# Industry News: Hasselblad announces the X1D II 50C medium format camera, and the XCD 35-75 zoom lens



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 19, 2019)

> Introducing the X1D II 50C, XCD 35-75 zoom lens, Phocus Mobile 2, and revealing details of the upcoming CFV II 50C digital back and 907X camera body.
> Following the revolutionary introduction of the world’s first mirrorless medium format digital camera, the X1D-50c, Hasselblad introduces new additions to its product portfolio that bring the joy of medium format photography to image makers with the capabilities to support their creative endeavours. This includes the evolved X1D II 50C camera, the eagerly awaited XCD 3,5-4,5/35-75 Zoom Lens and Phocus Mobile 2. In addition, Hasselblad reveals the development details of the upcoming CFV II 50C digital back and 907X camera body. Hasselblad’s newest offerings yet again expand the potential of medium format photography with modularity and flexibility, all while offering the brand’s renowned, stunning image quality.
> 
> *X1D II 50C – AN EVOLVED MEDIUM FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHY EXPERIENCE*
> In the pursuit to continue the journey of taking medium...



Continue reading...


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 20, 2019)

If I am not mistaken, this is the smaller "medium format" sensor size, just like the new Fuji. I have a hard time figuring out why someone would choose this over the Fuji GFX system? (I am not being sarcastic, this is an honest question).


----------



## Adelino (Jun 20, 2019)

Canon is *******?


----------



## Pape (Jun 20, 2019)

maybe hasselblad looks better?
fits better to hand?
Famous camera brand ,not just that film company.?
650gram ,doesnt sound heavy.
Nice big buttons for scandinavian hands.
I dont see why any older gentleman whose got money, would choose fuji instead of hasselblad . Young peoples who would understand latest tech got just debt here


----------



## PerKr (Jun 20, 2019)

because one needs a 1/1000 or faster sync speed? Would definitely consider the Hasselblad.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 20, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> If I am not mistaken, this is the smaller "medium format" sensor size, just like the new Fuji. I have a hard time figuring out why someone would choose this over the Fuji GFX system? (I am not being sarcastic, this is an honest question).


I heard some people prefer surströmming to Nishin (I am being sarcastic, but just a little).


----------



## hne (Jun 20, 2019)

Do you think the 907x is compatible with 1960s film backs? I'm sort of expecting that. It looks pretty much exactly like an SWC and with an adapter you really should be able to use 60 years old lenses. That has to be almost as important a feature as looking good. Which I believe they pretty much nailed.

But I'm not letting go of my canon equipment.


----------



## wickedac (Jun 20, 2019)

1024x768 rear screen? In this era?


----------



## deleteme (Jun 20, 2019)

The X1-D II seems to be a much needed update to a conceptually excellent camera.
High res, compact, leaf shutter, larger sensor camera with a growing range of excellent lenses.
The 21mm catches my eye. For the shallow DOF fashionistas, the 80mm f1.9 should get them salivating.


----------



## akiskev (Jun 20, 2019)

omg it will get eaten alive by Fuji.. no competition at all


----------



## nitram (Jun 20, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> The X1-D II seems to be a much needed update to a conceptually excellent camera.
> High res, compact, leaf shutter, larger sensor camera with a growing range of excellent lenses.
> The 21mm catches my eye. For the shallow DOF fashionistas, the 80mm f1.9 should get them salivating.



Very much agree with your first two lines. As for the 80mm f/1.9, remember that after converting to its 35mm FF equivalent, it would be a 63mm f/1.5 lens. Compared to a competing Nikon, Canon or Sony lens, I don't know if a Hasselblad or Leica lens would offer better MTF results, higher quality glass or lens coatings. However, what is probably true is that working with a Hasselblad-produced RAW file may be easier than the competition when in the field of color-sensitive reproduction...


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jun 21, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> If I am not mistaken, this is the smaller "medium format" sensor size, just like the new Fuji. I have a hard time figuring out why someone would choose this over the Fuji GFX system? (I am not being sarcastic, this is an honest question).



Name recognition, people will buy it for that reason. It's likely the very same sensor that's in the Fuji, they both use Sony sensors.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 21, 2019)

X1D was a flop and this is just a rehash. Hassalblad needs to give this camera up. they arent serious like fuji and it shows.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Jun 21, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> Name recognition, people will buy it for that reason. It's likely the very same sensor that's in the Fuji, they both use Sony sensors.


its the same old sensor again from the x1d.


----------



## bmfotonet (Jun 21, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> If I am not mistaken, this is the smaller "medium format" sensor size, just like the new Fuji. I have a hard time figuring out why someone would choose this over the Fuji GFX system? (I am not being sarcastic, this is an honest question).



The X1D-50c II has a leaf shutter which allows flash sync at 1/2000. This is huge for anyone who does portrait work with strobes. The fuji can only sync at 1/125. HSS can be used with the fuji but it is far less efficient. The leaf shutter is one of the main selling points of hasselblad cameras for those who would use that feature.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2019)

bmfotonet said:


> The X1D-50c II has a leaf shutter which allows flash sync at 1/2000. This is huge for anyone who does portrait work with strobes. The fuji can only sync at 1/125. HSS can be used with the fuji but it is far less efficient. The leaf shutter is one of the main selling points of hasselblad cameras for those who would use that feature.


What specific uses is a 1/2000 flash sync speed when there isn’t a flash made that outputs any kind of decent power in 1/2000 of a second. Even big very expensive head and block flash systems have flash durations at decent power levels in the 1/500-1/1000 range, I specifically invested in the PCB Einstein range because of their very fast flash durations but at full power they are 1/320.


Further, when using a leaf shutter the shutter itself acts as a second aperture, think about it, they are doing exactly the same thing one sequentially during the exposure and one set up before the exposure. This has implications for depth of field control and diffraction control especially on the edges of the frame, and vignetting.

The only thing i can think of studio based is if you were stuck at a high base iso (XCD goes to 100) and you had little control over your ambient (not the case in any decent studio setup) and you wanted to shoot very narrow dof, but the fastest you get in XCD is f1.9, most lenses are maximum 2.8 and 3.5.

I just don’t see the functional advantage to a leaf shutter at this point, throw in the fact that they make the lenses very expensive and comparatively fragile they look like an early 1900’s answer to a 21st century problem. Hasselblad should be leading with a good global shutter solution and the lenses should be half the price and complexity.

As a point of reference I have several leaf shutter lenses in the studio and I have never found the faster sync speed to give me a practical advantage over 1/250.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> What specific uses is a 1/2000 flash sync speed when there isn’t a flash made that outputs any kind of decent power in 1/2000 of a second.


My ~20 years old 550EX has 0.2ms or shorter flash duration, according to its specification.



privatebydesign said:


> As a point of reference I have several leaf shutter lenses in the studio and I have never found the faster sync speed to give me a practical advantage over 1/250.


It's not for studio. It's for fill flash under sunlight.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2019)

0.2ms is 1/5000 of a second. That figure is incorrect for a full power discharge, even a t.5 time, from a 550EX. The 580EX, which was essentially the same as the 550, takes 1/250 sec full power duration , it’s not until 1/4 power that the flash duration goes down to 1/2000. My question was point me to a flash that will give me decent power at 1/2000 sec and i’ll agree that a 1/2000 sync speed is useful. https://agock.com/2012/01/flash-durations-small-strobes/

The post I was commenting on said, specifically, “_This is huge for anyone who does portrait work with strobes_.” I was asking for specific scenarios, we were not talking about speedlites although I like them far more than many people seem to.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 21, 2019)

That CFV II 50C digital back looks interesting if they can hold the price down. Even at hipster inflated prices you can still get a pretty nice Hasselblad 500C/M for a $500 or so if you shop around. Downside is that 50MP sensor is a bit dated compare to Sony's latest offerings.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> 0.2ms is 1/5000 of a second. That figure is incorrect for a full power discharge, even a t.5 time, from a 550EX.


That's from the official specification, though.

Besides, you don't need full power output for fill flash if you don't need HSS. You have GN12.5 (in meters) for the 80mm flash zoom at 1/16 of full power, which means you have pretty decent burst capability. With HSS at 1/1000, you will get the same GN for just a single full-power shot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> That's from the official specification, though.
> 
> Besides, you don't need full power output for fill flash if you don't need HSS. You have GN12.5 (in meters) for the 80mm flash zoom at 1/16 of full power, which means you have pretty decent burst capability. With HSS at 1/1000, you will get the same GN for just a single full-power shot.


Yes and the official specification is incorrect as per my link. Flashes don’t flash that fast.

Again I was not asking about the utility of speedlites, which I use to their maximum effect when needed, I was asking what use is a 1/2000 sync speed to people “shooting portraits with strobes”


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 21, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> If I am not mistaken, this is the smaller "medium format" sensor size, just like the new Fuji. I have a hard time figuring out why someone would choose this over the Fuji GFX system? (I am not being sarcastic, this is an honest question).


For the flash sync at all shutter speeds, something the Fuji can’t do and why I passed on it. I shoot on location portraits mixing ambient with strobes and having to use ND filters or HSS/HS greatly reduces the flash output. This camera solves that issue in a compact body rather than a studio sized MF.


----------



## Juangrande (Jun 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes and the official specification is incorrect as per my link. Flashes don’t flash that fast.
> 
> Again I was not asking about the utility of speedlites, which I use to their maximum effect when needed, I was asking what use is a 1/2000 sync speed to people “shooting portraits with strobes”



For the flash sync at all shutter speeds. Needed when combining ambient with flash outdoors. I shoot on location portraits mixing ambient with strobes and having to use ND filters or HSS/HS greatly reduces the flash output.


----------



## bmfotonet (Jun 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> What specific uses is a 1/2000 flash sync speed when there isn’t a flash made that outputs any kind of decent power in 1/2000 of a second.



The "Elinchrom ELB 400 Action To Go Kit" is one system that I am aware of that can sync fast enough. Specs on B&H list 1/2800 at full power. I have never used it myself.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2019)

Juangrande said:


> For the flash sync at all shutter speeds. Needed when combining ambient with flash outdoors. I shoot on location portraits mixing ambient with strobes and having to use ND filters or HSS/HS greatly reduces the flash output.


What lenses, cameras and flashes do you use?


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Again I was not asking about the utility of speedlites, which I use to their maximum effect when needed, I was asking what use is a 1/2000 sync speed to people “shooting portraits with strobes”


There are some new strobes out there, all rated around 500J, powered by lithium ions cells and fully capable of some kind of TTL, like the Profoto B1X. This thing claims 1/1000s flash duration for t0.5 at full power, and probably half that at half power.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2019)

Who cares about t 0.5 times? A child who doesn’t know what they are but knows shorter is better?

I am instantly suspicious of any flash company that quotes t0.5 times, the tail is always longer than the initial burst so a t0.1 of slower than 1/500 is nothing to boast about. My Einsteins at 1/4 the cost and more power are 1/360 sec at full power and have incredibly short durations off full power. Seriously, who is doing this set in TTL? I use ETTL when it is appropriate and think it is very good, but do you know the algorithm they use to reduce fill rating as EV changes? Nobody outside Canon does, you can’t do this stuff in TTL!

My point, that nobody seems to be taking up, is this, if your ambient exposure is 1/2000 sec then you are trying to mitigate a lot of light, to do that you need a lot of flash power to be brighter than that. I don’t know of an affordable system that can do that so I am asking, what, specifically, are people going to use to shoot with a 1/2000 sync speed?

I use ETTL fill flash with speedlites, sometimes in HSS to lower my ambient exposure, I use battery powered Einsteins outside. I have looked at all these systems and even have leaf shutter lenses, I still haven’t found a solution to provide enough flash light in situations where I need to use 1/2000 for my ambient exposure.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> My point, that nobody seems to be taking up, is this, if your ambient exposure is 1/2000 sec then you are trying to mitigate a lot of light, to do that you need a lot of flash power to be brighter than that.


Not really, if it's Sunny-16 at f/2.8. If your subject is 5 meters away and you use a -1 EV fill flash, you only need about GN10 of flash exposure (if my calculations are correct).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2019)

Oh my. Really? That’s your reply. Bye....


----------



## Kit. (Jun 22, 2019)

???


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Who cares about t 0.5 times? A child who doesn’t know what they are but knows shorter is better?
> 
> I am instantly suspicious of any flash company that quotes t0.5 times, the tail is always longer than the initial burst so a t0.1 of slower than 1/500 is nothing to boast about. My Einsteins at 1/4 the cost and more power are 1/360 sec at full power and have incredibly short durations off full power. Seriously, who is doing this set in TTL? I use ETTL when it is appropriate and think it is very good, but do you know the algorithm they use to reduce fill rating as EV changes? Nobody outside Canon does, you can’t do this stuff in TTL!
> 
> ...


Hi Private,
I thought I will share this link with you:



http://www.thebroketographers.com/blog/2017/4/13/flash-duration-analysis-with-the-sekonic-l858d-u



Definitely an interesting resource as they measured actual flash durations for many good strobes at various power level settings. 
It appears that quite a few units would provide a descent output at 1/2000 sec flash duration. Enough for a fill on a sunny day outside. 
Not arguing your points here just wanting to share pass on some information that may be useful to some (arguably).


----------



## akiskev (Jun 22, 2019)

Since MF is in the spotlight now, let's start a rumor about Canon medium format. It will surely be a nice clickbait


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 22, 2019)

Either Hasselblad needs to convine Sony to fab them a square sensor of they need to design a rotating back. Nobody wants to rotate a Hasselblad V-series body 90 degrees to shoot in portrait mode. That kills it for me since I'd want it primarily for portraits.


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 22, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Who cares about t 0.5 times? A child who doesn’t know what they are but knows shorter is better?


How about one who holds a doctorate in electrical engineering, with focus on telecommunication, who designed and built communication devices which went into commercial production, and therefore knows, that this t0.5 time is very relevant for estimating the relevant time frame for light output.

If, for whatever reason, you want 1/2000s exposure time, then a flash is a perfect fit, if it outputs most of its light power (even 75% is good) within this short time frame. BTW Profoto does list t0.1 time, it is irrelevant here, though.


privatebydesign said:


> I am instantly suspicious of any flash company that quotes t0.5 times, the tail is always longer than the initial burst so a t0.1 of slower than 1/500 is nothing to boast about. My Einsteins at 1/4 the cost and more power are 1/360 sec at full power and have incredibly short durations off full power. Seriously, who is doing this set in TTL? I use ETTL when it is appropriate and think it is very good, but do you know the algorithm they use to reduce fill rating as EV changes? Nobody outside Canon does, you can’t do this stuff in TTL!


I don't have such a flash unit myself, but I know folks who have this one, or a Chinese knockoff, and they use it extensively in this airTTL mode. Apparently it works, like it or not. 

Your Einsteins may be the best product line ever, and you may be the smartest person in the world for using them (at least as long as you don't write nonsense about the relevance of t0.5 times), but there are indeed people who want to shoot wide open and outdoors.


privatebydesign said:


> My point, that nobody seems to be taking up, is this, if your ambient exposure is 1/2000 sec then you are trying to mitigate a lot of light, to do that you need a lot of flash power to be brighter than that. I don’t know of an affordable system that can do that so I am asking, what, specifically, are people going to use to shoot with a 1/2000 sync speed?


I did the calculations a while back: direct sunlight is comparable to 5000W incandescent light from a directed source (think construction light) held at 1m distance. Put it at 3m distance and you'd need 50.000W. If you have a shutter time of only 1/2000s, we're talking 25J sunlight here. If you start with two of these 500J flashes, turn them down to half power to make light output fill the 1/2000s shutter time, then you still have 300 - 500J at your subject. If that's not enough, I don't know what is.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 22, 2019)

Rudeofus said:


> I did the calculations a while back: direct sunlight is comparable to 5000W incandescent light from a directed source (think construction light) held at 1m distance.


I would put it slightly differently for the ease of understanding: sunlight is about 1 kW/sq.m of incandescent light (of color temperature about 5000K). At 0.5ms, it gives us 0.5 J/sq.m of radiant exposure of the target. If your flash setup needs to cover 3x2 meters of the object plane, it needs to compete with just 3J of sunlight.


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 22, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I would put it slightly differently for the ease of understanding: sunlight is about 1 kW/sq.m of incandescent light (of color temperature about 5000K). At 0.5ms, it gives us 0.5 J/sq.m of radiant exposure of the target. If your flash setup needs to cover 3x2 meters of the object plane, it needs to compete with just 3J of sunlight.


Sorry, that would be incorrect. While sunlight does create a light density of about 1 kW/m^2, incandescent light has very poor efficiency. You'd need about 20 kW of incandescent light spread over 1 m^2 to get the equivalent of sunlight. Once you consider this, our numbers are not that different.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2019)

Rudeofus said:


> Sorry, that would be incorrect. While sunlight does create a light density of about 1 kW/m^2, incandescent light has very poor efficiency. You'd need about 20 kW of incandescent light spread over 1 m^2 to get the equivalent of sunlight. Once you consider this, our numbers are not that different.


We are not talking about tungsten light at all.

Unless you are into absorption spectroscopy, sunlight _is_ incandescent (i.e. black body radiation) light with the color temperature 5800K. Roughly the same as flashlight.


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> We are not talking about tungsten light at all.
> 
> Unless you are into absorption spectroscopy, sunlight _is_ incandescent (i.e. black body radiation) light with the color temperature 5800K. Roughly the same as flashlight.


Compact flashes and studio strobes are very much incandescent lights and have light efficiency very much like regular tungsten lights. Therefore it is a very useful comparison between a 1000J flash/strobe vs. a 1000W construction light with a halogen bulb shining for a whole second. Both require about 1000J of electricity, but give you only about 50J of visible light. The 1 kW/m2 you quoted for sunlight, on the other side, are already light radiation. You'd need a 20.000J flash/strobe shining into 1 m2 to match one full second of sunlight, or a 20.000W flood light.

Yes, sunlight is incandescent, but the 1 kW/m2 state light radiation power density, not the power needed to generate this kind of light power density.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2019)

Rudeofus said:


> Compact flashes and studio strobes are very much incandescent lights and have light efficiency very much like regular tungsten lights. Therefore it is a very useful comparison between a 1000J flash/strobe vs. a 1000W construction light with a halogen bulb shining for a whole second. Both require about 1000J of electricity, but give you only about 50J of visible light.
> 
> Yes, sunlight is incandescent, but the 1 kW/m2 state light radiation power density, not the power needed to generate this kind of light power density.


Do not idealize sunlight. It's just black body radiation. It's a very inefficient light source. This 1 kW/m2 is mostly just heat.

Tungsten light has about 3% of luminous efficiency (watt to lumen compared to an ideal monochromatic source).
Flash light has about 7% of luminous efficiency.
Sunlight has about 13% of luminous efficiency.
Modern white led sources have up to 25% of luminous efficiency.
Ideal white source emulating just Sun's visible spectrum would have 37% of luminous efficiency.


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 23, 2019)

If I look at this document here, total power density of solar radiation at earth surface is about 1.35 kW/m2, of which 520 W/m2 fall into the visible range. This would suggest an efficiency of about 38.5%. This efficiency is a lot higher than an ideal black body radiator would theoretically give, and the spectrum shown in this document shows clear deviation from black body radiation spectrum.

At the same time efficiency of light bulbs depends strongly on power, with high powered lamps faring much better (5%) than 25 or 40W lamps (2%).

So where does this lead us? In order to get 520 W/m2 visible light power with photo flood lights, we need about 10.000 W of incandescent light shone into 1 m2. If a decent strobe outputs 200J within 1/2000s, its effective light power equals 400.000 W, which is much stronger than sunlight. You could use one strobe to illuminate a circle of 7m diameter and are still as powerful as direct sunlight hitting at 0° angle off the surface normal.

You can twist and turn this over again and again: even if you throw a factor of 2 or 3 into this to cover some additional inefficiency, it is quite possible to match direct sunlight with portable strobes. If optimal depth of field suggests largest possible aperture, then very short sync times can be a benefit to those who want to take advantage of it and who can afford such a toy.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 23, 2019)

Rudeofus said:


> If I look at this document here, total power density of solar radiation at earth surface is about 1.35 kW/m2,


No, that's the value for the upper atmosphere.



Rudeofus said:


> of which 520 W/m2 fall into the visible range. This would suggest an efficiency of about 38.5%.


No, it wouldn't, if the efficiency is measured against monochromatic green light. It would, if the efficiency is measured against an ideal white source emulating just Sun's visible spectrum, but then the efficiency of the tungsten and flash light should be increased accordingly.



Rudeofus said:


> This efficiency is a lot higher than an ideal black body radiator would theoretically give,


Haven't you noticed that the values you are quoting _are_ the values for the Sun's ideal black body radiator model?

So, you are actually claiming that this model provides "a lot higher" efficiency than it should. Sounds self-contradictory. Maybe you are mistaken?



Rudeofus said:


> So where does this lead us? In order to get 520 W/m2 visible light power with photo flood lights, we need about 10.000 W of incandescent light shone into 1 m2.


No, and strobe light isn't even incandescent. It has a similar spectrum to sunlight in visible range, but it contains much more ultraviolet, which reduces its luminous efficiency compared to sunlight.



Rudeofus said:


> If a decent strobe outputs 200J within 1/2000s, its effective light power equals 400.000 W, which is much stronger than sunlight. You could use one strobe to illuminate a circle of 7m diameter and are still as powerful as direct sunlight hitting at 0° angle off the surface normal.
> 
> You can twist and turn this over again and again: even if you throw a factor of 2 or 3 into this to cover some additional inefficiency, it is quite possible to match direct sunlight with portable strobes. If optimal depth of field suggests largest possible aperture, then very short sync times can be a benefit to those who want to take advantage of it and who can afford such a toy.


You don't need to twist or turn anything. If you are still confused about relative sunlight and strobe light efficiency, you can cross-check it using more photographer-friendly numbers: flash GNs.

For example, my 550EX has GN9 at 80mm at 1/2000 HSS, which means that for Sunny-16 shooting at 1/2000 it gives at -1EV fill at 3.2m and -2EV fill at 4.5m at full power, which is already usable.

But of course, it would be much more usable if one could use it in non-HSS mode, where GN9 at 80mm is only 1/32 of its power.


----------



## Rudeofus (Jun 24, 2019)

So basically we have a whole pile of unknowns with sunlight, we have a comparable pile of unknowns with flash light, my numbers may be off by some factor 2 or 3 or whatever, and we still arrive at the same conclusion: 

a flash can be used to balance out sunlight in HSS mode, and could be used much better in non-HSS mode.
there are flashes which output a significant part of their light within 1/2000s and it would be nice to have a camera+flash which can do this properly


----------

