The entire Hasselblad community (me included) let Hasselblad know that we don't want the camera to "Happen to be a video camera also" and wanted them to really put their R&D into a camera with better quality and user friendliness. This came because as much as we liked the X1D, it still had its flaws and them putting any attention to its video-making capabilities when nobody bought the camera for that felt like their priorities weren't in order and they were trying to be too much like Canon or Nikon.
@@AlainSTO Half-baked video features are just a waste of time that could instead go towards improving features that people actually want and use. Plus, when you're talking about today's medium format offerings, you've got an enormous sensor that takes an eternity to read out. That's fine for slow movement and modest framerates, but any significant movement means hugely obvious rolling shutter, and it has to crop the area used at higher framerates. It's just, fundamentally, the wrong sensor to use for videography, IMO. _Maybe_ a consumer medium format video-centric ILC would make sense if it used a _lower resolution_ sensor with a faster readout. But the old 50MP sensor is slow to read out. Mitigate that with a stacked sensor, and the cost would be stratospheric. Go for sub-30MP you might get acceptable readout speed and great 4K recording, but you'll lose 8K recording and you're now building something aimed exclusively at video. And realistically, how many people are going to opt for that over a Sony, Canon, Nikon, or Panasonic? I think it's right that Hasselblad is focused on photography.
Nope. DJI (parent company of Hasselblad) has video taken care of on their end. Hasselblad has been and always will be a luxury photo camera brand and that's where it should stay. The people who use Hasselblad and are loyal to the brand and are excited to pay premium markup prices on gear have made it known that Hasselblad cameras are for super luxury photography only and DJI knows that.
3:46 Yeah, but tell that to the measurbators/pixel peepers in the forums. ;-) The older I get, the less I care about perfection and what everyone else is obsessed with. People need to move on from the granular details and just focus on what they truly need to make the art they want or need to make. I was surprised when I first heard pros talking about not knowing what settings or exact gear they used for a certain shot, but when I kept hearing the same thing, I realized I myself was too worried about the fine detail. I DO like to research gear before I buy it, but mostly because I'm curious about the tech and I enjoy the new stuff, but really I could make the photos I make with many different cameras on the market today because they're all really good now. If someone can't find a system that works for them (unless they have very specialized needs for some reason), the problem is not the gear, it's the person pressing the button. I got happier the day I started to care less (about things that don't truly matter).
I'm hoping someone (wink wink) can make a proper review of the Hasselblad XCD 135 including portrait samples since that's nowhere to be found on the internet so far.
I have 135 and highly recommend it. Focusing is fast, sharpness is insane across the image, bokeh is beautiful, and with 1,7x teleconverter you can use it as a macro lens (1:3 reproduction rate)
01:20 I notice the "Lens Made in Japan" marking... I wonder by whom? Of course Hasselblad is putatively a Swedish company, even if it's just a styling studio now, and owner DJI is Chinese, so who's the lens OEM?... Fujifilm, who made the Xpan to be sold under the Hasselblad name? Cosina, who do a lot of contract manufacturing? Somebody we've never heard of?
I think it is likely to be Panasonic since they also built the Leica SL2 and many Leica lenses that share the same mount as LUMIX line. I think Panasonic could make the X2D electronics also with the Sony sensor because the Swedish just not good in camera electronics. They are a good mechanical company but not electronics.
Dude, this is all good, and this lens is good too, but you didn't mention the problems. 1. What about the noise inside the lens? 2. How does it compare to an 80mm lens? 3. Sharpness in corners at 2.5
Hello, Not to worried about your hire. But I have both the X1D and X2D as well as the old 90mm XCD lens to be honest it is blisteringly sharp and both supper for portraits, products and landscapes. will I get this one not sure. I have my eye on ther 135mm XCD for my next lens.
The upcoming Ursa 17k will have a Hasselblad mount option, the video friendly mechanics might be designed to be a good fit for that. If Blackmagic could announce the Hasselblad mount before launch, the two companies were already in talks for a long time
If money wasn't a problem, I shoot for fun, street, travel, gig if there is and contest, should I get Nikon Zf with 28-400mm f4-8 or Hasselblads X2D with 25mm and 90mm?
I’ve been shooting with Hasselblad cameras since the mid ‘90s. Plenty of other cameras as well including the Leica M11P I own currently. The 90 which just showed up has been my most highly anticipated lens ever. The files out of my 907x CFV100 are like nothing else I’ve ever seen. And… the new 90mm is said to be the best Hasselblad lens ever made… Some awesome combo!!! Looking forward to getting out there with this one!
Wealthy amateurs who believe paying more would give you better results. Professionals care about costs, so they are unlikely to buy any medium format camera, and even if they do, it would be a Fujifilm GFX.
Professionals photographers who uses flash a lot will most likely get Hasselblad because the shutter is in the lenses. Fuji need to make new and better lenses with much higher optical image quality.
@@cameraprepper7938 Leaf shutter is one thing, but "higher optical image quality"? The native GFX lenses are widely accepted as optically superior to the Hasselblad X lenses, which were designed to be compact, rather than optically flawless.
I would love the X system, as I find the XCD-V lenses and body would make a brilliant combination. Interestingly though, if you multiply the FF factor on all of them both angle of view and the DOF equivalence, what do you get? 28/4 would be like a 21/3.2, 38/2.5 like a 31/2. the 55/2.5 a 44/2 and the 90/2.5 a 72/2. Sound familiar? How about a 21/2.4, 31/1.8. 43/1.9 and 77/1.8. Yes the FF Pentax Limited lenses! The X2D is 100MP, and the K-1 is "only" 36mp, but Kudos to Hasselblad for almost emulating the wonderful left-field Pentax quad (formally, The Trinity) in their superb lenses for the camera. Makes me want the range, but I think the Bank Manager has other ideas........
I thought Plena was the new measurement for weight A very Canadian thing to have a combination of measurements -- do I have to convert now from Noct to Plena? :) Thanks for the review. Was going to jump to the X2d and this lens (when this lens was announced) but the lens was so long in coming (after announcing) I spent all the money on more Nikon glass :)
Good video. I’m looking for a mic to use outdoors with my G9II. I didn’t see the mic Jordan is using in the description. Anyone have experience with mics.
I have the 90mm 3.2 and aside from the depth of field, I've seen very similar characteristics in the lens. I really do like the 90mm because of short-tele characteristics. I would say that without the hood, the older 90mm has a bit of a flare problem (esasily correctable...still it's there). Great episode!
@@PetaPixel The ridiculous amounts of separation in some of the shots of Chris, and the fact you've lied to us before (specifically in the G9II video) 🤣
In recent years, fluencers have been complaining that prime lenses were f/1.8 and not f/1.4, and next we saw them shooting f/2.8 or f/4 zooms all the time. They called f/1.8 unprofessional. Fluencers, rhetoric, marketing. Not been to photography school, or the photography track in art school. f/2.5 - really? Let's stop calling this format "medium" because it is small format in the classical photography school definition: if it fits on 127 film then it's small format (36mm usable film width). It's a far cry from 6cm * 4.5cm, or 6cm * 9 cm that we would call medium format.. That's important when we judge these products - because if we don't frame them properly, then we are selling them as marketers. Just compare this format and product to "full frame" and answer the question if it can compete.
Hasselblad still doesn't have an amazing portrait lens in my opinion. a 75mm f/2 eq isn't that great and the other option is the 80mm 1.9 which is a little better but the angle of view is eq to a 63mm and doesn't give the same compression and DOF as say an 85mm 1.2 many full frame manufactures are making. Feel like Hasselblad should look to introduce a 110 f/1.8 and then they'll really have something special. They had a 110 f/2 back in 1977 so I don't see why they don't remake the lens but with 4 decades of optical innovation.
@@gordoncahill1170 but compared to what FF manufactures offer, Hasselblad can't compete. even Hasselblads fastest lens is only a f/1.5 FF equivalent. Hasselblad needs an ultra shallow dof lens for portraits. Hasselblad simply doesn't have an 85mm 1.2 equivalent.
@@Drpftnst that assumes shallow DoF is better, which I disagree with. Actually I really dislike the eyeball in focus and the lashes soft look. But each to their own. The hair thin DoF chase is a relatively new phenomenon. Larger the 135 format systems never really chased hyper thin DoF. And historically most of the great portrait photographers had more issues with not enough DoF rather than too much. Mind you f 1.9 on a 33x44 sensor end 80mm is still pretty thin.
@@gordoncahill1170 well I guess it really depends what kind of portraits you do. I do a lot of on location shoots so I’m usually getting waist up shots or full body shoots. Usually if I’m doing engagement or wedding shoots I’m pretty far away so I’m able to open up to 1.2 and still get my entire subjects body in complete focus. I rented the x1d ii back in 2020 and simply wasn’t impressed with the quality of images I got out of it which was mostly due to the lenses themselves not being fast enough in terms of aperture.
Doesn't matter how good a lens is if you cannot get it anywhere 🤣 Maybe DJI (Hasselblad) should focus on improving their global supply chain network instead of putting more money on influencers... but I guess influencers are more important to them than their own customers huh (I'm owner of X2D, 907X 50C, 38V, 35-75 and 90V).
Not so sure the 90/2.5 "is better optically" compared to the 90/3.2... looking at the 55mm V and 38mm V, regarding pure optical quality, compared to legacy original XCD lenses, is not the forte of the new series of lenses. They are generally lighter, faster f stop and faster focusing. Sure.
@@gordoncahill1170 This is a wonderful news! I was debating if to replace or not my 3.2 with the new 90/2.5, but the 38 & 55 (especially the 55) left me a bit underwhelmed regarding image quality. If it's not the case with the 90/2.5, perfect! Do you have any comparison of the two lenses around?
@@79Tiamat I do but the differences are small and disappear except at full size. Unless you want the focus clutch or somewhat faster AF on the X2D I probably wouldn't bother upgrading. I pre-ordered and waited over a year for delivery (kept getting pushed back). I love the 90V but I don't think I could blind pick photos at f4 and beyond.
Hi Gordon, thank you for your impressions! Regarding AF, it is markedly faster compared to the 3.2? I use a 907x 100c, that should be identical to the X2D regarding AF. Thank you!
@@79Tiamat No. Not dramatically faster. The 3.2 was one of the faster focusing lenses from the older series already. I'd not upgrade for the focusing speed. It's more the focus clutch and faster shutter speed which are attractive to me.
It's a nice lens. Maybe economy is tough now... Bargain price. Back in the day a piece of glass... A simple filter for the H brand can run you up quite a bit. And this is for a lens with lots more glass!
Well, that 90% can drop to almost zero pretty quickly the moment you add outdoor flash photography into the mix. Interchangable lens systems with leaf shutters are rare.
@@noenken only the pros or niche people realized that anything below 1/4000 flash sync(aka day time outdoor stuff) hassy leaf shutter is still king. which is also why A9 III is such a game changer, which I think Sony might dominate this field once they got their DR and MP up for their double stack global shutter sensors.
@@xyse247 True, Sony is coming to have that lunch. But that is gonna take another decade or so. Currently you can buy a used Hasselblad 45mm for about a thousand bucks, the older 90mm for about 2k. Pair those with the X1DII and you have a 1/2000s flash sync system today for the price of the A9III alone.
Sometimes more is more. If I were making a living shooting high-end fashion or lifestyle-accessory photos I would be all over this combo: easy to carry around, great flexibility for shooting with strobes either in studio or location, and image quality that will stand up even to very demanding output such as point-of-sale banners. And let's face it, models and clients would be more impressed by this camera, which shouldn't make a difference but does. Downside: Chris recently revealed to us in one of PP's interminable podcasts (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-i3tmJADd9t8.htmlsi=_rWms4YwogEBOskx&t=2996) that Hasselblad's studio tethering software is icky...
Here we go again. Equivalence. No, in "speed" (maximum aperture) this lens can NOT be compared to 70mm/2.0 (you have noticed that in 70mm f/2.0 the f=70, did you?). You can only make that equivalence comparison validly as a way to guesstimate this lens's Depth of Field (DoF) in a comparison to lenses of a format you know better. Fluencers $#!+. Claiming you get more light would also need qualification as the aperture value only expresses the ratio between the focal length and the diameter of the lens's entry pupil. This abstracts away from "Transmission" or its counterpart absorption. Until you measured the "light transmission" you get from your lens at a specific aperture number and focal length, you don't know how "fast" it is. Especially when you compare the maximum apertures of lenses and the differences are subtle.Check in DxO Mark that now a bit older 1.2L lenses have a transmission value of 1.5 at f/1.2 and for example now older 1.4G lenses also have a T value but at 1.4 so they are equally fast. And, DoF comparisons, as the 1.4G is much sharper, it has a smaller Circle of Confusion (CoC) parameter in its DoF formula, resulting in shallower DoF than it would have with a larger CoC, so the 1.2L may actually have a deeper DoF at 1.2 than the 1.4G lens at 1.4. As DoF depends on film/sensor sharpness and other factors who's influences are bundled in the CoC, you should now know that the DoF scale on the lens is about worthless.
