Another day and another DxOMark rating has been broken. This time, however, I don't think it comes as a massive surprise. The Nikon D850 has so far been highly commended, and most, if not all, reviewers probably consider it to be the best DSLR currently available on the market. DxOMark gave it a rating of a clean 100 making it the highest rated stills camera for a brief moment. Since then, Hasselblad has taken that crown with the X1D-50c.
In all fairness this probably isn't anything Nikon needs to worry about. I highly doubt that people are going to rush off and drop their Nikons in favor of the Hasselblad. Considering the massive difference in price and lenses available to each system, this is more of a statement in favor of the Nikon than the Hasselblad. The D850 is turning out to be an incredible camera and actually beats the X1D in one fundamental area: color.
Medium-format cameras have so far been known for excellent colors and this is one of the main arguments for the system. The X1D does produce 16-bit raw files, but based on DxOMark findings, it seems the Nikon is still a better performer. The only area in which the X1D seems to beat the Nikon is when it comes to low light or high ISO performance. Of course, a straight comparison between the two using these ratings is difficult and not something I would suggest. The X1D may or may not be a better stills camera overall, but the question is, by how much exactly, and is it worth it? The other thing to consider is the fact that the X1D does not yet have any world-class native lenses available for it. Some of the best lenses in the market are available for the Nikon making it a much better option.
There are many out there who do not agree with DxOMark's method. Even still, I think the question on many people's minds is: How does the Fuji GFX compare?