Having owned that 50mm f/1.4 lens from Canon, I feel it was really the weak link here. It is well known to not be an accurate focusing lens on any Canon bodies, especially at wider apertures due to one of the primary focusing components inside the lens being made of a malleable plastic. Most of those gold-ring USM lenses top out at about 20 megapixels of perceived resolution, too, which does not make them ideal for the higher resolution Canon bodies in many scenarios as most of them were designed for the film or early digital eras. A better comparison might be with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art series lens, which will easily out-resolve the 6D Mark II's sensor. Nevertheless, this was an informative video!
Ah that’s a great callout, thank you. Thinking about it now, yeah, it’s definitely one of their budget lenses (which is why I could afford it at the time I got it).
Only found your channel. Some good videos here. You deserve more attention. It’s funny when you find an old camera and try to use it again ! I use a z9 for work and a Hasselblad x2d and 907x and the z9 is so fast and super good for sports photography. The Hasselblad I just love for personal stuff and slowing down and taking your time. Polar opposites ! Merry Christmas from Ireland I remember the shutter on my 1dx mkiii. Was lovely.
Thanks so much, I really appreciate it! Yeah it was such a throwback to pull out the canon again! Honestly I think that’s the way to do it. If you’re working professionally, make sure you can always get the shot, whatever that entails for you. But it’s great to have something special just for you. Merry Christmas and thanks again! Cheers!
Same here only diff is we use a Leica SL2 - UK Pro here 35 years in the game - we swapped our H6D100c for the X series quite early on - there are a few things missing but overall it is faster, lighter, easier to manage and the results speak for themselves - The 907x100c is a thing of beauty and is my go to camera when its not being used elsewhere - on a tripod doing portraits it becomes invisible as it it should do - the X2D now that it does have the 400mp capability might now replace the Leica SL2 - we only used that for the 190Mp multishot with a macro lens in HDR meaning big files and workflow issues - interestingly the SL3 does not have this function
Cool vid! Love my 6d, it’s killer camera! I would say megapixels and gear can or do definitely matter. However it all depends on the purpose of the photography.
I’d absolutely agree. As I said in the vid, I still think the X2D is the “better” camera in terms of technical ability. The color science, dynamic range, and creative freedom higher megapixel count gives you is incredible. I just didn’t want people to thing they *had* to get a camera like this in order to enjoy photography. Professionals will always have higher demand for specific things from their gear than the general population. Really glad you’re still enjoying the 6D!
Glad you found the video useful! Yeah I was impressed with how well the canon held up. The Hasselblad is definitely superior but I don’t think anyone should be dissuaded from getting an older camera if that’s more financially feasible for them to get in to photography.
I fully understand. I could not afford a X2D - but got an excellent used X1D II for roughly $5000 less and the X1D II inspires me to shoot. I also got P series of lenses which just work so well with this camera. I know all the trade-offs, but I shot manual film for years and have good technique. This camera slows me down, makes me think and compose. If I do my job, the camera rewards me with outstanding images. I know where you are coming from and the feeling your camera gives you.
Absolutely agree with your points about slowing down and considering the shot. Really glad you were able to get your hands on the X1D II. The P series of lenses are great, too! Thanks for the comment!
When you first look to go in close on the house with the American flag what you are seeing is a softer image not noise. That could have been due to you not using a tripod. You are also not using for instance the 5DRs against the Hasselblad which I think would have shown at 50megapixels that it would be hard to see the difference.
That was shot at 1/1250 and I don’t have Parkinson’s thankfully so I doubt that a tripod was an issue. But yeah could have been soft due to a bad focus point. As I mentioned elsewhere in the video it seemed like the 6D wasn’t always super accurate with its focal point. And I’d love to do a comparison with like the 5D Mark II, but I don’t have that camera. If you wanna send me one though I’d be happy to make a video about it!
I've yet to see anyone do nightscape / astro with that Hassleblad furthermore it doesn't have Auto ISO in Manual mode . Doesn't have any long reach prime / zoom lenses ...
Have a look at those bike photos and check out the basket on each. I think you’ll see a difference there. I wonder if the X2D has an anti-alias filter. Gonna have to look that up. On that Deli shot, distinct difference in color to me, as well as with that little gazebo type shot. On that gazebo shot, you said the whites look “too exposed”. I refer to this look as being “too sterile.” Meaning the whites have little to no character. Megapixels - do you need them? All depends on what you’re doing. Even for the majority of commercial work, 50MP will do just fine. For a hobbyist, before you go all ga-ga and salivate over the thought of 100MP files, be aware that there are other considerations such as computer memory and file storage. Had one friend buy a Fujifilm 50MP GFX and he got quite the surprise when his piece of crap computer that was on special at the Best Buy did not especially like opening up those raw files. Surprise, surprise. My own testing - I usually do fine jpegs instead of raw because I want to see full capabilities of the camera and how it interprets color. Might as well test the camera as it was engineered. Heck, they put enough money into development, so why not? While it may sound silly, my favorite testing spot is a Burger King near my house. The building sports a variety of materials on the outside - neutral gray siding, stone, metals, and some color details too. And the building kicks butt for testing lenses because of its nice squared up design. Wow getting late here and a busy day upcoming. Have a Merry Christmas and best to you in the New Year. Wish you Good Health and Much Prosperity! Kind Regards, Libby 🎄
I totally disagree with you on JPEGs. They reduce the dynamic range the camera actually captured. Open any file, raw or JPEG, and you're not seeing what the sensor captured unless shot in very flat light. Editing the raw file is only REVEALING what the sensor actually captured. That is how the camera was designed! JPEGs stifle both dynamic range and colour information. In a raw file, you can bring a white sky back to blue with clouds! This is data the sensor actually captured, it's not AI invented detail. Your JPEGs drastically reduce the ability to recover those details. Same with the shadows.
@ I’m a 40 yr+ shooter with nearly 30 yrs of commercial shooting. I know what a raw file is. I will continue explore all of a camera’s capabilities including its jpeg processing engine. Thank you.
Oh really? That’s very interesting. I’ve heard Leica’s are generally uncomfortable cameras. I tried out a fujifilm GFX and really didn’t care for it. But like anything, that’s entirely personal preference. Not saying either are bad systems.
Absolutely agreed. There will be professional photographers who do need specific things from their gear, whether that’s 100 megapixels or shooting 100 frames a second or highly rated weather proofing, or whatever. But for the average person enjoying photography as a hobby it’s hard to tell them with a straight face “you have to spend over $14,000 because you *need* 100 megapixels.”
It is not 1/4 of the resolution, it is 1/2. There are two dimensions to a sensor. To double the resolution in each direction you need 2x2=4 times the number of Pixel. Every single UA-camr makes the same mistake.
No, you are wrong and just disproved yourself! If a sensor has double the pixels in each direction then it has 4x the number of pixels = 4x the resolution. 4x the resolving power. We are not talking about resolution as in pixels per inch (printing) we are taking about the number of pixels (resolved detail) a sensor can capture. In this sense, 4x the pixels = 4x the resolution. It is resolving (i.e. resolution) 4x the information/detail.
I don't agree at all with your conclusions about megapixels. There is more that doesn't meet the eye on a superficial review. Dynamic range the possibility of cropping, the color deph shadow detail on a 16 bit file is much better. Skin tones are smother. In the case of a Hasselblad there is also the benefit of "The natural Color Solution" so appraised by professional. My advice to you is, please go to square one and be more thorough.
I agree with all your points about the dynamic range, HNCS, and the ability to crop in and reframe as needed. 100 megapixels gives you a lot of creative freedom. I think that the Hasselblad is hands down the better camera and all of those reasons you point out are things I absolutely love about it and why I chose to buy it and make it my primary camera for the last year and a half. And for a professional, I would strongly recommend that over a nearly decade old canon. However in my video I said the image quality was “acceptable”, and that while I could still edit the canon files to be decent, it took a lot more editing than the Hasselblad ones. I mentioned several times how I preferred the Hasselblad files for the points you mentioned. My conclusion was that spending all of that money is not necessary for the average person enjoying photography as a hobby. A professional photographer has different requirements. And there will occasionally be situations where things like 100 megapixels becomes absolutely vital to deliver work for a client. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my conclusion and thinking that they absolutely must spend the money on an X2D because it’s really going to make their Instagram post that much better. My advice to you is, if you are going to negatively criticize someone, make sure it’s on points I actually advocated.
@@PavornocPhotography Average means only one thing to me, mediocrity! What makes me feel bad about you article is how you place people under the "average" title. That in itself is discriminatory and reduce the value and perception of those you consider "average" Excellence for everyone should be the aim for everyone! In regards to spending money, people spent more or less according to how they value things. A very expensive diamond at the end of the day is a piece of carbon exposed to high pressure and heat. What makes it precious and valuable is its scarcity and what you wish to pay for it. If a picture is able to transmit a certain message or feeling, technical quality has no place. But a better and technically more advanced camera and lens combination used to record a scene or an objet will translate more accurately the color texture and details. Obviously more information will result in a better rendition of the original.
@@julioestebanperezescudero6246 The hobbyist photographer doesn’t need to spend Hasselblad money to take good photos. How are you going to take the word “average” and run with it in a negative way like that. Anyone with common sense knows what he meant by that. Let me start off and say I shoot on every format with many cameras. I just got done shooting and developing 8x10 film earlier. My go to for landscape is large format and medium format film. I’ve shot with Hasselblad digital before and it is really good but it’s not necessary even for a professional. My a7cr is close enough. I had the x1dii, two different times. However I would like to have an x2d but that price tag is just crazy imo. I bought two boxes of 8x10 provia 100f and just decided to keep shooting this way for now since the experience is more enjoyable to me.
Having owned that 50mm f/1.4 lens from Canon, I feel it was really the weak link here. It is well known to not be an accurate focusing lens on any Canon bodies, especially at wider apertures due to one of the primary focusing components inside the lens being made of a malleable plastic. Most of those gold-ring USM lenses top out at about 20 megapixels of perceived resolution, too, which does not make them ideal for the higher resolution Canon bodies in many scenarios as most of them were designed for the film or early digital eras. A better comparison might be with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art series lens, which will easily out-resolve the 6D Mark II's sensor. Nevertheless, this was an informative video!
Ah that’s a great callout, thank you. Thinking about it now, yeah, it’s definitely one of their budget lenses (which is why I could afford it at the time I got it).
Thank you very much for your honest evaluation that helped me a lot😊.
Really glad it was useful for you!
Only found your channel. Some good videos here. You deserve more attention. It’s funny when you find an old camera and try to use it again !
I use a z9 for work and a Hasselblad x2d and 907x and the z9 is so fast and super good for sports photography. The Hasselblad I just love for personal stuff and slowing down and taking your time. Polar opposites ! Merry Christmas from Ireland
I remember the shutter on my 1dx mkiii. Was lovely.
Thanks so much, I really appreciate it! Yeah it was such a throwback to pull out the canon again!
Honestly I think that’s the way to do it. If you’re working professionally, make sure you can always get the shot, whatever that entails for you. But it’s great to have something special just for you.
Merry Christmas and thanks again! Cheers!
Same here only diff is we use a Leica SL2 - UK Pro here 35 years in the game - we swapped our H6D100c for the X series quite early on - there are a few things missing but overall it is faster, lighter, easier to manage and the results speak for themselves - The 907x100c is a thing of beauty and is my go to camera when its not being used elsewhere - on a tripod doing portraits it becomes invisible as it it should do - the X2D now that it does have the 400mp capability might now replace the Leica SL2 - we only used that for the 190Mp multishot with a macro lens in HDR meaning big files and workflow issues - interestingly the SL3 does not have this function
Just subscribed, I also have a 6DM2 and would love to get the Hasselblad one day. Great video!
Thank you so much! I’m glad you enjoyed it! I hope you’re able to get some great shots that you’re happy with!
Cool vid! Love my 6d, it’s killer camera! I would say megapixels and gear can or do definitely matter. However it all depends on the purpose of the photography.
I’d absolutely agree. As I said in the vid, I still think the X2D is the “better” camera in terms of technical ability. The color science, dynamic range, and creative freedom higher megapixel count gives you is incredible. I just didn’t want people to thing they *had* to get a camera like this in order to enjoy photography. Professionals will always have higher demand for specific things from their gear than the general population. Really glad you’re still enjoying the 6D!
Thank you and happy holidays.
Many thanks. Side by side you can see slightly differences. If you look at a the photos piece by piece it's barely seeable.
Glad you found the video useful! Yeah I was impressed with how well the canon held up. The Hasselblad is definitely superior but I don’t think anyone should be dissuaded from getting an older camera if that’s more financially feasible for them to get in to photography.
I fully understand. I could not afford a X2D - but got an excellent used X1D II for roughly $5000 less and the X1D II inspires me to shoot. I also got P series of lenses which just work so well with this camera. I know all the trade-offs, but I shot manual film for years and have good technique. This camera slows me down, makes me think and compose. If I do my job, the camera rewards me with outstanding images. I know where you are coming from and the feeling your camera gives you.
Absolutely agree with your points about slowing down and considering the shot. Really glad you were able to get your hands on the X1D II. The P series of lenses are great, too!
Thanks for the comment!
When you first look to go in close on the house with the American flag what you are seeing is a softer image not noise. That could have been due to you not using a tripod. You are also not using for instance the 5DRs against the Hasselblad which I think would have shown at 50megapixels that it would be hard to see the difference.
That was shot at 1/1250 and I don’t have Parkinson’s thankfully so I doubt that a tripod was an issue. But yeah could have been soft due to a bad focus point. As I mentioned elsewhere in the video it seemed like the 6D wasn’t always super accurate with its focal point. And I’d love to do a comparison with like the 5D Mark II, but I don’t have that camera. If you wanna send me one though I’d be happy to make a video about it!
The Canon is pretty decent, you have to really crop in to to reveal the difference.
I've yet to see anyone do nightscape / astro with that Hassleblad furthermore it doesn't have Auto ISO in Manual mode .
Doesn't have any long reach prime / zoom lenses ...
Have a look at those bike photos and check out the basket on each. I think you’ll see a difference there. I wonder if the X2D has an anti-alias filter. Gonna have to look that up. On that Deli shot, distinct difference in color to me, as well as with that little gazebo type shot. On that gazebo shot, you said the whites look “too exposed”. I refer to this look as being “too sterile.” Meaning the whites have little to no character.
Megapixels - do you need them? All depends on what you’re doing. Even for the majority of commercial work, 50MP will do just fine. For a hobbyist, before you go all ga-ga and salivate over the thought of 100MP files, be aware that there are other considerations such as computer memory and file storage. Had one friend buy a Fujifilm 50MP GFX and he got quite the surprise when his piece of crap computer that was on special at the Best Buy did not especially like opening up those raw files. Surprise, surprise.
My own testing - I usually do fine jpegs instead of raw because I want to see full capabilities of the camera and how it interprets color. Might as well test the camera as it was engineered. Heck, they put enough money into development, so why not? While it may sound silly, my favorite testing spot is a Burger King near my house. The building sports a variety of materials on the outside - neutral gray siding, stone, metals, and some color details too. And the building kicks butt for testing lenses because of its nice squared up design.
Wow getting late here and a busy day upcoming. Have a Merry Christmas and best to you in the New Year. Wish you Good Health and Much Prosperity! Kind Regards, Libby 🎄
I totally disagree with you on JPEGs. They reduce the dynamic range the camera actually captured. Open any file, raw or JPEG, and you're not seeing what the sensor captured unless shot in very flat light. Editing the raw file is only REVEALING what the sensor actually captured. That is how the camera was designed!
JPEGs stifle both dynamic range and colour information. In a raw file, you can bring a white sky back to blue with clouds! This is data the sensor actually captured, it's not AI invented detail. Your JPEGs drastically reduce the ability to recover those details. Same with the shadows.
@ I’m a 40 yr+ shooter with nearly 30 yrs of commercial shooting. I know what a raw file is. I will continue explore all of a camera’s capabilities including its jpeg processing engine. Thank you.
I liked the X2D but it felt to much like a smart phone using it. Incredible camera but just wasn’t as enjoyable to use as Leica or fujifilm.
Oh really? That’s very interesting. I’ve heard Leica’s are generally uncomfortable cameras. I tried out a fujifilm GFX and really didn’t care for it. But like anything, that’s entirely personal preference. Not saying either are bad systems.
I do wonder how these images translate to a physical print.
Yeah I’d be interested at printing a photo from both of these at like a 16x20 at least (larger would be better) and seeing how they compare.
Does it matter? As always, it depends.
Absolutely agreed. There will be professional photographers who do need specific things from their gear, whether that’s 100 megapixels or shooting 100 frames a second or highly rated weather proofing, or whatever. But for the average person enjoying photography as a hobby it’s hard to tell them with a straight face “you have to spend over $14,000 because you *need* 100 megapixels.”
It is not 1/4 of the resolution, it is 1/2. There are two dimensions to a sensor. To double the resolution in each direction you need 2x2=4 times the number of Pixel. Every single UA-camr makes the same mistake.
No, you are wrong and just disproved yourself! If a sensor has double the pixels in each direction then it has 4x the number of pixels = 4x the resolution. 4x the resolving power.
We are not talking about resolution as in pixels per inch (printing) we are taking about the number of pixels (resolved detail) a sensor can capture. In this sense, 4x the pixels = 4x the resolution. It is resolving (i.e. resolution) 4x the information/detail.
@ Clearly you have no clue what you are talking about
I don't agree at all with your conclusions about megapixels. There is more that doesn't meet the eye on a superficial review. Dynamic range the possibility of cropping, the color deph shadow detail on a 16 bit file is much better. Skin tones are smother. In the case of a Hasselblad there is also the benefit of "The natural Color Solution" so appraised by professional. My advice to you is, please go to square one and be more thorough.
I agree with all your points about the dynamic range, HNCS, and the ability to crop in and reframe as needed. 100 megapixels gives you a lot of creative freedom. I think that the Hasselblad is hands down the better camera and all of those reasons you point out are things I absolutely love about it and why I chose to buy it and make it my primary camera for the last year and a half. And for a professional, I would strongly recommend that over a nearly decade old canon. However in my video I said the image quality was “acceptable”, and that while I could still edit the canon files to be decent, it took a lot more editing than the Hasselblad ones. I mentioned several times how I preferred the Hasselblad files for the points you mentioned. My conclusion was that spending all of that money is not necessary for the average person enjoying photography as a hobby. A professional photographer has different requirements. And there will occasionally be situations where things like 100 megapixels becomes absolutely vital to deliver work for a client. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my conclusion and thinking that they absolutely must spend the money on an X2D because it’s really going to make their Instagram post that much better. My advice to you is, if you are going to negatively criticize someone, make sure it’s on points I actually advocated.
I totally agree with you
@@PavornocPhotography
Average means only one thing to me, mediocrity!
What makes me feel bad about you article is how you place people under the "average" title. That in itself is discriminatory and reduce the value and perception of those you consider "average" Excellence for everyone should be the aim for everyone!
In regards to spending money, people spent more or less according to how they value things.
A very expensive diamond at the end of the day is a piece of carbon exposed to high pressure and heat. What makes it precious and valuable is its scarcity and what you wish to pay for it.
If a picture is able to transmit a certain message or feeling, technical quality has no place. But a better and technically more advanced camera and lens combination used to record a scene or an objet will translate more accurately the color texture and details. Obviously more information will result in a better rendition of the original.
@@julioestebanperezescudero6246
The hobbyist photographer doesn’t need to spend Hasselblad money to take good photos. How are you going to take the word “average” and run with it in a negative way like that. Anyone with common sense knows what he meant by that. Let me start off and say I shoot on every format with many cameras. I just got done shooting and developing 8x10 film earlier. My go to for landscape is large format and medium format film. I’ve shot with Hasselblad digital before and it is really good but it’s not necessary even for a professional. My a7cr is close enough. I had the x1dii, two different times. However I would like to have an x2d but that price tag is just crazy imo. I bought two boxes of 8x10 provia 100f and just decided to keep shooting this way for now since the experience is more enjoyable to me.