pixels within the circle you can’t cover with a square.
As far as square is concerned it leads to a compositional world of its own. Square is something very special.
I heard a Rumor of Sony making a circular sensor a while ago. Proberly wont happen.
Interesting idea, but I think available papers, frames, screens, etc. would sway most of us to favor rectangular formats. I would like to see cameras with squareroot 2: 1 format to match ISO paper ratio.😊
@@MadsPeterIversenwhat do you mean by „go wider with a rectangle“ What does that have to do with the sensor?
Surprise at the end 😂
My crystal ball says the Sony A7R9 (only 4 more versions to go) will offer hot swappable sensors including circular. The rear will technically be a Sony phone which can be swapped out with newer versions anytime. Every button and knob will be labeled via LCD only since they can be remapped to do anything.
There is no doubt Hasselblad need to produce something which approximates to a range within the scope of a 35mm 70-200mm zoom if it wants to catch landscape photographers with the X2D. Short telephoto zooms for this format are possible without requiring herculean strength to lug them. The GF 45-100 and 100-200 zooms are not especially heavy or bulky. The price of the XCD 20-35 mm lens ( just under £6000) compared to the Fuji GF equivalent suggests that if Hasselblad do ever produce such a mid range telephoto it is going to have a price tag of about £7-8000 and be like buying a second body or a Sony A7 R 5 and two cracking GM lenses.
For the better part of 25 years, most of my professional and personal photography was done with 4x5 cameras. With that equipment, you (almost) always choose your camera position first, then sort out what focal length of lens will give you the crop of the scene that you wanted. If you didn't have the "correct" lens to give you what you wanted, you'd just use the next-shorter (wider) focal length and then plan to crop in the darkroom or at the scanning stage.. Easy. And of course, there are no zoom lenses for large format cameras - only primes need apply. Because of that background, I've always thought that zooms could potentially make photographers lazy, as they would zoom in from wherever they happened to be.
I've not used my 4x5 in a (too) long time, especially now that I have the X2D in my hands, but the same principle still applies - find where you want to stand (as Mads did in his video) and then sort out what focal length will give you the desired crop. As he suggests in his last 10 seconds of the video, his "problem" is that he just didn't have the focal length that he needed to give him the crop he envisioned - but now we appears to have the XCD 135mm ƒ/2.5 (an astoundingly beautiful lens) and.... problem solved (granted, with the application of funds and/or Hasselblad generosity).
Why don’t you use the in camera aspect ratio option Mads? Choose XPan for example. Compose whilst seeing the XPan format. Hasselblad’s Phocus software will open the file cropped but you can always change your mind and crop in a different format - the whole RAW file has preserved everything. I think that feature is the very best bit of the XCD. You seem to be missing the point entirely😮
A lens a lens my kingdom for a lens? Too dramatic? Still, cameras without lens support have limited use. Would the old Panorama by rows work/help? Also, your clothing(pants) you have intrigues me, only in the sense of improving my own gear choices, can you share a brand? softshell or hardshell? Another good thought provoking video. Thank you.
I am wondering why on earth Mads was wondering. The specs of the Hasselblad are well known and the specs of the zoom lens are well known. Quite clearly you either have to get closer to your subject - which delivers a different perspective - or stay at your distance and crop in afterwards - which is the equivalent of using a longer telephoto lens. This is optics at its simplest.
And the largest rectangle you can cut out of a circle is obviously a square - i.e. 1:1. Anything not square will have a smaller area.
I myself am on an RX10iv at the moment. It has an in-built optical zoom 24 - 600 mm equiv. Clearly, I would now experience considerable problems returning to full frame regards reach and the weight of the glass required to meet up to it. The very last thing I would do is go medium. Although I am not a dedicated landscape photographer the reduced DOF would drive me crazy. The same would hold for portraits. DOF too narrow and too sharp.
The Hasselblad, apart from the price, would be ideal to photograph the whole page of a newspaper pinned up on the wall and to enthusiastically pixel peep at 500% in post afterwards.
IMHO, extreme hi-res coupled to extreme low DOF is a bit peculiar. Astronomy could be a good use case. Of course, stopped down to f/8 it becomes more universal.
You can get comparable depth of fields by applying the crop factor. The f/2.4 of RX10iv is ~f/7.
Edit: for full frame equivalent
@@istuff4137 Yes, you are right. On a 1" sensor the more apparent problem is getting less DOF. This entails stepping back and zooming in to 100mm (equiv.} or more.
Analog I was on 35 mm slides and my lenses covered focal lengths from fish-eye to 1000mm. Today I stitch or pan anything wider than 24mm and crop for the other end.
Somehow or other I skipped APS-C and MFT.
@@simonpayne7994 "crop in afterwards - which is the equivalent of using a longer telephoto lens." not really equivalent given the stronger compression in telephoto lens
@InnerLightltd An absolute myth. The only factor is distance. The longer focal length simply magnifies. Whether I magnify within the camera or afterwards in post is - neglecting resolution - irrelevant. The impression of compression given to a viewer, who is looking at the photo from the "wrong" distance, is the same.
To be more exact, something that took up say 2 degrees of the total scene as seen by a person standing next to the photographer is now taking up 20 degrees in the field of view of a person looking at the image.
BTW. The same holds, more or less, for bokeh.
haha, great ending. can't wait for the answers on the next one! ;)
Resolution is not the most important quality in a camera. Of course I would always welcome more pixels than less, but I really don’t need more than 10 MP for an excellent canvas print. Pixel quality, micro-contrast and tonality are more relevant to me.
For nme that's also 10-16 MP AFTER CROPPING, and I want high MP sensors and sharp glass so I can crop instead of having to schlep heavy telephoto zooms.
cool ending!
Great video Mads! I've been considering someday going from full frame to medium format but the issues for me doing that are two-fold. One is the cost obviously as the X2D and even Fuji are very expensive compared to a decent full frame camera. The largest issue is the lens choices which to this day are limited in the medium format category. And all medium format lenses are comparatively more expensive that their full frame counterparts. Sony with the A7R5 and perhaps Canon and Nikon in the future will realize that a high resolution (>60 mp) full frame sensor with great dynamic range would be desirable and a profitable undertaking by these camera makers.
The Tamron lens is likely the limiting factor when testing the 7RV. Sony obviously does make the 70-200 that Mads is asking for from Hasselblad. Either of the new Sony 70-200 likely significantly outperform the Tamron.
Both Hasselblad and Fuji need to make longer telephoto lenses for MF. Their long primes are not practical for landscape photographers. Slow lenses are fine. Too short zooms is not fine.
Not sure what you are smoking mate. Fuji make a 100-200 zoom, a 250 prime and a 500 prime. The GFX bodies are also easy to adapt to other lenses if that does not satisfy you. What more do you need ?
So, you took it out into the woods and left it there?
I still think the Fuji film GFX 100S II amd 100 II are better cameras a lot more affordable and also a lot more lens choice and better focusing but I'm biased because I use the GFX
Have you heard that phrase, "Good photographers choose Medium Format, average photographers get sent one for free to prove they don't know how to use Medium Format"
Yes crop....GFX at 16-9 is 60 megapixels approximately
The image quality out of meduim format is mind blowing
The GFX 100s ii is amazing with the 100-200 lens
It is of course not completely fair to compare the image quality between two cameras or formats when using drastically different focal lengths, but it is a good example how cropping in to a large megapixel sensor is not always a way of emulating a longer focal length. ie; the field of view may be the same, but the look, feel and quality of the image is different. I would say the Hasselblad would definitely be better than the Sony if the Hasselblad was using a similar focal length, so interesting to see what Part 2 has to offer!
ah but it is fair though if you regard it as a comparison of systems, rather than just bodies. He’s comparing this camera, with its best available focal length for the situation, to this other camera, with _its_ best available focal length lens for the situation.
I think one of the most important factors of any ILC is what lenses are available for it.
I don’t think digital medium format is for you. Stick to easy photography maybe? I’ll take my Hasselblad with only 45mm over Sony with zoom any day. Medium format is a way better overall photography experience. And yes I have both.
Let me see. That must be the 20-35 and the 120 macro lens. But still far from a reach of 400mm Fullframe.
Hate to say it, but the best diverse kit you can get are APSC 40 mp. On well exposed pictures you wont be able to tell the difference of what format it is from.
After using it since it came out, the only "downside" are in the shadows when there are movements. But if you get a prime that wont be a problem either. Or you can stack if that is needed when the highlights are to strong. Another thing with the 40mp is you got to have a faster shutter on handheld. That pixeldensity are sensitive of movements. But there is always a way around it.
An example of the possibillities it have is, I shot a macro of a dragonfly 7 meters away with a 400 mm. Beat that.
Is it a fair comparison? The Tamron lens is very average it terms of quality, so it’s not surprising the Hasselblad is better, even taking into account the resolution differences
Bravo on the ending! Very clever.
You'd have been fine if you'd had the XCD 135mm often sold with the 1.7x teleconverter. It's all about lens selection. Having said that I wouldn't be in the least surprised of Hasselblad's next E lens after the recently released 20-35mm is a tele-zoom.
Sony is potentially changing their ways for the better.
I’m an A7IV user and they finally gave us focus bracketing with a firmware update which meant I left my tripod at home on my most recent trip.
If Sony keeps this up, some of us might just stay.
I can now do handheld focus stacks. Which blows my mind.
Hopefully you end up loving the Hasselblad though!
@@louisburley1597 yeah and the a7R5 just got focusing during bright monitoring which is amazing. I am working the HB to see if it in some cases can outperform my Sony but I’m not leaving Sony at all. It’s actually quite an interesting process of learning for me fiddling around with another system.
The best format for circular lenses is R8.25x22,5"
Give it away, send it back, or donate to a school. Seems the reviews of these expensive ( and free ? ) cameras draw quite a bit of criticism after reading comments in other videos? Just guessing it was free? Apologies if I am wrong.
The 2D obviously isn't the right tool for the way you shoot. A Hassy 70-200 equivalent would be massive, most people would not want to lug it around. The current 135 with 1.7 TC is alreay the size of a full frame 70-200. I think Hassy knows it's place. They know what works and they are introducing new lens to play in that niche. Sony is the right choice for you. As a side note, in the first image of the trees, it certainly looks like you have the option to zoom with your feet vs. standing way back and using a normal lens vs. the Sony zoom. If you shot the scene with a Sony 50mm and then the zoomed in frame, you would have gotten similar results.
It’s called a lens change like the 90mm
Maybe you should like at cost per pixel to figure out which is better. I remain amazed at the marketing budget threshold DJI are pushing to put this on the map. The sensor is great, I use it from a different brand all the time and enjoy my Photography, but all modern cameras are great so we should focus on improving composition.
Simple solution... Sell all that rubbish and purchase a Nikon z7ii and 28-400 and go on holiday with the profit you make. Your welcome 🤣
I would rather never go in holiday again , than own a god forsaken Nikon , you will never compete with the power of Sony 💪💪💪💪🤪
@@danscott5776 Come over to the dark side Dan, you know it makes sense. 😄
So we just need a round format and then you can crop it later to whatever you want?
That ending 😂
I really liked the bigger picture with more foreground it didn’t look useless to me kinda looked like a scene form alien convent 😅
Good ending!!
Having owned a hassleblad and also following you for many years. I don't understand why you have one! You're the best wildlife tog i know on YT, enough said :)
Wildlife? 😅 Are you sure you're commenting on the right channel?
He owns one because Hasselblad marketing got smart.
@@MadsPeterIversen 🤣
@@MadsPeterIversen There was wildlife in this vid, so you are now a wildlife photographer 😆
@@MadsPeterIversen Maybe he confused you with Jan Wegener for a hot minute
Hey Mads, what is your opinion on MFT, especially the OM1? Do you think it can keep up with the image quality of FUll Frame especially the A7RV? I'm thinking about downgrading but am afraid that I won't be satisfied with the IQ (I know all the other pors and cons of MFT)
@@roninthegoat2810 No, I don’t think it can keep up with the image quality of a 60MP FF camera, but the question is always what are you going to use it for and what do you require of it. I have a 75cm x 50cm print on my wall taken with the 7 times zoom of the Mavic 3 pro. It’s only 12MP and the quality when zooming in is relatively speaking super bad, but it is at the same time good enough :) if youre not going to use the OM1 for aurora photography you’ll probably be fine :)
@ first of all, thank you for answering!
I’m mostly using it for online and sometimes to make photo books, big prints are really really rare. And although so many people argue that at a certain Megapixel count it doesn’t make a difference anymore (especially for online) and is only visible in pixel peeping my thought behind it is that yes you only see an instant difference when zoomed to 100%+ but still at full size I see a difference between 20,60 or even 100 megapixel, it just overall looks cleaner, crispier and just more high end if you know what I mean.
What’s your opinion on that? Do you also think a 20 mp MFT (OM1) vs a 60mp FF (A7RV) picture if everything else is the same, base ISO and no blur, looks the same on Instagram for example and only makes a difference in very big prints or if I want to crop a lot? Not regarding color science of course.
@@roninthegoat2810
I though photography was all about the image, not the number of megapixels? I have, amongst others, a 5 MP old Canon Bridge camera that produces superb photos. I print them to A3, frame them and display them on my walls. Also friends have begged prints off me to frame, so they cannot be that bad, I would say. It is really all about the composition, subject and light. The camera really doesn’t matter!
Mads Manifesting 🤙🏽
It appeared to me that you could have zoomed with your feet, using Hassleblad
Not the same, especially not in a forest ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen Why? it looked like you had room was there or is there another reason? This is coming from someone who shoots very little landscapes but I do a fair amount of city scape. Looking to learn and understand not troll.
Yawn 🥱
May be you can also switch out the Sony for Leica to become totally niche and pay £15,000-20,000+ for the Hasselblad and it’s 3 lens’s
One of things that I used to enjoyed about your and fototrippers content was that you were able to make great images with good but obtaining equipment, even making some compromises to accommodate price and weight.
I have zero interest in this corporate selling out and Hasselblad product placement
So, you want the nice big MF sensor, but you want the flexibility of more lens options. Surely, then Fuji GFX is what you need to look at
Looks like you have been good this year Mads and Father Christmas has arrived early in Denmark. Look forward to seeing the next instalment as I did find myself making the same argument, yes you can crop in but why would you want to considering what you would pay for the camera and also why lose the potential for maximising the camera's resolution
In respect to your "Quality of image" comparison in the Deer photo...You shot the Hasselblad at 0.3Secs/ISO1600, and the Sony at .5secs/Iso640. I would EXPECT the Sony to have a cleaner image when shot with a longer exposure time (.5secs VS .3secs for the Blad) and Lower ISO(640 VS 1600 for the Blad), and i think the pics just reflect the difference in exposure settings,,,,not quality of camera gear. Love your work and channel Mads. : )
Awesome !
One of your best endings!!
I’m glad you kept the camera, and I am anxious to see the stellar work that you will be producing with it (and the new lenses that ‘magically’ appeared). 😂
Aside from the system, being a bit heavier than your Sony, I have a feeling that you’re really going to like your results…..
Christmas is coming, so will we see part two before then?
You don't let us wait till next Wednesday, do you?
I am exited as a 6 year old, going to school for the first time.
Sorry Mads but I’m not sure what the purpose or conclusions of this video are? The comparisons in result/detail conflict between the deer shot and later spiderweb examples. The former was clearly more a case of the X2D not being focused (back focused).
hard life, bro! 🙂Sony R vs. Hassi X2D...
I was so close to thumbs down for this video when I knew there was a 135mm and a 1.7 converter. I only have the 38v for mine and would be interest in seeing your results with that pairing.
Where is this Forest?
Maybe a correct comparison would have been using the same eq. focal length. If you shoot at 200mm with the Sony and at (eq.) 60mm with the HB, and then you zoom in digitally the HB to have the same image size, ie at 400% vs 100% of the Sony, well of course is the Sony more detailed, despite having fewer MP! What comparison is this? Btw, if you shoot trees, you could easily “zoom with your feet” when using the HB, or using a longer lens with the 1,7x multiplier. Finally, if you don’t like 4:3, then you could use one of the many crops the HB offers. But I guess you should simply let the MF go, sell your HB and focus on FF…
Not so bug difference in pictures quality like in cameras price)
hasselblad is not a tool for everything. if you want a 70-200 equivalent for hasselblad it will look like the sigma 200-500 2.8, a oversized cartoon bazooka
but is it not because you didnt shoot at f8 for sharpness?
Mads
take the Hasselblad xPAN!
@@peterebel7899 like the camera? And shoot film? 😅 - I’ll end up throwing it into a lake out of pure frustration 😂
@@MadsPeterIversen Was Anselm Adams ever close to frustration?
You can’t have it all. Either use both or pick one.
Zoom with feet?
Of course, you could walk the Hasselblad a bit closer ....
Not with the deer, and not with that swamp in the middle of the vid
Magic, eh?
I picked up the Fuji 100 II in the summer and when I compared shots that I framed the same as with my Canon R3 I didn't see much difference in image quality. I really expected to see a difference between 102mp and 24mp but it wasn't there so I traded the Fuji in on another Canon. The medium format does have much better dynamic range but that was the only benefit I saw.
I am sorry Mads, I love your videos and your style so this is nothing to do with you but if I see another RUclipsr sporting a Hasselblad I am going to puke. I agree with other comments below that the Fuji is more realistic for most people and I am not a Fuji fanboy (Shoot Nikon ZF and Olympus). I know they sent it to you for free so congrats on that I am just not interested in another video about a system that is so unattainable for most people. Again this is not a slight on you just tired of seeing this camera again and again. I could say the same thing about the X100VI, it just gets old and boring.
The Hasselblad videos are almost as annoying as the commenters in the comment section bitching about them. 🙄
@@davidpearson3304 I am not being sarcastic here and I really appreciate the comment. I will take it into account for the future and own what I said. Really this was not so much about the camera per say just about the deluge of content around it. It is for me just like all of the content for the Fuji X100VI, it just gets old and boring. I love Mads videos and I learn a lot from them and for that I am grateful to him. I would just prefer his normal videos over this.
The best ratio would be a great big circle you could crop in camera to whatever you like. Personally I prefer the 4x3 ratio over 2x3, especially for vertical shots or stitching panos, I think it works best all round and doesn't seem to lose anything when cropping to more panoramic formats.
@@lifeinthelandscape that would be a game changer! I guess with HB’s shutter that could at least theoretically be possible :p
Awesome ending....
Mads, good thoughts well presented. Ever since your first video showing the 100 MP 'blad loaner in which you marveled at the pixel peeping, I've wished you'd mount an FE 2.8/24-70 GM ii on your a7Rv. Do this and I predict you'll not miss the 100 MP and Hasselblad glass.
I have both the versatile Tamron 28-200 (which you introduced me to) and the 24-70 GM ii. Resolution and color pop of the GM ii is significantly better than with the 28-200, same as you've proved comparing the Hasselblad to the Tamron. Cropping the 20-70 GM ii to equivalent of 105mm, it remains superior, even cropping to equivalent of 150mm, these observations on the 61 MP bodies (I prefer my a7CR to my a7Rv, easier to tote and to hold) and viewed on my 5k Apple Studio Display. Try combining a 24-70 GM ii with your Tamron 50-400 when you are willing to carry two lenses and change in the field, but the 28-200 when going lightweight is paramount.
Another observation: When recently in the Faroe Islands I compared handheld panos captured with the 24-70 GM ii with single frames using the 16-35 PZ G and in each scene the larger and taller background landscape of the panos shot at 35-50mm in portrait orientation pleased me more than did the single frame UWA ones. Thus my use of UWA has been whittled to showing foreground elements as the principle subject and for large landscapes in which important elements are moving, thus precluding pano merge.
Of these three, the 4/24-105 G, 2.8/24-70 GM ii, and the Tamron 28-200, I get the most use from the 24-70 GM ii.
Corollary is that with 61 MP we can take advantage of the resolution of the 24-70 GM ii, but with a sensor of only 24 or 33 MP we may be better off using the 28-200.
I agree 4:3 is ugly and 3:2 is much better. Maybe because it's closer to the golden ratio of 1.62 ?
Idk maybe it's just personal preference like Thomas Heaton who prefers square crops
there can't be anything golden beside a square .... ;-)
Sony A7RVI in 2026 (we assume) I believe will kill medium format Mads
@@andy_simmo I hope they stick to the 60MP and work on the noise and dynamic range rather than adding more megapixels ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen Concur, and I doubt lenses will be resolving the density of information which a FF sensor with 100 MP could record.
Where to begin… just proves many tubers know nothing about photography
That was the biggest cliffhanger I've ever seen when it comes to photo channels ... Now I have to google the darknet :-)
The idea that people with the disposable income to afford Hassleblad are going to be inflenced by YTubers is lost on me and getting increasingly dull when its in every bl00dy channel
Mads, please ditch the Hasselblad! It is not the sort of camera that most of your viewers will ever own. Hasselblad have become a disease amongst photographers on RUclips and you can see that viewers do not like it. Here in the UK most people are struggling to pay their energy bills, due to the mismanagement of the country. They are not rushing out to buy Hasselblads. Your channel is great, please do not spoil it. 🙂
Its simple. Fuji GFX is by far the superior middle format system for photographers who want to use long telephoto lenses. GF100-200, GF250, GF500. All very good, with the 250 being my favourite of the long lenses. Staying with Sony would be another good option. Hasselblad seems to be very desperate, the way the are handing out these X2D cameras left and right.
Wrong tool for the job. Surprised Hasselblad doesn’t send the free cameras just to people doing creative studio work, which is where it shines. Landscape is simply done better with different tools for the particular style of photography considered here.
Oh, my goodness, what a cliffhanger! Mads obviously has something good coming! 😀
@@ulftornert2855 I got some good stuff coming next week ;)
@@MadsPeterIversen Is it more shilling for Hasseblad?
More Free Gear , guessing?
I'm sorry, you're comparing apples with pears, as we say in Britain. Not impressed.
Sigh....all the haters whining about Hasselblad sending cameras away for influencers to use and promote...all the while other brands have been doing the exact same thing for years.
Waking around with a nearly 15.000 €/$ Kit to photograph random trees in the distance nobody asked for.... eiiiiii, I don't know my friend, I don't know... anyways, I do enjoy watching your videos.
Why can you not just walk closer?
This is apples and oranges at best - and lazy misleading analysis at worst. You could have used a different Hassy lens and got to 180mm equiv. This would have been a much fairer comp - which begs the question what was the point of your comparison ? That apples are different to oranges ? If so, you nailed it - but we learned nothing. Also, the camera has functionality to allow different image formats that don’t require cropping from the native full-frame 645 format, including XPan.
Absolute nonsense !, you can walk closer to the subject or compare LIKE LENS with LIKE LENS.
I suppose this is what's called creating content !!!
Madds, I really like your videos, but come on.... You compare a 70mm with a 200mm lens and trash the 70mm for lack of detail. Get a 200mm lens for the X2D. And if you don't like the 4:3 aspect ratio then you shouldn't use the MF systems, which are all 4:3, even the film versions. The solution is get the right lenses and adapt, or send back the X2D. Bottom line: stop whining, it won't help you.
I don't like these gearvideos. Why does every photographer in RUclips test the same camera? You would take better pictures than I do with almost any camera. It's got nothing to do with gear. Cameras like Fuji GFX or Hasselblad are niche products for very special use cases. There are but a few photographers, who actually own and use these cameras in the long run. So, what would I expect from another review? It's a great piece of gear, but it's bulky and heavy and expensive. It's got a shallow depth of field and in the long end there isn't much choice in lenses.
Not a very valuable review. You are so full of it