This is just sublime. I would LOVE to own one of these though I suspect it would be even beyond my almost boundless sense of reason and price insensitivity!

A 50mp medium format digital camera that sits easily in the palm of your hand – what is not to like about that (unless you’re a sports/wildlife photographer of course in which case it’s useless!)

Good write up here: Ming Thein on the Hasselblad X1D

$9000 for the body?
That’s less than i was expecting if I’m honest.
Always loved medium format cameras

Considering that it uses the same sensor as the H6D-50c and that costs £21,000 it’s incredibly well priced. Still pricey though.

I was looking at this via Flipboard yesterday, and it really does look like the perfect camera for landscape, architectural, industrial and street photographers.
Come on lottery win, please…

I’ll order two. One for each lens. 😉

That’ll be my lottery win camera.

I can see WA and short telephoto lenses. No standard lens?

I’ll order two. One for each lens.

Made me chuckle. Not so sure it’s a ‘street photogrpahers’ camera though Zero. The AF will be far too slow and street shooters don’t care about IQ, indeed they often think it anathema to their art. Street is all about size and speed.

However, as a portrait photographer who also likes to shoot street portraits, it’s worth selling a kidney for.

It’s a bit flawed, single point AF and they haven’t ported over tru-focus from the H6, lens are a bit slow and the EVF is not at the same level of the competition. Video specs are weak too. The interface looks nice and easy to work out and you can’t fault the size. I’ll pass as it doesn’t have any advanteges for my work.

Just imagine if Sony decided to go MF. Face recognition, multi zone af and lenses from Zeiss and an electronic shutter, the menu/interface would still be awful though.

However, as a portrait photographer who also likes to shoot street portraits, it’s worth selling a kidney for.

No it isn’t, you could have an A7RII and a couple of zeiss lenses and still have change.

I was looking at this via Flipboard yesterday, and it really does look like the perfect camera for landscape, architectural, industrial and street photographers.

No movements, no tech camera integration and poor lens choice so unlikely to be 1st choice for architecture/industrial

No it isn’t, you could have an A7RII and a couple of zeiss lenses and still have change.

Pretty sure the op has those already. 🙂

And the X1D isn’t going to somehow make his photographs any better.

Pretty sure the op has those already.

😳

I just think it’s so darned lovely; it’s a beautiful piece of industrial design and no it’s not going to replace what you might already have but it’s still sublime and aesthetics matter a great deal to a lot of people, photographers being one very likely group.

And the X1D isn’t going to somehow make his photographs any better.

You mean you don’t like them? I’m hurt.

No passing judgement on images but am on the camera.

It’s OK I knew that.

Ooh, something that isn’t about politics! Thanks Geetee! 🙂

I’d echo what MrSmith says, mostly. Although it does at least appear to be a ‘genuine’ Hasselblad, rather than a dressed up Sony or Panasonic as has happened previously.

“Come on lottery win, please…”

It’s just over £7000 (and will inevitably come down in price in a year or so), so not particularly ‘expensive’ in photography terms, but for me at least, it just doesn’t offer enough to justify the expense. I’d find it too limiting compared to my Nikon system. It does use the Nikon TTL flash system which is a good move, as it’s superb. I can’t work out if it uses a proprietary lens mount, or can use other Hasselblad mount lenses.

I can’t work out whether it’s a ‘serious’ camera or a bit of a status symbol (like the Sony and Panasonic ‘Hasselblads’. Something for those who can’t/won’t run to a ‘proper’ ‘Blad, but still want the kudos of owning a prestigious marque. I suspect the latter has quite a bit to do with it.

Personally, on the medium format front, the digital back for older ‘Blads is a lot more interesting; a s/h 500C/M or similar can be had for a few hundred pounds, and you’ve got access to all those beautiful Carl Zeiss lenses. Maybe ‘limited’ by comparison to a DSLR, but a lovely studio/landscape tool. For me, the whole Hasselblad thing is all about that simply little block of machined aluminium, and thos CZ lenses. 😉

Personally, on the medium format front, the digital back for older ‘Blads is a lot more interesting; a s/h 500C/M or similar can be had for a few hundred pounds, and you’ve got access to all those beautiful Carl Zeiss lenses. Maybe ‘limited’ by comparison to a DSLR, but a lovely studio/landscape tool. For me, the whole Hasselblad thing is all about that simply little block of machined aluminium, and thos CZ lenses

with their horrible hexagonal out of focus highlights (no 9 bladed diaphragm) and you try focusing one wide open for portraits, not forgetting no live view unless you get the latest CFV back. sold mine and bought a sony/cambo actus. best of both worlds. live view and focussing that works and the ability to use with a tech camera and movements with schneider/rodenstock digital lenses that surpass the old zeiss designs.

it’s a tool not for making images with not an exercise in nostalgia or an objet d’art 🙄

LOL @ “blad”.

LOL @ “blad”.

nearly as bad as ‘togs’ or ‘glass’

“it’s a tool not for making images with not an exercise in nostalgia or an objet d’art”

You’re obviously not a fan. I owned a 500C/M for a brief period, but moved it on as I simply couldn’t afford lenses at that time. Superb camera. Never had any problem focussing. You seem to be a fan of view cameras; personally, I never had the patience for large format. The ‘Blad (not sure quite why you seem enraged by this simple abbreviation) was small and light enough to carry around. The waist level viewfinder lends itself quite well to candids. A friend had a 205TCC with a PM90 viewfinder for a while; beautiful and great to use, but stupidly expensive.

“with their horrible hexagonal out of focus highlights “

Pentagonal. 😉

I’ve always quite liked _agonal ‘bokeh’. Maybe I’m just nostaglic.

You’re obviously not a fan. I owned a 500C/M for a brief period, but moved it on as I simply couldn’t afford lenses at that time

i’m not a ‘fanboy’ of anything 🙄 i’ll use whatever works well/reliably and makes financial sense. (thats why i’ll never own a leica product)
i used a full 500cxi kit with 40/50/80/100/120 for about 10 years which paid for itself within a month or 2. it was very reliable and gave excellent results but technology moved on.

pentagon/hexagon? i didn’t pay much attention at school.

Sadly it won’t make me a better photographer. I’m out.

But envious.

“i’ll use whatever works well/reliably and makes financial sense”

Ah, I see you’re coming from an economic angle. I’m not. I don’t have to earn from my photography, I just enjoy it. I can understand a professional needing to chose their equipment very carefuly. You speak of large format cameras etc, so I assume you’re studio based? Personally I find a studio environment incredibly stifling, so I welcome any development that allows the use of better quality equipment in the ‘field’. A friend is a professional photographer (corporate work, so varies from portraiture, to landscape, architecture, products etc). He owns 35mm DSLR gear and rents larger format equipment as and when needed. But this new ‘Blad 😉 doesn’t really meet his requirements either. Which I think leads on to your comment re Leica; beautiful, but too limited for professionals to invest in.

I can see what Hasselblad are going for here, but I don’t think it really offers a truly viable alternative to 35mm system cameras just yet. But it’s an indication that such technology isn’t very far away now.

“Sadly it won’t make me a better photographer. I’m out.”

You say that, but surely if it enabled you to take better pictures, surely that would be a good thing, no?

i’m not a ‘fanboy’ of anything i’ll use whatever works well/reliably and makes financial sense. (thats why i’ll never own a leica product)

You see now I’m intrigued. Just what is it that you do and what do you do it with MrSmith? Genuinely interested here – that’s not challenge in anyway.

Did you know that DJI (of phantom quadracopter fame) own a majority share of Hasselblad?
I mate of a mate works for them – interesting times ahead!

The limiting factor in my photography is not my Canon 5Diii or 6D not us it my bunch of L series lenses, flashes and assorted bobbins. It is me. I seldom have a leg to stand on when anyone criticises my photos.
I have found the main thing is to work with the best subjects in the best locations. It stood me in good stead for 20 odd years in water sports.
Ooh err missus, etc.

Just what is it that you do

Member > user profile > URL > click.

quite a smart move the HB tie-in with DJI, mass manufacturing, stabilisation, 4k raw sensor throughput etc. they can only benefit each other.

Member > user profile > URL > click.

You’re talented obviously but not one for conversation eh 😀

I remember the photo of the carbonfibre bath now and you saying you were really quite pleased with it because it had been a tecnically difficult photograph to make.

Made me chuckle. Not so sure it’s a ‘street photogrpahers’ camera though Zero. The AF will be far too slow and street shooters don’t care about IQ, indeed they often think it anathema to their art. Street is all about size and speed.

Depends on what you mean by ‘street’ photography, really; I was thinking more the Cartier Bresson school of candid photography, rather than your more up-close portraiture, the sheer size of the sensor means plenty of room to crop if necessary.
I’d imagine that there are lots of photographers out there who don’t need what the A7 series cameras offer, really want a medium format sensor, but find a conventional Hasselblad far too big and cumbersome, the sort of person who might come from the old school cameras like a Mamiya C3 or Yashica twin-lens reflex.
Dunno, I’m not a professional photographer, I don’t have to buy equipment to earn a living, so have to choose the best tool for the work in question, I’m just a bloke who likes to take photos, who currently uses a Lumix TZ72 and an iPhone, and is quite happy with the results.
Of course, I’m perfectly well aware of just what the A7rII can do, and given the funds, I’d be all over one, perfect for using at gigs which allow the use of pro cameras.
And other subjects where the insane ISO range can be used.
But that new mirrorless Hasselblad is just so gorgeous!

In the mid 1980’s a friend of mine woked as technical writer for a firm in Gothenburg and one of their clients was Hasselblad. When I went to visit him, I had a personal tour of the Hasselblad factory. Absolutely fascinating and I came away with the realisation as to why they are so expensive and yet the quality achieved made them seem good value if you can get my drift.

The other thing that I remember was in the board room was a large photo of the moon, with an arrow pointing to the surface and a caption along the lines of: ” there are two Hasselblad cameras here, free to the first person who finds them” I had not realised before this that for the Apollo missions to save weight the camera bodies and lenses were left at the landing site, only the backs returned. I think they said that ten or more camera were left in total.

Depends on what you mean by ‘street’ photography, really; I was thinking more the Cartier Bresson school of candid photography, rather than your more up-close portraiture, the sheer size of the sensor means plenty of room to crop if necessary.

Ironically the X1D would be great for my purposes but less so for the Bresson ‘in the moment’ approach. Speed and discretion is key for street photography (sounds like a Python sketch about the Inquisition!) The Ricoh has a snap focus function whereby you hard press the shutter button and it automatically focuses to a pre-defined distance.

You’re talented obviously but not one for conversation eh

Not sure if compliment or not 🙂

As for being not one for conversation? Equipment is important but when photographers meet each other they never talk about it, they talk about lighting, design, films and places that inspire them.
It’s like when somebody says “wow you must have an expensive camera’ or ‘what lens/f-stop/camera do you use?’ The ghost of Andre Kertesz rises up and kills a puppy.

Oh it absolutely was a compliment but it was also a subtle reference to wanting to engage you in conversation, precisely about lighting, composition, places etc.

And I’m glad you brought that up because there is a specific quality of light that I’m desperate to understand but cannot work out how capture and looking through your portfolio of ‘location’ a few seem to have it. I’ll try to describe what I mean.

The words I would use are clean, neutral, organic, soft etc. When I see examples that have this particular quality, it ‘feels’ to me as though the image is breathing. I know that sounds odd, but that’s the feeling I have.

Here is a great example of what I mean:

Apart from everything else in this image that is heart wrenchingly beautiful, the lighting is what really brings all that together.

Someimes I get close to it. One example I am happy with is this:

This image took a lot of work in post to get right and mostly it was about the white balance, which is where I think I am struggling (and not the picture above of the boy with flower by Laura Panack is taken on MF film so I am wondering how much the fixed white balance nature of film as something to do with it?)

The other extreme of this quality are images that look ‘dirty’, like if they were a building they’d be covered in soot and other exhaust deposits.

Does any of this make sense? I’m entirely self taught and really crave understanding these things so if you can help I would be hugely grateful.

“Equipment is important but when photographers meet each other they never talk about it, they talk about lighting, design, films and places that inspire them.”

No, they mainly talk about equipment. All the ones I know do, and that covers all manner of photographic activities, professionals and amateurs alike. It’s the kit that enables us to take photos, so it’s very important. I enjoy discussing the relative merits of different lenses etc, when I’m not actually taking photos. And you yourself have casually dropped in that you use a ‘sony/cambo actus’ set up! 😆

I think discussing equipment helps when I’m asking my wildlife photographer friend what she uses to get the pictures she does. It helps when I’m thinking about buying a macro lens or something. It helps when I ask studio photographers how they achieved a particular lighting set up. It’s interesting to discuss kit with Geetee on his photo threads on here. Etc. So I think it’s valid to discuss equipment on a thread about a new camera.

“The ghost of Andre Kertesz rises up and kills a puppy.”

Would he do it with a plate camera, a Leica, or an SLR?

“And I’m glad you brought that up because there is a specific quality of light that I’m desperate to understand but cannot work out how capture and looking through your portfolio of ‘location’ a few seem to have it. I’ll try to describe what I mean.”

That example looks like it’s been shot on an overcast day, and overexposed, possibly using a warm-toned diffuse reflector from beneath to fill in shadows a bit. Bear in mind that there is a LOT of post production work going on these days; Mr Smith can tell you all about that I’m sure! Many photographers will be quite coy about the amount of PP they actually do, and often claim that an image is just out of the camera. They lie.
Very occasionally, the light is just effect for the picture you want to take. I needed an up to date portrait of myself for an article someone was doing about a group of people who are all members of an organisation I belong to. Not having a decent portrait photographer to hand, I simply set up my camera on a tripod, then used the wireless control function via my ‘phone to select the focus point, and took the picture that way. The lighting was just from a large window directly behind the camera. By happy chance, it was all perfect and the pics were spot on. I think it would have taken quite a bit of work in a studio to replicate such lighting. Outdoors, you are far more at the mercy of what’s available. Personally, I don’t much go for the look in the example above, as I find it a bit insipid. But I don’t think it would be particularly difficult to recreate. But it is at least more subtle than the deliberate fill-flash employed by Martin Parr and others.

Just typed a long reply and this proxy iPad lost it all when I went to find a link 👿

Sorry I’m not writing it all again! I’ll do the basics without splitting up your quote.

Avoid the sledgehammer of ‘brightness/contrast and use things like hue/saturation, colour balance, vibrance/saturation (the saturation in this tool does not clip a channel like the one in hue/saturation), curves and look up tables to subtly shift colour around, I’m not interested in authenticity but creating a mood/feel

Film grading is a good place to look as there’s years of history/theory around how colourists use colour
https://fstoppers.com/originals/power-color-grading-and-benefit-it-can-have-your-work-summarized-two-minutes-54438

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/history-importance-color-cinema-storytelling-film-lewis-bond

No, they mainly talk about equipment.

Not the ones I associate with 🙂

Edit. Being a smug cock.

Just typed a long reply and this proxy iPad lost it all when I went to find a link

Just wanted to acknowledge your efforts and thank you for posting. The articles you highlighted are very interesting and it gives me new insight.

Thanks

“Not the ones I associate with”

I bet they do. All photographers do. 😉

“Avoid the sledgehammer of ‘brightness/contrast and use things like hue/saturation, colour balance, vibrance/saturation (the saturation in this tool does not clip a channel like the one in hue/saturation), curves and look up tables to subtly shift colour around, I’m not interested in authenticity but creating a mood/feel”

Good advice. Very often, less is more. I’m sick of seeing HDR style pictures with the shadows, clarity and vibrance sliders pushed to max. I often have to bite my virtual lip when a friend who calls herself a ‘photographer’ posts awful looking overdone images like this on her FB page, and her friends all babble on about what a ‘great’ photo it is. I keep telling myself that one day I should just be honest and point out just how awful they really look. Cruel to be kind.

Clodhopper why not post her FB page link here and let us do that for you 😀

Don’t. Can you imagine? 😯

It’s either extreme HDR or **** Instagram filters. Or the more subtle yet still overdone to the point of cliché heavily desaturated then blue filter look. Kind of makes me hark back to the a bit underexposed then pushed in development and printed up in high contrast student days…