Mind blowing how many folks think the difference between medium and full is merely evident via large print. The difference between these two cameras is the color science. The photos aren’t close to one another - Sony (a great company) still needs to be worked on to get to what your eyes saw - meanwhile Hasselblad doesn’t. Most will buy Sony (cheaper, still great, etc, but comparing the two they aren’t close)
My grandpa sailed on the Great Lakes in North America for roughly 50 years and I can't help but think sailboats are one of the most beautiful artificial creations. A marina full of power boats is an eyesore to me, while a marina full of sailboats puts a smile on my face. Many parts of the Great Lakes look so similar to Sweden's rocky, rugged coast -- especially around Isle Royale National Park, Pukaskwa National Park, and the Georgian Bay on Lake Huron.
Wall of text warning, so before that I really enjoyed this video. I get not feeling compelled to switch from Sony. I, however, needed something with autofocus as my eyes' age is starting to come into play with focusing my rangefinder, and after playing with sample files, I decided to go with an X2D (though granted I was probably a bit more interested in an SL3 than an A7RV), so I had less switching costs since I'm not selling my Leica stuff. That said, when looking at resolution, wouldn't both of these lenses be noticeably diffraction limited at the apertures you used? And the 28P in the blad lineup is, and I know this is crazy given the price, kind of a cheap but cheerful option compared to say the 25V. From what I've seen, for the V lenses optimal center resolution is _typically_ at f4 or for the 38V I believe f5.6. At any rate, I appreciate you comparing at equivalent output sizes rather than magnification. At 18:08 when showing both side by side, that's kind of what sold me on the Hasselblad. I appreciate that colors are malleable and many full frame sensors have awesome dynamic range, but in the end I just always felt the Hasselblad won out. As an aside, youtube insists on serving me gear videos, I took a look and I appreciate that most of your channel is more focused on doing photography than the gear, happy to add another subscription with a more balanced focus.
Thanks for watching and subscribing! I had a limited lens selection available as I borrowed the camera. So the 28P was the lens of the (sort of) correct focal length. As for diffraction, yes, sure, that is a price to pay for a reasonable depth of field with any lens. I find that f8 on FF and f11 on MF is sort of comparable in depth of field and corner to corner sharpness and a good compromise. And in the real world, that is what I care about. I would not shoot a scene like the one I shot at f4 as the foreground and background would be slightly out of focus...can be fixed with focus stacking but that am not willing to do in everyday photography. The Hasselblad definitely has better image quality - I agree. But not that much better...not enough for me to use it as my everyday camera...especially not with the limitations in flexibility - i.e. lack of zooms, lack of long lenses, no video, larger files, weight of lenses, etc. That said - it is a fantastic camera and I would love to work more with it - just can't justify buying one.
@@JonasPaurellUnscripted sure, super fair! I definitely didn't mean it as a criticism, fwiw. Like I said, I found your test really quite good, and I think it would help some folks decide for sure. I have a Nikon I can use when it starts raining or I need some more features, don't use it much but when you want to take some video Hasselblad is kinda... well it's pretty obvious to me the cooling necessary to do video simply wouldnt fit in the camera lol
I agree that the side-by-side image at 18:08 speaks volumes for the Hasselblad's colors over the Sony's, In that side-by-side comparison, to me the Sony looks over sharpened, giving it a 'gritty' appearance - which I have also noticed in many of my friends' photographs. Also the 28P is not a great Hasselblad lens (especially at f/11). I own the Hasselblad along with their very best XCD lenses, three Nikon D850s, and a total of 18 of the very best Hasselblad, Zeiss, and Nikkor professional 'gold ring' lenses. I have never seen any images that compare with the ones coming from my Hasselblad - but I use their Phocus software for their primary processing before any final touches I might do in Capture One (done on 16-bit TIFFs). Phocus software is required to get the best from Hasselblad files because of all of the propriatory things Phocus does with those files.
As far as diffraction goes, that purely depends on pixel size. As such for 102mp MF or 61mp FF the smallest aperture where diffraction doesn't apply is 7.1 (yes, f8 is limited already)
Jonas, you can always rent the Hassy for a while to see if it’s suitable for your style of photography. Will it take better images than the Sony? It’s like buying a Porsche. Do you really need it, would you make use of it, or not. Or buy a second hand one, like Tom did - if you can’t sleep until you get one! My son in law bought a Porsche. It sits in the garage and in the market downturn, can’t sell it. So think carefully. Good things always cost a lot, and so do trips, family etc.
@@trishf29 perfect analogy- the Hassy is definitely a Porsche of a camera - a used Toyota will get you to the destination but the Porsche will do it in style! Personally, I didn’t see enough image quality increase to warrant a purchase of a Hassy for me, especially with the decrease in flexibility. But the feeling of using the Hassy…well that is a different matter! It was so nice to use!
Great video, there's absolutely no logic reason to get the Hasselblad but it doesn't stop me really wanting one. Also sunglasses always 👍 but you knew that already.
You don't need medium format camera if you don't make physical prints. I have GFX and X2D (GFX for 4 years and pretty new to Hassy) and came from A7R. Medium format files opened up the whole new world. If you don't make prints like 30"x40" or even larger, you don't need them at all. Sony can pull up to 40"x60", but the details you get in the prints are quite different.
If I was going to get a medium format digital camera (at this point), it would likely be a FUJIFILM GFX 102MP (better value, and probably better lens selection with those as well). All else being equal, the higher megapixel image will essentially always have the advantage in sharpness, as long as the lens is capable enough... Though, I'd probably keep my 61MP Sony full frame body as well. As far as a comparison between the two, not sure the 24gm is really that impressive compared to some of the newer lenses. I think even the FE 20mm f/1.8 G might actually be sharper (on average).
After extensive testing with the A7R5, you will begin to see diffraction softening effects past f6.3. By f8 (if you're pixel peeping) diffraction softening is well underway. Diffraction effects on a medium format (the Phase One P45 in my case) is more forgiving and doesn't start till around f8.5 - f11. I don't shoot on the P45 anymore since the A7R4 and A7R5 came out. The 100mp Hassy X2D is a different animal, but If you're after the absolute optimum sharpness on the A7R5, don't go past f6.3. And if you really want to see the max resolution that the A7R5 can produce, lenses like the Zeiss Otus or Sigma 40mm ART will dig into details that many other lenses, including GM lenses will fail to deliver.
Ive always had a dislike of sony since they came out with their first interchangable lens camera. Maybe because I've had such bad luck with their products since the early 90s. So I would quit photography before having a sony and definitely get a Hasselblad even if l had to get a loan.
For most photographers - I would say: 97% - there is no rational reason for a medium format camera like the Hasselblad. Why? Because it is less versatile than a full frame camera, which gives you much more shooting opportunities for a much lower price. I also see no need to change horses - I love my workhorse which is the Canon R6 MkII which does everything I want in a very easy way and delivers an output of high quality.
Some people aren't looking for versatility, they want the best tool for their needs. Also the GFX 100S II can shoot at 8 fps, the MF aren't that slow anymore.
That table you showed is misleading. A 16 bit camera ( not sensor ) can display 65536 shades of gray, but neither the commercially vailable monitors nor the average human eye can distinguish that many tones. I think the average human eye can differentiate around 8 bits of tones. The difference between 12bit to 14 bit to 16 bit is almost non detectable. They all appear as smooth continous tones to the human eye. Is it good to have that much data, perhaps, but what is the use if it could not be viewed? Photography my friend is a hell a lot more than just pixel peeping. Time could be spent much more creatively elsewhere.
@@lensman5762 when it comes to black and white editing (which I am explicit about being the intention) the bit depth absolutely matters. It’s not about seeing the variations with the naked eye. It’s about have latitude for creative edits without artefact being visible to the naked eye. Do your research, test it for yourself, I have. There is a huge difference in how far you can push your BW edits between the different bit depths. Currently only 32 bit from photoshop HDR pro allows for artefact free results in my tests. Saying something is misleading just because you don’t see the use case, is very misleading. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
@@JonasPaurellUnscripted You are doing terrestial photography. I have had over two decades of deep space long exposure imaging, and many seasoned astrophotographers are still using 12 bit CCDs without any problem. The amount of processing required to develop the data provided by an astronomical CCD is multitude more complex than messing around with RGB files in PS or LR. The data still withstand what is called ' stretching '. Yes, if you analysed the data produced by a 14 bit ADC, smapling the volatge of the sensor in a 16 bit environment, you will find gaps, but these are just academic and will not show up in 99% of digital terrestial photography. Theoretically , a 16 bit camera could record a scene with 4 times the brightness of a 14 bit sampled data without saturation. In practice this is seldome the case. If your processing of your data results in artefacts from a 14 bit data then perhaps you ought to back off pushing those sliders. Buying an expensive 16 bit camera is not the answer to the ills of photography today, of that I assure you.
What is the equivalent bit depth of the film stock used for those beloved Adams landscapes? I think high contrast BW photography probably requires much less depth than 14. It’s low contrast where the subtlety of high data makes sense to me.
What's obvious is how hard the trained eye has to look to find benefits (adding up to thousands of dollars difference). There would be very few cases by this measure that an untrained eye would pick these things up in print. And yet there can be so many differences between photographers that are more telling and that's where the real value of photography lies.
You would never get the Sony's resolution stacking function to work in a setup like yours. Simply too much vibrations (wind, shutter, "crappy" tripod). Essentially for that function to work you need a bloody cement block to surround your camera to stop ANY minuscule movement of the sensor. Another thing you seemed to miss completely was the increased tonality of the Hasselblad file. E.g. shadow "depth". If you look at the transitions of colors and/or highlights/shadows then there is a rather clear difference. Enough to spend more on a "worse" camera...depends on your needs. Personally, I own multiple Sonys (a7riv, 2x a7iv, a7s3, a6500) and I own the X2D...now... all in all the Hasselblad is a fu**ing pain for workflow. Phocus is garbage from a usability standpoint and performancewise (exporting images through it takes ages. E.g. exporting 10 files into JPGs took multiple minutes where as that would've been a few seconds in lightroom). But man...that camera makes photography for me feel special again. I pretty much NEVER took out my sony's for personal reasons. I pretty much always take my Hassy with me when going for a hike etc. Not to mention that there are the few special use cases where the image quality is just required for professional work (e.g. when I'm shooting artwork or in studio doing products/portraits). Essentially, everything in the workflow just takes longer with the Hasselblad.
Thanks for the comment, I think that one of the Hasselblad's strength is the intangible "makes photography for me feel special again" - this I totally agree with. As for the other things...not so much. The "crappy" tripod is one of the most solid travel tripods available (Gitzo 1545) and I have never had camera shake with a 24mm focal length with it. But as I also say, I don't use the resolution stacking function anyway...mostly because it isn't perfect and sometimes the images don't combine without arefacts...just isn't reliable enough to warrant the trouble (in my experience). As for "shadow depth" as you call it, I didn't see any significant difference. This is where 16-bit would be useful - expanded dynamic range and increase in values in the individual RGB channels. www.dxomark.com has the Sony at 14.7-14.8 EV, and Hasselblad specifies 15 EV (couldn't find any independent testing-not that I looked for very long). So if the dynamic range is more or less equal, then we have 14 vs 16-bit as the variable, which theoretically would add more values in the Hasselblad files...if you expose well. But again, I didn't see much - or any - difference. If I expose any camera well (to the right - for the highlights) this is in most scenarios anyway not an issue as I would overexpose the blacks and shadows and then bring them down in post to avoid shadow noise and increase the number of values in your shadows. So I don't see that the Hasselblad has any clearly visible superior value or tonal depth... But take this for what it is, my very personal view on the matters. Thanks for watching!
@@JonasPaurellUnscripted I didn't mean the tripod is actually crappy. Just that the requirements for the pixel stacking are just insane and pretty much any field conditions just wont allow for that. I have a concrete floor in my studio with a studio stand weighing tens of kilos. Even that won't always be still enough if eg. people move near the stand during exposure. I.e the pictures just come out with artefacts. So yeah, it's more of a gimmick than actual value from sony. And I suppose this is where we disagree about the tonality/image quality. I can see a clear difference in the transitions of tones (e.g. skin tones) BUT it is miniscule. And it's completely irrelevant once the file has been pushed down to sRGB and web use. So do I see it...yes...do my customers see it, well technically yes but I doubt anyone would ever notice (unless it's an art gallerist :D ) As for the dynamic range, I say the difference is noticable. Especially in highlight recovery. My brain pretty much exploded after my first shoot with the Hasselblad as I knew and I had screwed up a few exposures by overexposing alot. Alot in the sense that had I done it with an a7IV those highlights would've been way gone (I've shot with those for years and thousands of images so I was pretty much expecting unusable photos from the hasselbad due to expecting sony performance). But man was I wrong. If you do get your hands on a Hasselblad again then try it for fun. Overexpose a couple of shots equally on both brands and take a look =). Or I can even send you some RAW files if you want to take a look!
Hi Jonas, I'm the happy owner of the fujifilm gfx 100 s medium format camera, coming from canon 5d3 and 5d4. I have a bunch of great lenses for the canon that I would very much like to keep. I then got hold of the TechArt ef-gf converter that allow me to use my canon lenses on the fuji. Obviously I expected to run into heavy vignetting but there were huge differences between the lenses. Even my canon 11-24 mm performs very nice on the fuji from 14 mm onwards. I expect that TechArt has converters from Sony to Hasselblad mounts, so perhaps you could use your long sony lenses on a hassy? Just a suggestion🙂 Kind regards Birger
People getting butthurt that he's comparing a Hasselblad to a Sony. Guess what guys, Dji owns Hasselblad and so y is the top sensor manufacturer that makes that Hasselblad sensor lol😅😂😢
For me any IQ advantage of the Hasselblad is pretty irrelevant until they come up with a method to protect that huge sensor from dust. Changing lens in almost any conditions is like Russian Roulette with 1 empty chamber. And since the lenses are mainly primes, most landscape photographers are going to want to change them now & then. Or buy 1 body for each lens. Then again probably most landscape photographers could only afford 1 XCD lens 🤣
Hassy color is better. A lot better. And the UI is best in business or equal with Leica. Sony UI is nasty. They have always been about best tech, usability be damned. But versatility and value are tippy top. If you shoot with high end clients in the room, Hasselblad definitely means something extra that Sony never will.
Hasselblad and Fuji are still saving a 14bit file but inside a 16bit container. A file saved from the Hasselblad at 14 or 16bit are the same size in megabytes. It’s almost purely marketing BS as the data produced does not nearly fill up 16bit with usable data.
@@danieleverywhere132 my objectivity is my highest priority. Saying that I’m bought is just silly. Especially when I’m saying that the tangibles like image quality aren’t enough to make me consider buying it. In truth I’m saying that the Sony that I bought with my own money is still my choice. This video was to satisfy my own curiosity about image quality. I was not paid for this. I borrowed a camera from Hasselblad for a week which is clearly stated. I have no agreement with Hasselblad for anything. I didn’t have to make a video to borrow the camera. This actually cost me to do in terms of travel costs and time. There’s nothing to substantiate your statement. But thanks for watching.
Mind blowing how many folks think the difference between medium and full is merely evident via large print. The difference between these two cameras is the color science. The photos aren’t close to one another - Sony (a great company) still needs to be worked on to get to what your eyes saw - meanwhile Hasselblad doesn’t. Most will buy Sony (cheaper, still great, etc, but comparing the two they aren’t close)
My grandpa sailed on the Great Lakes in North America for roughly 50 years and I can't help but think sailboats are one of the most beautiful artificial creations. A marina full of power boats is an eyesore to me, while a marina full of sailboats puts a smile on my face. Many parts of the Great Lakes look so similar to Sweden's rocky, rugged coast -- especially around Isle Royale National Park, Pukaskwa National Park, and the Georgian Bay on Lake Huron.
Try using Phocus not LRC when working on X2D RAW files.
I've read other people complaining about the vertical banding with the Hasselblad camera, so you're not alone.
Wall of text warning, so before that I really enjoyed this video. I get not feeling compelled to switch from Sony. I, however, needed something with autofocus as my eyes' age is starting to come into play with focusing my rangefinder, and after playing with sample files, I decided to go with an X2D (though granted I was probably a bit more interested in an SL3 than an A7RV), so I had less switching costs since I'm not selling my Leica stuff. That said, when looking at resolution, wouldn't both of these lenses be noticeably diffraction limited at the apertures you used? And the 28P in the blad lineup is, and I know this is crazy given the price, kind of a cheap but cheerful option compared to say the 25V. From what I've seen, for the V lenses optimal center resolution is _typically_ at f4 or for the 38V I believe f5.6. At any rate, I appreciate you comparing at equivalent output sizes rather than magnification. At 18:08 when showing both side by side, that's kind of what sold me on the Hasselblad. I appreciate that colors are malleable and many full frame sensors have awesome dynamic range, but in the end I just always felt the Hasselblad won out. As an aside, youtube insists on serving me gear videos, I took a look and I appreciate that most of your channel is more focused on doing photography than the gear, happy to add another subscription with a more balanced focus.
Thanks for watching and subscribing!
I had a limited lens selection available as I borrowed the camera. So the 28P was the lens of the (sort of) correct focal length. As for diffraction, yes, sure, that is a price to pay for a reasonable depth of field with any lens. I find that f8 on FF and f11 on MF is sort of comparable in depth of field and corner to corner sharpness and a good compromise. And in the real world, that is what I care about. I would not shoot a scene like the one I shot at f4 as the foreground and background would be slightly out of focus...can be fixed with focus stacking but that am not willing to do in everyday photography. The Hasselblad definitely has better image quality - I agree. But not that much better...not enough for me to use it as my everyday camera...especially not with the limitations in flexibility - i.e. lack of zooms, lack of long lenses, no video, larger files, weight of lenses, etc. That said - it is a fantastic camera and I would love to work more with it - just can't justify buying one.
@@JonasPaurellUnscripted sure, super fair! I definitely didn't mean it as a criticism, fwiw. Like I said, I found your test really quite good, and I think it would help some folks decide for sure. I have a Nikon I can use when it starts raining or I need some more features, don't use it much but when you want to take some video Hasselblad is kinda... well it's pretty obvious to me the cooling necessary to do video simply wouldnt fit in the camera lol
I agree that the side-by-side image at 18:08 speaks volumes for the Hasselblad's colors over the Sony's, In that side-by-side comparison, to me the Sony looks over sharpened, giving it a 'gritty' appearance - which I have also noticed in many of my friends' photographs. Also the 28P is not a great Hasselblad lens (especially at f/11). I own the Hasselblad along with their very best XCD lenses, three Nikon D850s, and a total of 18 of the very best Hasselblad, Zeiss, and Nikkor professional 'gold ring' lenses. I have never seen any images that compare with the ones coming from my Hasselblad - but I use their Phocus software for their primary processing before any final touches I might do in Capture One (done on 16-bit TIFFs). Phocus software is required to get the best from Hasselblad files because of all of the propriatory things Phocus does with those files.
As far as diffraction goes, that purely depends on pixel size. As such for 102mp MF or 61mp FF the smallest aperture where diffraction doesn't apply is 7.1 (yes, f8 is limited already)
Jonas, you can always rent the Hassy for a while to see if it’s suitable for your style of photography. Will it take better images than the Sony? It’s like buying a Porsche. Do you really need it, would you make use of it, or not. Or buy a second hand one, like Tom did - if you can’t sleep until you get one! My son in law bought a Porsche. It sits in the garage and in the market downturn, can’t sell it. So think carefully. Good things always cost a lot, and so do trips, family etc.
@@trishf29 perfect analogy- the Hassy is definitely a Porsche of a camera - a used Toyota will get you to the destination but the Porsche will do it in style! Personally, I didn’t see enough image quality increase to warrant a purchase of a Hassy for me, especially with the decrease in flexibility. But the feeling of using the Hassy…well that is a different matter! It was so nice to use!
A beautiful area to sail, and to try the Hasselblad, what a combination 👏
That banding usualy apears from phasedetection în the sensors that have it
Great video, there's absolutely no logic reason to get the Hasselblad but it doesn't stop me really wanting one. Also sunglasses always 👍 but you knew that already.
You don't need medium format camera if you don't make physical prints. I have GFX and X2D (GFX for 4 years and pretty new to Hassy) and came from A7R. Medium format files opened up the whole new world. If you don't make prints like 30"x40" or even larger, you don't need them at all. Sony can pull up to 40"x60", but the details you get in the prints are quite different.
If I was going to get a medium format digital camera (at this point), it would likely be a FUJIFILM GFX 102MP (better value, and probably better lens selection with those as well). All else being equal, the higher megapixel image will essentially always have the advantage in sharpness, as long as the lens is capable enough... Though, I'd probably keep my 61MP Sony full frame body as well. As far as a comparison between the two, not sure the 24gm is really that impressive compared to some of the newer lenses. I think even the FE 20mm f/1.8 G might actually be sharper (on average).
After extensive testing with the A7R5, you will begin to see diffraction softening effects past f6.3. By f8 (if you're pixel peeping) diffraction softening is well underway. Diffraction effects on a medium format (the Phase One P45 in my case) is more forgiving and doesn't start till around f8.5 - f11. I don't shoot on the P45 anymore since the A7R4 and A7R5 came out. The 100mp Hassy X2D is a different animal, but If you're after the absolute optimum sharpness on the A7R5, don't go past f6.3. And if you really want to see the max resolution that the A7R5 can produce, lenses like the Zeiss Otus or Sigma 40mm ART will dig into details that many other lenses, including GM lenses will fail to deliver.
Great video...thanks. What tripod head is this?
Thanks! It is the Arca Swiss P0 - A great lightweight inverted ballhead!
Ive always had a dislike of sony since they came out with their first interchangable lens camera. Maybe because I've had such bad luck with their products since the early 90s. So I would quit photography before having a sony and definitely get a Hasselblad even if l had to get a loan.
For most photographers - I would say: 97% - there is no rational reason for a medium format camera like the Hasselblad. Why? Because it is less versatile than a full frame camera, which gives you much more shooting opportunities for a much lower price. I also see no need to change horses - I love my workhorse which is the Canon R6 MkII which does everything I want in a very easy way and delivers an output of high quality.
Some people aren't looking for versatility, they want the best tool for their needs. Also the GFX 100S II can shoot at 8 fps, the MF aren't that slow anymore.
Most photographers also have no rational reason to use a 36mm sensor over an aps-c sensor.
That table you showed is misleading. A 16 bit camera ( not sensor ) can display 65536 shades of gray, but neither the commercially vailable monitors nor the average human eye can distinguish that many tones. I think the average human eye can differentiate around 8 bits of tones. The difference between 12bit to 14 bit to 16 bit is almost non detectable. They all appear as smooth continous tones to the human eye. Is it good to have that much data, perhaps, but what is the use if it could not be viewed? Photography my friend is a hell a lot more than just pixel peeping. Time could be spent much more creatively elsewhere.
@@lensman5762 when it comes to black and white editing (which I am explicit about being the intention) the bit depth absolutely matters. It’s not about seeing the variations with the naked eye. It’s about have latitude for creative edits without artefact being visible to the naked eye. Do your research, test it for yourself, I have. There is a huge difference in how far you can push your BW edits between the different bit depths. Currently only 32 bit from photoshop HDR pro allows for artefact free results in my tests. Saying something is misleading just because you don’t see the use case, is very misleading. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment.
@@JonasPaurellUnscripted You are doing terrestial photography. I have had over two decades of deep space long exposure imaging, and many seasoned astrophotographers are still using 12 bit CCDs without any problem. The amount of processing required to develop the data provided by an astronomical CCD is multitude more complex than messing around with RGB files in PS or LR. The data still withstand what is called ' stretching '. Yes, if you analysed the data produced by a 14 bit ADC, smapling the volatge of the sensor in a 16 bit environment, you will find gaps, but these are just academic and will not show up in 99% of digital terrestial photography. Theoretically , a 16 bit camera could record a scene with 4 times the brightness of a 14 bit sampled data without saturation. In practice this is seldome the case. If your processing of your data results in artefacts from a 14 bit data then perhaps you ought to back off pushing those sliders. Buying an expensive 16 bit camera is not the answer to the ills of photography today, of that I assure you.
What is the equivalent bit depth of the film stock used for those beloved Adams landscapes? I think high contrast BW photography probably requires much less depth than 14. It’s low contrast where the subtlety of high data makes sense to me.
What's obvious is how hard the trained eye has to look to find benefits (adding up to thousands of dollars difference). There would be very few cases by this measure that an untrained eye would pick these things up in print. And yet there can be so many differences between photographers that are more telling and that's where the real value of photography lies.
You would never get the Sony's resolution stacking function to work in a setup like yours. Simply too much vibrations (wind, shutter, "crappy" tripod). Essentially for that function to work you need a bloody cement block to surround your camera to stop ANY minuscule movement of the sensor.
Another thing you seemed to miss completely was the increased tonality of the Hasselblad file. E.g. shadow "depth". If you look at the transitions of colors and/or highlights/shadows then there is a rather clear difference. Enough to spend more on a "worse" camera...depends on your needs.
Personally, I own multiple Sonys (a7riv, 2x a7iv, a7s3, a6500) and I own the X2D...now... all in all the Hasselblad is a fu**ing pain for workflow. Phocus is garbage from a usability standpoint and performancewise (exporting images through it takes ages. E.g. exporting 10 files into JPGs took multiple minutes where as that would've been a few seconds in lightroom).
But man...that camera makes photography for me feel special again. I pretty much NEVER took out my sony's for personal reasons. I pretty much always take my Hassy with me when going for a hike etc. Not to mention that there are the few special use cases where the image quality is just required for professional work (e.g. when I'm shooting artwork or in studio doing products/portraits). Essentially, everything in the workflow just takes longer with the Hasselblad.
Thanks for the comment, I think that one of the Hasselblad's strength is the intangible "makes photography for me feel special again" - this I totally agree with. As for the other things...not so much. The "crappy" tripod is one of the most solid travel tripods available (Gitzo 1545) and I have never had camera shake with a 24mm focal length with it. But as I also say, I don't use the resolution stacking function anyway...mostly because it isn't perfect and sometimes the images don't combine without arefacts...just isn't reliable enough to warrant the trouble (in my experience). As for "shadow depth" as you call it, I didn't see any significant difference. This is where 16-bit would be useful - expanded dynamic range and increase in values in the individual RGB channels. www.dxomark.com has the Sony at 14.7-14.8 EV, and Hasselblad specifies 15 EV (couldn't find any independent testing-not that I looked for very long). So if the dynamic range is more or less equal, then we have 14 vs 16-bit as the variable, which theoretically would add more values in the Hasselblad files...if you expose well. But again, I didn't see much - or any - difference. If I expose any camera well (to the right - for the highlights) this is in most scenarios anyway not an issue as I would overexpose the blacks and shadows and then bring them down in post to avoid shadow noise and increase the number of values in your shadows. So I don't see that the Hasselblad has any clearly visible superior value or tonal depth... But take this for what it is, my very personal view on the matters. Thanks for watching!
@@JonasPaurellUnscripted I didn't mean the tripod is actually crappy. Just that the requirements for the pixel stacking are just insane and pretty much any field conditions just wont allow for that. I have a concrete floor in my studio with a studio stand weighing tens of kilos. Even that won't always be still enough if eg. people move near the stand during exposure. I.e the pictures just come out with artefacts. So yeah, it's more of a gimmick than actual value from sony.
And I suppose this is where we disagree about the tonality/image quality. I can see a clear difference in the transitions of tones (e.g. skin tones) BUT it is miniscule. And it's completely irrelevant once the file has been pushed down to sRGB and web use. So do I see it...yes...do my customers see it, well technically yes but I doubt anyone would ever notice (unless it's an art gallerist :D )
As for the dynamic range, I say the difference is noticable. Especially in highlight recovery. My brain pretty much exploded after my first shoot with the Hasselblad as I knew and I had screwed up a few exposures by overexposing alot. Alot in the sense that had I done it with an a7IV those highlights would've been way gone (I've shot with those for years and thousands of images so I was pretty much expecting unusable photos from the hasselbad due to expecting sony performance). But man was I wrong. If you do get your hands on a Hasselblad again then try it for fun. Overexpose a couple of shots equally on both brands and take a look =). Or I can even send you some RAW files if you want to take a look!
Pixel peeping at its finest! And so many pixels to peep at.
@@stewartlogie haha indeed! Sometimes necessary to satisfy curiosity 😆
Hi Jonas, I'm the happy owner of the fujifilm gfx 100 s medium format camera, coming from canon 5d3 and 5d4. I have a bunch of great lenses for the canon that I would very much like to keep. I then got hold of the TechArt ef-gf converter that allow me to use my canon lenses on the fuji. Obviously I expected to run into heavy vignetting but there were huge differences between the lenses. Even my canon 11-24 mm performs very nice on the fuji from 14 mm onwards.
I expect that TechArt has converters from Sony to Hasselblad mounts, so perhaps you could use your long sony lenses on a hassy? Just a suggestion🙂
Kind regards
Birger
People getting butthurt that he's comparing a Hasselblad to a Sony. Guess what guys, Dji owns Hasselblad and so y is the top sensor manufacturer that makes that Hasselblad sensor lol😅😂😢
Isn't Hasselblad a Chinese brand nowadays?
Last I heard, DJI (a Chinese company), acquired a majority stake in Hasselblad, but not sure if that is still true. Probably.
Ok I give you $8k hassablad a wonderful camera
For me any IQ advantage of the Hasselblad is pretty irrelevant until they come up with a method to protect that huge sensor from dust. Changing lens in almost any conditions is like Russian Roulette with 1 empty chamber. And since the lenses are mainly primes, most landscape photographers are going to want to change them now & then. Or buy 1 body for each lens.
Then again probably most landscape photographers could only afford 1 XCD lens 🤣
Hassy color is better. A lot better. And the UI is best in business or equal with Leica. Sony UI is nasty. They have always been about best tech, usability be damned.
But versatility and value are tippy top. If you shoot with high end clients in the room, Hasselblad definitely means something extra that Sony never will.
Hasselblad and Fuji are still saving a 14bit file but inside a 16bit container. A file saved from the Hasselblad at 14 or 16bit are the same size in megabytes. It’s almost purely marketing BS as the data produced does not nearly fill up 16bit with usable data.
when presenter calls product hassy....you know he is bought
doesn't say it is commercial but what is it?
@@danieleverywhere132 my objectivity is my highest priority. Saying that I’m bought is just silly. Especially when I’m saying that the tangibles like image quality aren’t enough to make me consider buying it. In truth I’m saying that the Sony that I bought with my own money is still my choice. This video was to satisfy my own curiosity about image quality.
I was not paid for this. I borrowed a camera from Hasselblad for a week which is clearly stated. I have no agreement with Hasselblad for anything. I didn’t have to make a video to borrow the camera. This actually cost me to do in terms of travel costs and time. There’s nothing to substantiate your statement. But thanks for watching.
👎 For comparing Hasselblad to Sony
I know why would anyone compare a Dji owned company to a company like Sony that makes the sensor for it 😂