Two medium format cameras, but in a side-to-side comparison, which is better?
The comparison isn't strictly useful in many ways, but it is very interesting. Jay P. Morgan compares the Fujifilm GFX 50R with the Hasselblad X1D II 50C and while they're alike in a number of ways many people's biggest grievance will be the price brackets. The Fujifilm paired with the GF 50mm f/3.5 R LM WR is a combined price of $3,999.90. Whereas the Hasselblad paired with the XCD 45mm f/3.5 lens is a combined $8,445. So the two setups in this video are vastly different in price brand new, with the Hasselblad coming out at over double the Fujifilm.
That doesn't make this a useless test, however — far from it. Many of us who have worked with medium format cameras and want to move more into them can use this as a great way of looking at the differences between the two and whether the Hasselblad setup is worth twice the price. In all honesty, I have a real "thing" for Hasselblad. Though they have changed hands, I love the heritage and they build exceptionally well designed and beautiful cameras. I would also say that in this video, the X1D II 50C comes out on top in most regards. However, Fujifilm have really applied the pressure in the medium format sector and this particular Hasselblad is close enough to the GFX 100 that I'd have to have a conversation on whether it'd be worth pushing past it. That said, they're vastly different cameras ergonomically.
What do you make of this comparison? Which would you choose?