One issue I like to remind people of is that "straight out of camera" only works if you use the JPG produced by the respective camera. If you are talking about the RAW data, then it is dependent on whatever raw converter you are using, which can be biased based on how Adobe, C1, ON1, etc., chooses to render those files. The image one sees on the back of their camera is a jpg thumbnail rendering of said raw file. Bit depth in raw files also plays a part, and when the GFX 100s was compared to the Sony A7RV, they both shoot in 14 bit, whereas the H2D and GFX 100 II are capable of 16 bit color capture. If all one ever does with their image files is process and output to an 8-bit jpg sized for screen viewing, the difference is less noticeable. Thankfully these days we have lots of gear to choose from to fit our personal style and workflow, and I'm always blown away by the multitudes of photo-artists no matter what gear they use. Thanks for sharing with us Manny!
If I recall correctly the Hasselblad X2D can implement it's "company colors" into the RAW files, different than other camera brands handle it. Correct me if I'm wrong, it's the way I understand it after watching GXAce's video on it.
I remember working as a delivery driver years ago and made a delivery to this photographer's house and I remember asking him about all the amazing canvas style frames he had in his house. I asked him what he shot with thinking he would say Canon or Nikon (that's all I knew of at the time) and he laughed and said Hassleblad. He said you probably never heard of them have you. I laughed and said no but that's when my curiosity about cameras grew more. Love seeing their influence trickle down to even smartphone cameras today.
its a common mistake i see alot of reviewers on youtube do. Definitely makes a huge difference when you set fuji colours to it's native camera profiles.
Yes, its good to finally hear a reviewer highlighting better ‘tonality’ as an image quality aspect that comes with bigger sensors. And appreciate your advice on ‘light is the great equalizer.’ Would love to try one of these one day.
So, I download the sample files for review. I examined the Sony A7R5 image first as this is the camera I use. I immediately noticed that the image quality of the sample file is very significantly inferior to the quality of raw images I take. The sample image supplied is a studio portrait. This video seeks to compare image quality across 5 different camera model/system. The Sony raw shown is compressed RAW (that’s apparent from the file size). The images are not shot at BASE ISO for each camera. All of the images are shot at ISO 800 and this likely disproportionately handicaps 35mm sensors over medium/large format sensors. Lighting is controlled in studio and so it is easy to add light to get the best image quality (the exception here is if this was shot with continuous lighting of limited power). Also, no offence to people that like using zoom lens in studio but the GM 50 mm crushes this GM 24-70 zoom used in this test (the images was shot at 48 mm on a zoom lens). I'm also not sure why the image from the Hassy has a much darker background. Im not saying that the comparisons shown here are not valid but there is definitely skew to favour the larger format cameras. Finally, it is also reasonable for people to select an equivalent area on the background and set a consistent colour balance before comparing the images. All said, I do appreciate the image quality the larger format models have to offer but I feel that a more fair comparison would be one were all parameters (ISO, lighting, shutter, lens choice…) selected for each camera was the best available for each system - as this is how people work in studio. Thanks for the great review; I’m sure I am significantly underestimated the amount of work required to make this video.
Finally, someone that is seeing it for what it is! Thank you for this upload. As a pro (dare I say it) photographer, I bought an X2D 9 months ago with three lenses but still waiting on the 90V for my main work. This camera does have the best colour science and fall off of any camera we can buy (Phase One not to be counted here). The micro contrast is also smoother because of the pixel density on the sensor. The camera itself is an absolute joy to use and I get excited to use it like I did 40yrs ago with my Canon (A1). Old git who still likes to shoot in manual everything, haha. For my use, it's perfect. I do warn people though, file sizes!! Thank you once again for this upload
but isn’t this just a white balence thing? 5:33 Fuji WB 5300K and +28 Magenta. 5:53 Hasselblad 5500K +15 Magenta. This explains perfectly what you said. Fuji looks cooler + pinkish color in the skin . so the WB detection is just better? Color transitions will still look better on the Hasselblad though, tonal fallof truly looks good. thats probabaly 16Bit was 14Bit raw
I tested both cameras and downloaded sample footage from different sources and this is exactly my finding. Fuji's WB is off and I think you can easily try it with the sample files: add 400K and it's a match. (close enough for the price gap at least!)
Maybe the best video on the net about what the real advantages of cameras like the X2D really are. Sure, it's subtle but once you see it you can't unsee it.
I opened all the images in Photoshop 2024 on a 16" MacBook Pro M1 w/ the mini-led XDR display and I can say without a doubt, that Hasselblad image is hands down the best. The color falloff and shift from highlight to shadow is way smoother than the other cameras. You know how when you punch into an iPhone photo over 100% and it looks like trash? The Hasselblad photo made the other pro cameras look like that when you punched in really close. If I had the budget, I'd buy it.
The greatest distinction I could see between the Hasselblad x2d and the rest aside from the color was the color gradations. The Hasselblad seemed to do a better job than the rest. I’m guessing because the other cameras were either 12 to 14 bit raw files while Hasselblad’s were 16 bit files. Can you confirm this Manny? Also, Manny, will you be testing the Fujifilm GFX 100S II? I think that that would be a better comparison: X2D vs GFX 100S II. Most people won’t know the difference between standard full frame mirrorless, crop frame mirrorless, and medium format. It goes to show though that a person should with what they are comfortable with. Keep up the great work and thank you.
I would love to see a comparison of the color science between the Hasselblad and Leica M or SL( know, apples and oranges)... It is because of the color science that I switched from Sony to Leica M about one year ago and I am still blown away. Cheers from Germany
I’m still shooting with the X1D and my buddies ask why I won’t switch back to anything else… I guess you fall in love with the little things about this format and brand and it’s so hard to explain but it is there. This is the perfect scenario for me to say “IYKYK” 🤷🏽♂️
As a new X2D owner (and someone who definitely does not need one as a hobbyist), the way you ended this video is absolutely 🔥🔥🔥 and captures how I feel about this camera perfectly.
As a pro portrait photographer that has used the Hasselblad system for years, I can say the the X1d and X2d systems I use have paid for themselves in time savings not having to make color adjustments to skin tones in my portrait work. That is a significant factor in my decision to use the X2d for my everyday work. The added benefit are the leaf shutter lenses which allow me to sync my flashes at whatever speed I need outdoors to match the ambient light while still using wider apertures to achieve shallower depth of field.
I think the biggest common mistake and i saw in your video (as i do in other videos) is that Lightroom automatically set the colour profile on the Fujifilm raw colours to Adobe colour instead of it's native colour profiles that you shot with on camera. You can easily switch between these profiles in Lightroom to see the difference yourself. The colour profile of the fujifilm cameras 16 bit raws on the Provia, Astia and its Pro Neg std/high colour simulation makes for some insanely accurate and beautiful colour base to work with. Keen to see you give the new GFX100 II a test run to see if it's speed and dynamic range boost works to your work flow.
I don't own either system and hence don't know how much setting the color profile to Fujifilm raw colours affect the final image but this might be a huge factor and if not warranted for, might be very misleading.
Is this a sponsored comment (ThankYou Square Space,,, I mean ThankYou FujiFilm) :) :) :) Or Just FF Fanpersonism .......... (wanted to b socially correct) :) :)
Wait until you upload to Instagram. Then those differences will go away. I love Medium Format and you are correct, the differences blow you away..... when viewed in your raw editor and when you print. That's why medium format, while nice will not be appreciated unless you have high end requests.
When it comes to colors - Hasselblad > leica > nikon/cannon > fuji(not including custom recipes if you include recipes it jumps above nikon imo) > sony.
I thought you were exagerating the differences between R5 (which I also use) and the Hazelblad and then I open the two files.....Its amazing. And I see exactly how skin tones are so much more real and better. and no matter how I change the camera raw settings for the R5 I couldnt get close. You can then color grade it later...... I can feel what you see how much better the camera is....... Now where do I find the money......
@@ChristianCampo The flaw I see with the R5 file is that Manny used the Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM. That is one of Canon's cheapest lenses. I also own that lens and it creates a yellowish cast on skin from what I see. Maybe Manny didn't have the RF 50 F1.2, 85 F1.2 or 24-70, but you will definitely be getting better skin tones with those lenses vs the 50 1.8 that was used in this test. All of the the other cameras had high end glass on them except the Canon.
@@tuku8257that might be true and I wasnt aware that glass change the skintone so much. I own the R5 and 85 F1.4 among others. So thats why my skintones are different. thanks
What would have been nice (and maybe a follow up video if you're bored), is how Xrite(ing, i.e. using a Colour PassPort) for the different camera models affects the 'starting point' of each (in comparison with the X2D). I could be wrong here, I am no pro studio shooter, but typically we get those initial Xrite shots so in post we can create more accurate colours for our various cameras. I think it would be interesting to see where they all stack up in this regard, does the X2D shift much pre and post Xrite calibration etc? Can the Xrite push the other brands more towards the Hassy profile look (but still obviously lacking the same latitude). It's just that your mantra here was how good the Hassy was in getting true to life colours, and my first thought was 'Xrite!' and that this is what the tool was created for. It might be an extra step but once you generate those profiles you might get much better starting points for all the non Hassy cameras (whilst benefitting in conjunction with their own perks like better AF tools, lower cost etc). I dunno, it feels like a steep price (literally) to pay for SOOC accurate true to life colours with (your words) 'overkill' files (most of the time). Perhaps a happy medium exists by revisiting Xrite? Cheers, Eddy
I would shoot a Passport photo before each session, and create my own profiles for all of my full-frame cameras. HNCS is so good that while you "can" create a profile in Phocus using a Colorchecker, you don't "need" to. The colors are just right. You then just need to set/correct white balance.
100%. This is what I thought, too. He’s starting down the rabbit-hole, but not quite there yet w/calibration. Huge benefits await, if he gets there. Really fun watching him discovering.
@@RaphaelMatto Well I'm pretty sure he must have crossed paths with Xrite already? He's pretty competent. FWIW I resonate with his message here but with my older Pentax 645D, that CCD sensor gives truly rich and accurate colours that makes it a joy to use. Of course its old now, beyond draconian in digital usage, it feels like you take a hit in every way for nice colours.. just use a damn CCPP2 with something more friendly! 😁
@@SummersSnaps Indeed, competent & talented, & a wonderful host-didn't mean to throw shade. But, the differences in these images have more to do w/the acr engine / Adobe's canned profiles; they can all be tuned to match w/Xrite & custom profiles as Juan suggests-else it's a mostly meaningless visual comparison, besides the extra latitude w/16 bit. Then, there's some rabbit hole to go down w/NX Studio, etc, dealing w/differences in color / tonality in oem software vs acr ... & potentially differences in the lenses-so you could shoot the scene w/the same lens on each body, etc etc etc.
Very interesting video but why using a zoom lens with nikon and sony camera in addition to not using high-end lens for Nikon. I have already seen so much difference between photos taken with the same camera but different lenses, I would be interested to see if such a difference is still as visible with the Nikon 50mm1.2 lens for example.
Straight of camera, but you use adobe color profile. That is not straight of camera. You need to create profiles to those cameras and then compare the color science.
For those who got bit by the medium format bug, you can get a used Pentax 645z and extremely cheap used Pentax lenses and go have fun. Same sensor as the Fuji 50mp bodies and older model of the Hasselblad.
@@codyconrad7333I love my 645Z! It’s big but so simple that nothing gets in my way, no menus just pick up the camera and shoot. I hate messing with ibis and dozens of other settings that my other cameras have.
Great video Manny! One think you did not address is AF. How is af in comparison to say Fuji medium format? Is it easy to hit the eyeball vs eyelashes? Do you use it in continuous or single af mode ?
Oh my gosh! I tried editing the raw. Hasselblad really has a great dynamic range as well as the color science is legit! This is gonna be my dream camera as of today.
The Fuji sample you shared is in 14-bit compression, not 16-bit uncompressed. I could tell simply by observing the file size :) Ideally, it should have been around 200 MB, similar to the Hasselblad sample. While Hasselblad files are superior to Fujis, providing a compromised file for Fuji isn't fair for those downloading the RAWs, making the comparison less accurate.
U 💯, nobody can tell what camera was used for what pic , on social media or print, cameras and brands are generally all good , its like a car we buy what makes us feel good .
Thanks Manny. You are blessed to be able to try out all brands,and develop you knowledge to be able to compare. Thanks for sharing. As a photog of almkst 20years, I have shot all kinds of portraits in all kinds of environments, and I have had to fight 12bit raw files and 14bit raw files a bit less, but always had to adjust and finetune to get something I was pleased with. Its not enough to light well, the camera has to see well and this Hasselblad would change my life but it's not a realistic dream. I have too much other work which required speed in all ways so let it go. Fight the good fight...
Manny after watching this video and being an owner of both the GFX 100II and Nikon Z9 the Hassy is the boss. Best purchase ever with the 80 1.9 and the 35-75 waiting for the 90 to come in stock. The images as you say straight out of camera are the best I've seen from any system I've tried. Now if they make the AF system as good as the Fuji GFX 100 II I would be in heaven.
The 4:3 aspect ratio is the FX 645 format captured by 645 full-frame film and digital cameras. The X2D is a 1.3 crop 645 format and records in the 4:3 aspect ratio. With that said, the Nikon Z7ii and Z9 can be shot in this format with slight MP cropping. I shot 645 and 67 medium-format film cameras for many years. I love the 4:3 aspect ratio. Today I shoot Nikon but I am also ready to jump to medium format for my professional work, but not dumping my trusty Nikon. Just trying to figure out if I am adding a 2nd Z9 to my kit first. Nice video.
Hasselblad colors are indeed very nice. The only thing I miss from my H6D-100c compared to the P1/GFX. In fact even in Capture One I am not sold on the Fuji colors compared to Nikon with ProStandard profiles. Btw, next time you may want to mount a top notch prime on the Z8 such as the 50mm f1.2 S instead of a 1,000 US$ zoom lens (28-70mm f2.8). The rendering is significantly different. Still, what I see is more resolution on the pupils of the eye of the model in the Nikon file... eye AF matters more than sensor resolution.
This video going to cost me a lot of money. the difference is exceptional. the image from the Hasselblad looks "right" on colors from the beginning, much more 3d and vibrant. day and night difference from the sony files (which is the system I have). Thanks for this video!
Oh finally! Hahaha - nothing to do with being a gearhead and the X2D being the sexiest camera body ever made... Bless ya! A happy Manny makes everyone happy
Thank you Manny for this awesome Video! I'm still struggling to decide between the X2D and the GFX 100 II as our new work horse even after testing both - but 95% of the time the Fuji and Hasselblad images match perfectly (on my freshly calibrated iMac pro display) if you add 200-300K of color temperature to the GFX RAW image. Please somebody try it with the sample files and tell me I'm wrong, I would appreciate the input and am eager to learn something new. Right now I just cant make out the difference. Sure this is somewhat annoying but a simple preset does the trick with one klick. Maybe even an on Camera setting. If this really holds up there is a big downside with the Hasselblad apart from the higher cost and no video function and that is the support. Hasselblad support got really bad lately from what my (camera)dealer told me. Non the less this is a great video and I totally get it - it's just for barely noticeable difference after color temp setting I prefer outstanding support which Fuji definitely offers.
Do any of you know if a FujiFilm film simulation profile that can get close to Hasselblad’s skin tone colors? I like Fuji’s film simulations just like I enjoyed using different film when I shot film. Anyway it’d be cool to have a Hasselblad and a Leica film recipe for my GFX 100II.
Don’t need it but truly want it! I was really impressed when the x1d came out. Just holding in the hand… can’t afford it but am looking in to how to purchase. Thanks ever so much for raising my gear lust… like I needed any help.😂😂😂
I am no expert but from little I know the Hasselblad color science only works if you use their Phocus software not Lr not C1. SOOC, do people using FF or MF use that?
Great review, can you provide a sample file download from this test, and hope to be able to see their actual differences on your own monitorGreat review, can you provide a sample file download from this test, and hope to be able to see their actual differences on your own monitor
Guys, you see how at sometimes, words fail Manny, like he is almost speechless? That's what a Hasselblad does to you. It has happened to me and it will happen to you when you try it out. It is INSANE!
Thanks for the feedback, good job. Was curious abut the X2D but based on a number of reviews I saw (I admit, early on) the X2D was reported as having software that was, well, incomplete. In other words some software glitches occurred and some features were promised for the future. Have these things been resolved in firmware updates? Also, based on some of the examples you were demonstrating looked to me front focus was apparent, the eye was not sharp. Again, several reviewers indicated the focus was not up to snuff having some issues. What are you finding. Not saying the camera is not good, just wondering if some of these things have been resolved. Really appreciate you putting out the review!
Great video, thanks! When I opened the Nikon file in NX Studio, Nikon's RAW converter, I had the same result as the Hasselblad... I think Lightroom messed up the NEF file.
My thoughts exactly. This is not exactly fair, it gives the file less pop on first impression. Great value lens, I have it here alongside an 85/1.2 and 28-70 for when I need something compact/cheap i.e. for street photography. I appreciate it for what it is, but it has no place in a comparison to the other equipment.
Even MFT is very good for certain use cases. Not only to mention the GH-series for video. Medium Format is way to expensive and has some downsides that i don't want to cope with. We don't love photos for the technical quality of the camera. Every camera has it's own characteristic look and so do the lenses.
What I couldn’t get over on the X2D was the rocking lens mount which would eventually let dust and moisture onto the sensor. Plus the complete lack of tethering live view made it a no go in my studio. The performance of the GFXii blows it away for professional use, and I can adjust the color science on any camera in the camera or on post. Having the fast auto focus of the Fuji gfxii with eye detect is really beneficial in stressful shoots, and I can really on the performance. The focus point on the XD2 is too large, more often than not if you are looking for that medium format shallow depth of field on your portraits you will miss the eye trying to manually move the focus point, and impossible for moving models.
The Fuji is still inferior based on realism and extreme 3D image, there is no other option than the X2D. Use bracketing and the differences will become even bigger. The Fuji has only a low bracketing option compared to the Fuji.
on my calibrated screen hb x2d is better. Plus the color fidelity color dynamic range. For studio portrait work yes. I was going to say landscape too, but the pixel shifting neglects that part. I use Capture 1 and lightroom, lightroom is more muted even for Nikon raw. I prefer lightroom editing style and most edit goes away from a natural look anyways. But fullframe is better price/ feature/iq ratio.
Even as a strictly Sony shooter now, that freeze frame comparison @5:28 - I would rank them Nikon, Canon, Sony based on those frames alone and how the colors render. Edit: and then the Fuji leans more towards the colro representaiton of the Sony, while the Hasselblad more resembles the Nikon/Canon
Question... What color space are you shooting with? On the Sony, file names start with an underscore if using AdobeRGB. Otherwise using sRGB. Maybe give that a try, I’m curious if it makes a difference in skin tone transition (adobeRGB mostly expands the reds which impact skin tone).
The pictures on Medium Format are more True-To-Life. Full Frame images look kinda skewed. At 7:12 mark, Her face looks more natural and more circular in the left frame, whereas more elliptical/skewed in the right frame.
So I downloaded the raw files, and I clearly can see the differences in the files. (I do want to note that I am viewing these images on a color calibrated EIZO Coloredge) IMAGES: The backlight on the Hasselblad file feels it was closer to the background than the others? or maybe the model was closer to the key light and the fill in the Hasselblad shot, because the lighting feels flatter in the rest of the images than in the Hasselblad file? COLORS: I don't know... anyway, I edited all of the images in PS to see if I could see a REAL WORLD difference for MY style of photography between the cameras... Well, The Hasselblad turned out great in my final edit... the main thing I can point out about it is that the way it handles the reds in her hair is a lot better than the other cameras by a LONG shot... meaning that in the Canon, Fuji, and Nikon (I left out the Sony on purpose cuz the colors are so wonky), the roots of her hair presented more red, than the "burnt orange red" that the Hasselblad produced....but that's about where it stops when it comes to comparisons in the final images. Concerning resolution, I did enjoy having the ability to crop this existing shot into a pure headshot, and it was still quite large on the MF 100mp cameras... This is something to consider if you are someone who is in the market for a new camera body... like I am. CONCLUSION: I'm strongly considering sticking with my Z ecosystem, and getting the Z8, because I was able to closely match the Hasselblad results, and the Z8 is loaded with a ton more features than the MF options, along with lenses that are just as sharp if not sharper. I would be interested to see a more controlled test between these.😀
Regardless, all photos you show were processed but biggest problem is you need to have super fast PC for editing those files which adds another extortionate price to already overpriced Hassleblad
I’m just curious, was there any reason to believe you wouldn’t get better quality in a medium format camera? A full frame camera is based on the 35mn format. For those of us who started in film that’s pretty obvious. Once upon a time medium format was the gold standard for portrait photography. The larger film negative (larger sensor in digital format) you got finer detail, less grain and smoother tones. Not to mention that the 6x4.5 negative was 2.5 times as large as the 35mm. The same standard applies in digital formats. I used to shoot medium format. The price is what led photographers to abandon medium format for full frame when digital photography became the standard. A digital back for a Mamiya or a Hasselblad would run you $25k compared to $5k 20 years ago.
Why did you use different Lightroom color profiles? For all cameras, except Hasselblad, you used a generic and obviously inferior 'Adobe Color' profile.
i downloaded the files , i see what you mean by film look . and man the quality is unbelievable . still not going to get it , its over kill for social media content creator . probably when i am old and i want to flex lol
Medium format is awesome!..Manny all great points of the whole Photography technology in general..you can't go wrong with any mirrorless systems nowadays except Nikon..because they are still behind Canon and Sony..haha just kidding...but back to the point..Medium Format for some of us will be a place to "graduate to"..from FF..depending on what some of us "shoot" and specialty..portrait..landscape..etc..appreciate the insight..
Isolating the three full frame cameras, I’d say the Sony is too red/magenta, the canon too yellow/green and the Nikon seems nice. None are perfect and all can be easily fixed in post but it was interested for sure!
A 16 bit raw will have more accuracy, and be closer to the analogue signal. It's simply has more accuracy. The shots from the Hassey were out of this world. Perfect. Nopes. As I am a hobbyist, not going to medium format.
To my (big) surprise, Fujifilm in C1 beats the hell out of Hassy on Lightroom. LR rendering crap. Hair, eyebrows from Hasselblad - they're all muddy in LR.
Manny, you can t discuss color without seeing what the manufacturer intended by using their proprietary raw editing software. Using lightroom of all programs you see what adobe intended, and it;s a great disservice to canon cameras and nikon cameras especially but also the others And if you re talking mainstream image quality using third party software, Capture One should be the go-to program, not ... lightroom ..
Wait till you print. Then you will never touch full frame again. Fuji and Hass when used in the correct environment and then printed cannot be matched. Phaseone is the only thing you can compare then it gets interesting. 40k vs 8-10k cameras the difference is there but its not so big that you think yess Phase is worth the jump
