Medium format is known for producing some of the best image quality. Companies like Hasselblad offer some of the best cameras currently on the market. Its latest lenses for the Hasselblad X1D II are brilliant, so we decided to see how well a full frame camera system such as the Canon EOS R5 would fare against it.
In our latest video, Anete and I compared the Hasselblad XCD 80mm f/1.9 lens on the X1D II against the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 with the EOS R5. Both of these lenses are some of the more expensive portrait lenses available from each company.
In the video, we briefly compare aspects such as handling and autofocus performance. The Canon is clearly the winner in that area, with its impressive phase detection autofocus system. What's most surprising is how well the Canon performed when it comes down to the actual image quality. As much as sharpness and details are important, Canon has done something incredibly special with how its latest camera renders color.
Hasselblad is probably one of the best companies on the market when it comes to how it renders color. This has remained a consistent feature for all of its camera systems. Canon has taken a huge leap forward with its latest camera system, however, because the image quality from the Canon EOS R5 is simply incredible.
Check out the full video to see how each system compares against one another.
After 7:30 I gave up. Absolutly nothing so far about the lenses. He tells at the beginning this is about the lens and not about the camera and then keeps on talking about the camera.
And then: Please compare a full frame 50mm to a medium frame 80mm please.
My impression: Boost Canon (camera) over Hasselblad (camera) is the only intention of this video.
We've done lots of comparisons and reviews on Hasselblad cameras. Some of them have been extremely favorable and some not as much. It depends on the comparison or review.
We're working on another Hasselblad comparison as we speak and that one has vastly different results.
Sure, but the title of the article and the matter of the video (comparison of lenses) is totally misleading. And the setup is simply not professional, wrong lenses to compare and nothing about the quality of the lenses. Who cares about the colour rendition if every pro works with RAW files?
good decision, it keeps going on for the second part, its called clickbait maybe?
colors, CA, colors, magenta shift....
and the red surely is due to post processing, set both cameras to the same WB and compare unprocessed and we talk again
You’re assuming that white balance wasn’t controlled. Honestly I thought that basic enough that it doesn’t need too much of a mention.
Also, it’s a common misconception to think that white balance to “fix” many issues with any particular colour profile. Also, images weren’t processed in a manner where they are changed. They were taken into the software to correctly apply the colour values. The alternative is to shoot JPEG, which doesn’t really offer a great deal.
We also cover sharpness in detail, CA, a demonstration of the bokeh, and what each lens looks like at closest focus point.
would you be willing to share the two RAW files? from the first comparison?
what a surprise ^^
I'm not sure about the colour comparison, because one was processed phocus and the other in capture one. It could be a number of things and down to editing. If a colour checker was used, then maybe..
It's a weird one I admit but it's the only way to get the absolute best from each camera manufacturer. Had I used any other software for the Hassy files it could be argued that I was giving the Canon an unfair advantage.
Color is one of those things which greatly depend on input profiles and settings within the RAW conversion. It's also pretty easy to change color in post, in the raw conversion, to one's preference. That said, I've always really liked the Hasselblad natural color solution. I think this video is more about the color rendering of the native software than it is about lenses or even tech, so somewhat pointless.
1. Thank you very much, You compared (in your opinion), best of Mirrorless vs hand holdable (some call it baby) medium format.
2. Every time i see a comparison video and Canon comes out better, i rejoice !!
3. You took Hasselblad image and you'd to take it to Phocus for raw processing. You could take Canon image to Capture one raw processing. That means, you are not comparing Hasselblad vs Canon, you are comparing, Hasselblad + Focus vs Canon vs Capture one. That is capturing good image in holiday inn express vs capturing good image in THE RITZ or The Plaza New York and then comparing overall feel. (Because that is what phocus vs Capture one comparison is, especially it comes to color work. I hope you won't disagree with this.)
4. You keep mentioning the Hasselblad has magenta tint and colors don't pop as much as Canon.
a. How about you show the white balance reference shot and show us that the white balance was set accurately (because then the tint would take out that magenta ) and then we don't have to doubt that canon is better.
b. How about you show histograms and color spaces so we'd know that editing was taken to allowed peak clipping ? because you are basically saying, that 14 bit raw file gave more pop and better colors than 16 bit raw.. you sure you did justice to those extra information additional 2 bit gave to you in your editing ?
5. Why don't you, Take a Canon raw file, switch off noise correction, find the darkest and most shadowy part of image and share 300 % zoom crop? Then go to noise correction, remove that noise and then share the "Sharpness" left in image ? You don't even have to bother doing this on Hasselblad. I just did it with Nikon z6ii and i can share RAW files, 300% crop, sharpness before and after noise removal. I can do that with sharing white balance shot along with xmp files with edit.
By all means, i'm happy every time unbiased camera reviewer brag about canon colors, i've no complaints, those colors have unique feel and that is superb by any means.
When all the unbiased camera reviewers, brag about how awesome canon camera's are, compare to other brand, i always wonder, why don't they share this noise removal information?
The 50c doesn't have true 16-bit raw files, they're upscaled from 14-bit. The hardware is capped at 14-bit in both cameras.
Also, it might be worth clearing up that I have a closer relationship with Hasselblad than Canon. I mean Canon doesn't even send me the stuff to review but Hasselblad does.
As much as I love the XCD system, It's not going to be perfect when compared to everything all the time. As a reviewer I will bring up negative points and you as the viewer shouldn't take that personally.
Actually you are right. X1D is 14 bit but they fixed that in X1D II and X2D. I think both of those have 16 bit. My bad on that one.
I'm quite happy actually that people love canon (i own few shares, they make me rich).
I''m thankful to you for being reviewer and brining up negative points and you did that across both the platforms.
The reason, i'm more engaged in Fstopper is because i feel that they are more "Open" than some of the other site out there. This got to me Fstoppers. https://fstoppers.com/gear/windows-user-attempts-use-new-m1-max-macbook-...
They (and you) are bringing the content and comparison that i actually need in my daily work. I'm giving up on my current mount and i tested Sony and Canon wishlist gear in my studio for my work. What you did is the test that was pending.
I don't know why asking for 300% crop and Noise removal information or histogram clipping when you mention color pop, is not included in your negative points you brought up? or why ask for that sounds me taking that personally ? It's plain ask for information.
I don't think you have to care what one of the users think about your articles. Especially if they are asking very detailed questions like i did above.
Wide amount of users don't care about these details and you are keeping essence for them as how you use it for your settings.
So thank you, and all is well and good man !!!