Reader Comments: Fujifilm GFX100 II vs Hasselblad X2D “no reason to stock the X2D”, “GFX100S most pleasing images”
Related: Christian S, Fujifilm, Fujifilm GFX100S, Fujifilm medium format, Fujifilm mirrorless, Hasselblad, Hasselblad medium format, Hasselblad mirrorless, Hasselblad X2D 100C, Jason W, medium format, reader comment, Roy P
re: Fujifilm GFX100 II and Hasselblad X2D
Christian S writes:
The Fujifilm GFX100 II will have an massive impact on the professional market pushing Hasselblad to become an expensive amateur boutique camera brand only competing with Leica in a niche market.
In the past Hasselblad was the leader for medium format cameras and lenses and to some extend backs for professionals, especially in the rental market, this is for sure over now. there is zero reason to stock an X2D which does not even have something basic like AF-C and a ridiculous limited line of overpriced lenses.
The flash sync advantage is just a marketing claim because with high sync speeds you also lose a lot of flash power very similar to HSS so the advantage is not as big as they want to make us believe but great AF performance leads to more useable images and this is what really counts for professionals.
...I´m talking about the pro market and I think it has become more easier for fuji with the gfx100II , when you look at some of the features like to direct save to an external ssd this is not much of a benefit for amateurs but absolute great for professionals! I also think pro user are more often in the camp of zoom lenses compared to amateurs and hasselblad has nothing interesting. I very much agree with you for example that the 20-35 is an fantastic lense it beats everything 35mm , this lens is enough reason to buy into the gfx system when you shoot some kind of architecture work.
DIGLLOYD: zero reason? Some people have a reason to like it. The Hasselblad lens line and image quality is tops, even if I don’t like the camera design much, or the price. But some do.
Flash… some find it essential, others don’t use it. That’s a case where it matters hugely if you use it, and not at all if you don’t.
Focusing hit rate (eg AF) is critical, which is one of my primary criticisms of the Fujifilm GFX100S/100, highly unreliable in the field in my experience, confirming focus when obviously out of focus. Will the GFX100 II be better? It has to be a lot better to satisfy me and to get anywhere near the Sony A1/Sony A7R V. And don’t get me started on the stone-age AF motors in Fujifilm GF lenses vs state of the art Sony.
Jason W writes:
The Hasselblad colors and look are different enough to justify the camera's parallel existence with the GFX line. I also think as a still shooter if you weren't sold on the GFX 100/100S I don't think the GFX 100 II converts you (video is an exception). I think if you liked the GFX series already you like the GFX 100 II more. You might erode a few Phase One people that were on the fence, but that's not a big market.
DIGLLOYD: I agree on the colors/look thing. Also, the Hasselblad XCD lenses are mostly better optically, though with optical behavioral issues that combine with very poor camera features to make getting the best from them problematic.
Roy P writes:
I have preordered the new Fujifilm GFX 100 II. This is what had been missing and I expect this will be a killer camera. I still have my Fuji 50/3.5, 35-70/4.5-5.6, 45-100/4, 250/4 and the 1.4x extender, as well as Profoto A1X flash for the Fuji. The next time the 100/2 goes on a $500 sale, I will likely grab one. I might keep an eye on $500 off offers on the 20-35/4 and 80/1.7 also, although with this new camera, Fujifilm is probably not going to be as frequent or generous with its lens discounts as before because of increased demand.
For people photography, my GFX100S has consistently delivered the most pleasing images SOOC for me, compared to my Sony A1, Leica SL2 and Leica M11. I could scrub the images from the other cameras until they get almost as good as the Fuji images, but the Fuji just delivers.
My biggest frustration with my GFX 100S has been its lousy autofocusing and the miserable success rate (maybe 25-30% of the shots with the best eye AF). The AF accuracy is what kept me tethered to Sony cameras for people photography. It looks like the GFX100 II will now get over that hump.
The other huge advantage the Fuji has over Sony is that Sony has this insane hot shoe interface for strobes that is built with thin wires that bend with use. I have complained to Sony many times, but they keep using the same “clever” design that is supposed to support multiple accessories. A really bad design decision, a classic case of overusing an object (C, C++) for purposes other than the object was initially created for. These pins easily bend, and soon, either the accessory or the camera or both are ruined and will need repair.
I have one Profoto A1X for Sony that is now defective because of bent pins, and the pins inside the hot shoe mount on my Sony A1 got bent. Profoto wanted $255(!) to repair the strobe and Sony wanted $225 with the Pro discount to repair the A1. I don’t want to keep burning ~$500 every couple of years because of Sony’s idiotic hot shoe design, and I’m really frustrated using Sony for indoor people photography with strobes.
I didn’t want to spend $7.5K on yet another camera, but I get the sense that this new GFX100 II will be a keeper and will likely become my go to camera for at least people photography (which I do a lot of). It could also be a terrific street photography camera with the Fuji 50/3.5 – that would be a very compact package. The GFX 100S already does a terrific job with low light and IBIS, and with improved AF, the GFX 100 II should be even better.
If the GFX 100 II performs as I’m hoping it will, I will be cutting down on a lot of other gear that should more than adequately finance the GFX 100 II.
DIGLLOYD: from recent trips, I acknowledge that the GFX100S delivers the best portraits, definitely better than Sony A7R V. And without much effort... I’m sold. And the film profiles are second to none.
