Imaging Resource takes a look inside Nikon's sensor design studios, solves Sony misconceptions

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, MdB said:

Completely disagree, the X1D is a perfect example of how these things aren’t immediate and instant for a company with no experience in a particular market. 

Why would one buy it over the GFX 50S?

It is a hip design but far less practical and much more expensive, with no advantage in image quality over the Fuji!

Plus you can't adapt glass to it very well, it lacks a mechanical focal plane shutter and the electronic shutter has more rolling shutter than a A6300 shooting howl's moving castle.

Quote

Its like the constant pundits who think that because Canon make great DSLRs they’ll make great mirrorless cameras right off the bat, first go.

They simply don’t. Nobody has. Not one company. Leica probably got closest with the SL, but that probably came with a lot of experience from Panasonic.

Panasonic G1 was mature and very refined straight off the bat.

Leica SL was and is a much better all-round system than the X1D.

Nikon's first gen full frame mirrorless looks on paper to be superior to latest Sony stuff.

In Cinema EOS land, C300 was a first gen product... and took over the planet.

So it's not the case that no company has never made a great first effort, starting anew.

Quote

The X1D is a very interesting product and another generation or two and it will be a really serious contender. 

It might. It might not. A bit of blind speculation there... I'd bet on it remaining a very expensive one-off rather than something to take on Panasonic, Sony and Nikon.

[MdB]

7 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@MdB Canon is making mirrorless cameras for some years now, and their latest are a joy to use. They called Eos M and they are perfect for their intended use.

I am 95% confident that both Canonikon will deliver.

 

Didn’t quite understand did we? 

Yes Canon make ‘ok’ mirrorless cameras by largely copying what else was around. Their first attempt at a mirrorless camera was woeful. 

[MdB]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Why would one buy it over the GFX 50S?

It is a hip design but far less practical and much more expensive, with no advantage in image quality over the Fuji!

Plus you can't adapt glass to it very well, it lacks a mechanical focal plane shutter and the electronic shutter has more rolling shutter than a A6300 shooting howl's moving castle.

Panasonic G1 was mature and very refined straight off the bat.

Leica SL was and is a much better all-round system than the X1D.

Nikon's first gen full frame mirrorless looks on paper to be superior to latest Sony stuff.

In Cinema EOS land, C300 was a first gen product... and took over the planet.

So it's not the case that no company has never made a great first effort, starting anew.

It might. It might not. A bit of blind speculation there... I'd bet on it remaining a very expensive one-off rather than something to take on Panasonic, Sony and Nikon.

I did say ‘I’ would. But a few reasons are:

Leaf shutter. You complain about a lack of focal plane shutter AND electronic shutter, but seem to miss the actual shutter type in use and it’s significant advantages for its intended market. Not only that but as a system there is nothing to say that we won’t see a MUCH better electronic shutter or introduction of an optional focal plane shutter. I didn’t say it was a better product now. I also don’t think the Fuji is a particularly ‘good’ product, especially for the money. Where I am they are priced exactly the same. 

G1 was mature according to whom? It was noticeably worse than say the A55 at the same time. Sure it worked and maybe not full of bugs like some of these cameras, but it wasn’t amazing. 

I mentioned the SL. Although it’s had its fair share of critics. It’s priced similarly to the X1D, but offers only a FF 24MP sensor. But as I said in my previous post, it is one of the few. 

Nikon’s looks ‘on paper’ to be better than Sony’s stuff? According to what exactly? Rumours led by fanboy sites? On paper? Do you mean on spec sheets? There aren’t any. We know nothing about the camera really. There is a LOT of fanboy speculation about how ‘great’ this camera is, just because it’s a Nikon. These same people seem to very quicky forget how recently Nikon have screwed their customers and failed to deliver promised products. They just have fanboy blindness.  I remember the eve of the last mirrorless system Nikon we’re releasing that was going to ‘crush’ Sony by the sleeping giant. You know, the one they finally officially discontinued a few weeks ago. Remember that system? The one they couldn’t seem to figure out what to do with? The second mirrorless Mount to be dumped by companies that wouldn’t ever dump a mount to make a buck? Good on ya. Oh and that system was appalling from day one and never got any better. 

I agree the C300 was excellent. Although I would debate that it’s intention is in the same category. Cameras like this are a sensor in a box with a mount, screen and power. They didn’t have AF, or mechanical shutters etc either. Plus their sheer size means they can be littered with buttons, something these smaller cameras can’t do. They are also very singular in purpose. So pretty hard to screw up. BUT Sony managed to with their awful versions of this camera at the time. Also Canon did manage to develop a design that while different was very well liked. 

Well I don’t think it is meant to ‘take on’ Sony, Nikon and Panasonic. It’s also not particularly expensive especially for its intended market. However I think it will become a very polished and usable product range. 

If Nikon’s upcoming release (and subsequent abandonment of their existing mirrorless) tells us anything, its that the future of enthusiast cameras is in larger sensors. Everyone knows the higher end is where all the profit is and everything below is collapsing into smartphones. That’s why the new Nikon mirrorless is all about full frame and not APS-C (or smaller). The tech gets cheaper (witness A7 III) and there becomes less and less of a reason to use the smaller systems. Medium format (crop and later full sized) will become a hotly contested space above the entry level full frame (again, ie back to film days). What experience does Nikon have in Medium format? Canon? Hasselblad, Fujifilm and Pentax all have a huge head start. The X1D is one generation away from being great. Sensors are lacking in medium format to produce a really good mirrorless camera, so were full frame ones when the A7 originally launched. That gets resolved and cameras become instantly better, to the point they become the benchmark. 

[Kisaha]

10 hours ago, MdB said:

Didn’t quite understand did we? 

Yes Canon make ‘ok’ mirrorless cameras by largely copying what else was around. Their first attempt at a mirrorless camera was woeful. 

The first Eos M was terrible, true (Canon tried to offer something like a compact), but they have 8 more bodies since and they are a joy for amateurs and occasional photographers. 

On the other topic I posted the links of Canon being no2 in Japan in sales and TrekOfJoy I think posted a newer one that Canon is now No1.

Sheeps.

 

[Andrew Reid]

16 hours ago, MdB said:

Leaf shutter. You complain about a lack of focal plane shutter AND electronic shutter, but seem to miss the actual shutter type in use and it’s significant advantages for its intended market. Not only that but as a system there is nothing to say that we won’t see a MUCH better electronic shutter or introduction of an optional focal plane shutter. I didn’t say it was a better product now. I also don’t think the Fuji is a particularly ‘good’ product, especially for the money. Where I am they are priced exactly the same.

For the money I bought it for there was no better stills camera than the GFX 50S. Next jump would have been the 100MP Hasselblad H6D which is £20k+. I could pay £3000 more than the Fuji for the X1D for no benefit at all, and have to invest in all-new medium format glass. Besides my 13 year old Hasselblad H3D II has faster autofocus, better viewfinder and similar resolution.

16 hours ago, MdB said:

I mentioned the SL. Although it’s had its fair share of critics. It’s priced similarly to the X1D, but offers only a FF 24MP sensor. But as I said in my previous post, it is one of the few.

OK. OK. Let's get a reality check.

Leica SL is £4500 brand new, £3700 used.

Hasselblad X1D is £12,000 with one lens! I have not seen it for less than £7000 body-only either new or used.

Besides the cost of the X1D lenses, you can use all sorts of stuff on the Leica and Fuji GFX...Also AF is much better on the native SL mount, as well as the fact it does 4K video whereas Hassy does not.

16 hours ago, MdB said:

Nikon’s looks ‘on paper’ to be better than Sony’s stuff? According to what exactly?

Specs are out there and unless proven to be wildly wrong, suggest it is very capable. Of course "reality" after the camera is out, is a different matter, which is why I said "on paper".

16 hours ago, MdB said:

I agree the C300 was excellent. Although I would debate that it’s intention is in the same category. Cameras like this are a sensor in a box with a mount, screen and power. They didn’t have AF, or mechanical shutters etc either.

Since when has a mechanical shutter mattered on a camcorder?! "Intention in same category". No. One is a photo-camera, one is a camcorder. You're not comparing even remotely the same tools.

16 hours ago, MdB said:

The X1D is one generation away from being great. Sensors are lacking in medium format to produce a really good mirrorless camera, so were full frame ones when the A7 originally launched. That gets resolved and cameras become instantly better, to the point they become the benchmark. 

Unless DJI target different group of customers entirely, X1D will never compete with A7 series.

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Since when has a mechanical shutter mattered on a camcorder?!

Most Sony F35 owners would say it matters.

[MdB]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

For the money I bought it for there was no better stills camera than the GFX 50S. Next jump would have been the 100MP Hasselblad H6D which is £20k+. I could pay £3000 more than the Fuji for the X1D for no benefit at all, and have to invest in all-new medium format glass. Besides my 13 year old Hasselblad H3D II has faster autofocus, better viewfinder and similar resolution.

The X1D and the GFX are the same price. Don't you have to invest in all new medium format glass for the Fuji? Seem like a moot point. Yes an old, second hand medium format camera is cheaper than a brand new one. I see those points and raise you: non-modular design, much small, better build, live view, video, MUCH better high ISO performance and so on. Don't cherry pick. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

OK. OK. Let's get a reality check.

Good idea!

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Leica SL is £4500 brand new, £3700 used.

Yes it seems so. That's it's discounted price. Price is 4999 GBP. Here it is $8500 AUD. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Hasselblad X1D is £12,000 with one lens! I have not seen it for less than £7000 body-only either new or used.

Clearly didn't bother to fact check this one. Current price is wait for it... 5999 GBP brand. A fairly small 20% jump over the SL. Lenses are cheaper though. 

Fujifilm GFX 50S? Wait for it... 5999 GBP brand new. 

Here they are $9,999 AUD for the GFX and wait.... $9,999 for the X1D. Reality check indeed. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Besides the cost of the X1D lenses, you can use all sorts of stuff on the Leica and Fuji GFX...Also AF is much better on the native SL mount, as well as the fact it does 4K video whereas Hassy does not.

Seems like a string of strange and off topic tidbits. Does the fact you can adapt lenses easier on the GFX make it 'better' than the Hasselblad as a system? If the SL is better because it has better AF and better video, doesn't that make it 'better' than the GFX also? Again seems like a weird mish-mash of cherry picking. X1D lenses are expensive. So are GFX lenses. So are Leica L mount lenses. The Hasselblad is the smallest of the three, has arguably the best image quality and has high speed flash sync. To the market that these cameras are aimed which is more important: 

1. Wonky lenses adapted that don't work properly? 

2. 4K video in S35 crop mode? 

3. The best image quality and high speed sync? 

Again not arguing which one I would buy. Or indeed which one you should buy. I would hands down have the GFX or SL for exactly the reasons you state. That doesn't mean I think they are in absolute terms a better product, just better suited to me. I have also been talking about the development of the product line in the future, not the products that exist right now. Most professionals using the GFX or 645Z are screaming for better flash sync. This is not wealthy enthusiasts dabbling in adapting full frame glass. 

While I let you ponder that I'll move on...

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Specs are out there and unless proven to be wildly wrong, suggest it is very capable. Of course "reality" after the camera is out, is a different matter, which is why I said "on paper".

Very capable doesn't mean it is 'superior to Sony's latest stuff' as you claimed. I see nothing that makes it 'superior' other than some claims the grip is better. The rest looks like another Sony clone with a bit of Nikon badging. Plus probably the ugliest design I've ever seen (looks like an A7 humped a C300 and then had a botched abortion). Of course I would be happy if it is better looking than leaked images suggest. I would also be VERY happy if the camera is any good. 

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Since when has a mechanical shutter mattered on a camcorder?! "Intention in same category". No. One is a photo-camera, one is a camcorder. You're not comparing even remotely the same tools.

Intentions 'isn't' in the same category. Autocorrect. As for comparing them, I'm pretty sure you did that - not me. I agree it is an odd comparison, but being that you made it I felt it worth responding to. The point was the C300 didn't have to worry about mechanical shutters and AF etc so as it is an arguably more simple box, it is easier to get right off the bat. I didn't make the comparison as I didn't think it made much sense. The first Alexa is also an excellent camera. Not really the same thing. 

5 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Most Sony F35 owners would say it matters.

Not to disagree, but the F35 doesn't have a mechanical shutter AFAIK, it has a global shutter due to CCD design. 

Film cameras on the other hand...

[IronFilm]

5 minutes ago, MdB said:

looks like an A7 humped a C300

I'd love an a7s / C300 fusion!
 

5 minutes ago, MdB said:

Not to disagree, but the F35 doesn't have a mechanical shutter AFAIK

My bad! 
I meant the Sony F65

From memory some ARRI ALEXA cameras also have a mechanical shutter (ARRI ALEXA Studio?).

[MdB]

12 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I'd love an a7s / C300 fusion!

Funny but me too. 

13 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

My bad! 
I meant the Sony F65

Does it? That's pretty cool. RED also did a mechanical shutter mount of sorts, can't remember the exact technology behind it. 

[webrunner5]

11 minutes ago, MdB said:

RED also did a mechanical shutter mount of sorts, can't remember the exact technology behind it. 

https://nofilmschool.com/2013/09/red-goes-global-shutter-new-motion-mount-epicscarlet-plus-new-dragon-footage

[IronFilm]

43 minutes ago, MdB said:

Does it? That's pretty cool.

It does

[Andrew Reid]

12 hours ago, MdB said:

The X1D and the GFX are the same price

At launch:

X1D body RRP $8995

GFX body RRP $6499

Those do not include tax.

At current time, the X1D has dropped $2500 because nobody bought it.

It's still more expensive than the GFX at B&H.

Maybe at some shops around the world, it is the same price... because of lack of demand and a glut of stock.

They got the pricing wrong and they know it.

X1D lenses are expensive. So are GFX lenses.

63mm F2.8 for the GFX is £1359 new.

This is a 50mm equiv. focal length on the GFX and X1D Sony CMOS medium format sensor.

The Hasselblad system only has a 45mm and 90mm, nothing in between! So that is 35mm and 75mm-ish, right?

No 50!?

And how are we doing for pricing on that 90...

Yours for only £2899, a complete bargain... not.

The autofocus is crap on top of that.

Quote

Fujifilm GFX 50S? Wait for it... 5999 GBP brand new.

I bought mine used.

Used, they are going for £2000 less than the X1D.

For me, that is reality my friend. I.e. how can I get the camera for best price possible and still with 12 month warranty. I got mine from London Camera Exchange for £3800 with the 63mm F2.8, which effectively made the body cost £3000. The cheapest I have seen the X1D go for used is £5800, and that is only in the last few weeks after the massive price drop on the new bodies. If you bought the X1D at launch or just a few months ago, you'd be seriously fucked-off with that kind of depreciation and price drop on the new model.

Quote

Seems like a string of strange and off topic tidbits. Does the fact you can adapt lenses easier on the GFX make it 'better' than the Hasselblad as a system?

Yes it does.

I can shoot medium format at F1.4

I can get full coverage from Minolta full frame lenses and even some Contax Zeiss gems on the cheap.

The creativity is endless and the looks never before produced. Possible for the first time with the GFX 50S.

Quote

If the SL is better because it has better AF and better video, doesn't that make it 'better' than the GFX also?

For video? Yes. For AF? Yes.

For 50MP photography and dynamic range? No.

Don't try and simply my argument until it no longer makes sense!

Quote

The Hasselblad is the smallest of the three, has arguably the best image quality and has high speed flash sync.

"Best image quality" is more like "exact same image quality" in case of X1D vs GFX.

There are plenty of other cameras with a leaf shutter and high speed flash sync BTW. Hardly makes X1D unique.

[MdB]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

At launch:

I thought we were doing a reality check? I said they are the same price and you wanted to prove me wrong. Then I provide actual evidence and you want to wind back the clock. Try this Andrew: "I'm sorry, last time I looked they were more expensive" or something to that effect. It isn't that hard. 

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

At current time, the X1D has dropped $2500 because nobody bought it.

And you know this because... reasons? How about the price has dropped because it is naturally reaching the end of it's life cycle and is about to be replaced by a 100MP version? Probably with much improved everything else. Funny that eh? 

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's still more expensive than the GFX at B&H.

I guess that makes you right then. So when I said 'where I am they are the same price' and you decided to give me a 'reality check' you meant the prices at B&H (which happen to include a cash back)? All very odd if you ask me. 

14 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They got the pricing wrong and they know it.

I love how much insight you have into the inner workings of Nikon and Hasselblad and Sony. 

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

bought mine used.

The plot thickens. So when you said it was so much cheaper... you meant used. 

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Used, they are going for £2000 less than the X1D.

Used prices are determined by what the market is prepared to pay. You're saying the X1D is much more expensive, but that nobody wants them? Wouldn't they therefore be cheaper than the much more desirable GFX? 

17 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For me, that is reality my friend. I.e. how can I get the camera for best price possible and still with 12 month warranty. I got mine from London Camera Exchange for £3800 with the 63mm F2.8, which effectively made the body cost £3000.

So you paid half? In less than 12 months? From a store that has bought it and then added their own markup. So the poor guy selling it to them probably only got 2k for it...

18 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The cheapest I have seen the X1D go for used is £5800

So the X1D only goes for 200 quid less than they cost brand new? Seems like second hand units are in strong demand there... 

19 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

and that is only in the last few weeks after the massive price drop on the new bodies. If you bought the X1D at launch or just a few months ago, you'd be seriously fucked-off with that kind of depreciation and price drop on the new model.

And this is where you completely lost me. Let me get this right, the GFX (which is supposedly massively better than the X1D) is only worth 2000 (1/3) to a store buying one, or 1/2 on the second hand market. The X1D is worth still 96.6% of it's new value on the second hand market. And you think it is the X1D owners that should be annoyed by that depreciation? Honestly Andrew, this is nonsense. You know it. I know it. 

How about this, you prefer the GFX because it suits you better and was better bang for buck? I would 100% agree with that and again that is why I would buy one for myself (and very nearly did recently for almost exactly the same reasons). None of that 'proves' that the X1D is a worse product in absolute terms for it's intended market. It also doesn't prove that the X1D won't improve into a very viable product line in the future, which is exactly my point. 

They couldn't make enough X1Ds and you couldn't buy one for the longest time for ANY amount of money. The GFX? Well they have been deep discounting the thing since it landed. I didn't buy one because I knew this version would sink like a rock as soon as the next version comes out (and the supposedly much cheaper version on the horizon as well). I will hold off until then picking up the lenses on the cheap because it's currently an over priced and under performing system that seemingly is getting dumped for next to nothing. 

26 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes it does.

Not in absolute terms no. It makes it better for use tinkerers, I'll give you that. 

27 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can shoot medium format at F1.4

That's nice. That's about f/1.2 in full frame. I can shoot f/1.2 on MF. I can shoot f/0.95 on FF. 

28 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I can get full coverage from Minolta full frame lenses and even some Contax Zeiss gems on the cheap.

Illumination across the frame (i.e. not having dark corners) is not really that relevant. Every one of the lenses I have seen turn to mush on the corners and edges apart from very few lenses. This to me makes adapting these kinds of lenses 'fun' (much like using APS-C lenses on the A7s when they first came out), but ultimately it is not practical for most real world uses. 

30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The creativity is endless and the looks never before produced. Possible for the first time with the GFX 50S.

You'v been able to do it on an Alpa for ages. GFX just makes it more affordable (and maybe a bit more practical). 

31 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For video? Yes. For AF? Yes.

For 50MP photography and dynamic range? No.

Don't try and simply my argument until it no longer makes sense, you won't win that way Mr Troll.

having a difference of opinion doesn't make me a troll. You don't disagree with me? 

This is a circular argument. The exact same applies to the X1D. 

32 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are less expensive on the GFX side and the line-up is better, not to mention the autofocus.

Hasselblad lenses don't autofocus? Pretty sure they do. Better again according to whom? For professionals wanting leaf shutters? Oh you mean you like the fuji apertures better...

34 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

"Best image quality" is more like "exact same image quality" in case of X1D vs GFX.

Uhm no. The Hasselblad images have more data stored in them. Period. Same sensor, different data. 

34 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

There are plenty of other cameras with a leaf shutter and high speed flash sync BTW. Hardly makes X1D unique.

There are plenty of cameras that have video or adapt lenses etc, doesn't make the SL or GFX unique. I don't get the point you are making? We are comparing two cameras, what has this got to do with anything? It's such a pointless little attempt to be right. Does the GFX have any leaf shutter lenses? No? Then in this comparison it is a point of difference. End of story. It's like you saying: 

36 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

They are less expensive on the GFX side and the line-up is better, not to mention the autofocus.

Other systems have lenses lineups with more and better lenses, it's hardly unique. Do you see how pointless that is? 

I truly get your reasons why you prefer your Fuji, but your biased arguments about the X1D are just exactly that. 

[webrunner5]

Just buy a cheap ass Sigma Quattro 2 and be done with it. It has better resolution than both the Fuji and the Hassy when you compare each on DPR's chart. 500 bucks on Amazon.

https://***URL removed***/reviews/hasselblad-x1d-50c/5

[Andrew Reid]

Yep, the non-bayer design of the Sigma is outstanding with how cleanly it resolves resolution. I have one and should finally get round to finishing that 2nd article about it. I'd put it at around A7R III level of detail, so not quite 50MP but very very clean and very close for the price. It has a lot of other weaknesses along with the mirrorless version of it, however, so it's a special purpose / occasional tool, not a full on replacement for anything else.

[webrunner5]

And you get a crazy good lens thrown in for free! I have owned a lot of the Foveon cameras and liked all of them, well loved most, but the SD14 I had was a dog. Hard to beat the Merrill ones really. Never had the newest SD ones.

[Andrew Reid]

The lens on the DP3 is absolutely insane. The DP2 is good as well but that 50mm on the DP3 is a razor blade.