by



f1.4, medium format, comparable size and weight to ‘pro’ M4/3. What’s not to like, other than the price?

For the last couple of weeks, I’ve been shooting with the rather unorthodox combination seen above. I’ve found it answers two questions/ solves two problems for me: firstly, the desire for something that operates in the way you want (i.e. transparently) and that makes you want to shoot with it; and secondly, the small/light question. (There’s also a whole separate discussion on the concept of practical equivalence and envelope that I’ll discuss at some later point). But the journey getting here wasn’t quite so straightforward, unfortunately, and this combination is not a Swiss Army knife – it’s got some pretty big limitations. But when it delivers, I find that it delivers something quite special by the truckload.

Additional X1D coverage is here: long term review; assessment with Nikon F mount lenses; field use in Iceland.

First limitation: electronic shutter only, since the lenses have no mechanical shutter and nor does the body. This means you need to be careful with any potentially flickering light source, keeping your shutter speed to multiples of 1/frequency or risk banding. More importantly, the sensor’s readout time is fixed at 1/3s – even if your individual line exposure time is 1/10,000s, it takes 1/3s to read from top to bottom. Rolling shutter, beware. It’s not just moving objects; hold the camera stead else verticals may wiggle. There is also no calibration data above ISO 3200 for various technical reasons, so this is your maximum speed – but you can always underexpose and push in post.



Gymnastic fan. Rolling shutter can be creatively interesting…sometimes.

Second limitation: there are only two adaptors available currently; the Kipon and (soon) the Novoflex. The Kipon I had did not allow focus to infinity with any lens; I sent it back to the factory who examined it and claimed it was within spec, and elected to refund my money instead of providing me with one that actually worked – read into that what you will; you may have better luck than I. The Novoflex I have is spot on: the infinity setting on every lens tested corresponds with infinity in reality.

Third limitation: here’s the big one; lens selection. Remember first that we are trying to make two things work together that were never designed to in the first place. It is a bonus that they work at all. The whole question of optical compatibility and synergy is a complex one as with digital cameras, it now involves the sensor color filter array and microlens design; this is why for instance lenses that may be great on FF look terrible on M4/3, and Leica lenses do better with Leica bodies. Peculiarities include: M4/3 has a very thick (5mm+) filter pack; this causes all sorts of havoc with lenses that are even slightly non-telecentric. Leica M sensors have a progressively offset microlens array to deal with the extreme angles of incidence in the corners. And the filter pack and micro lenses on the GFX and X1D aren’t the same – even though the sensor is. And that’s just the beginning, of course.

In general, longer lenses work better; we’re talking 50mm and above. This has to do with both geometric limitations of angles of incidence and exit, pupil size, and the fact that less correction is required. That said, not all long lenses work well – there are some 50mms that will still vignette. A hard (i.e. mechanically limited) vignette is not correctable in post; a soft (just darkening) one is. But in any case, even if a lens is only designed for 36x24mm coverage – this requires approximately a 43mm image circle. Here’s the thing: you could use any aspect ratio that fits within that image circle, and still get coverage beyond what a FF sensor would give; for example, a 31x31mm square. This, of course is a fallback plan: we would prefer to use the whole sensor. The final consideration has to do with optical design. Normal to short tele lenses tend to be symmetric Gauss-types or derivatives; such designs are simpler to compute and make, and tend to have decent performance. They also tend to have larger coverage. Telephotos are usually entrance pupil-limited and also tend to have larger coverage. Wides and wide normals are the mixed bag: symmetric designs are best for performance and simplicity, but require very short flange distances (the shorter the focal length, the shorter the flange distance) and have extreme ray angles. The extreme exit angles do not play nicely with most sensors – you land up with severe shading due to pixel depth, and worse, purple fringing effects due to refraction off the micro lenses – which is one reason most modern ‘digital’ designs are telecentric. (Lens designers also now have no problem computing these since software has taken over the hard math). Telecentric lenses are great for resolving power, chromatic correction and even illumination – but coverage is exit-pupil limited, and almost never beyond the required diameter.

My investigations yield the following, at infinity (close up is not a problem as your are magnifying the projected image circle: if a lens covers the sensor at infinity, it will also do so close up). Please note that this is not an exhaustive list; I’ve only been able to lenses I have access to.

For wide lenses, the telecentric (e.g. Distagon) types simply do not provide adequate coverage of 44x33mm without hard uncorrectable corner vignetting, at any aperture.

For wide lenses, the symmetric (e.g. Biogon) types will cover providing there isn’t a mechanical limitation, but you will likely see strange lateral color shifts in the periphery of the frame due to extreme ray angles and interference with the microlenses on the sensor.

Compact lenses are typically physically limited due to size, and again do not provide adequate coverage without hard uncorrectable corner vignetting at any aperture.

Lenses that do not provide adequate coverage Zeiss: ZM 2.8/21, 2.8/28, 2.8/35, 1.4/35, 2/50 Leica: 24/1.4 ASPH, 28/2.8 ASPH, 35/2.4 Summarit, 35/1.4 Summilux II, 50/2.4 Summarit, 50/2 Summicron (latest), 50/0.95 ASPH Voigtlander: 21/4, 28/2, 35/1.4, 35/1.7 (but with L-R color shifts), 40/1.4, 50/1.1

Lenses that provide adequate coverage (all will have some soft vignetting) Zeiss: ZM 2/35, 1.5/50 Leica: 50/1.4 ASPH, 75/2 APO ASPH, 90/2 APO ASPH Voigtlander: 50/1.7, 75/1.8

Lenses that provide adequate coverage but must be used with caution (see individual notes) Voigtlander: 35/1.2 II – extreme field curvature or edge pupil mechanical constriction means there’s a lot more DOF at the edges than the centre, e.g. at f1.2, central subject at 3m is in focus, immediate background clearly defocused; edges at 5-10m almost in focus (you can see the rays are not converging properly, though).



I personally settled on the Leica 50/1.4 ASPH – not the cheapest option, but the one from this group that had the best balance of rendering quality, resolution, edge performance, size, speed, tactile, desired angle of view, minimum focusing distance, haptic feel etc – it’s not the best in any one category, but it scores very highly across the board. It is a compact social-friendly camera with the right tactile qualities, unique rendition – ranging from wall-of-bokeh-cinematic at f1.4 and close up, to razor sharp cross frame at f8 and infinity – and monstrous low light capability when combined with the X1D’s sensor and zero-vibration shutter. I find myself fiddling with it and experimenting – a lot. Which is really what photography is about, isn’t it? MT

The Hasselblad X1D is available here at B&H

The Leica 50/1.4 ASPH-M is available here at B&H and Amazon

And the Novoflex adaptors will be available soon from Novoflex…

__________________

More info on Hasselblad cameras and lenses can be found here.

__________________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop videos, and the individual Email School of Photography. You can also support the site by purchasing from B&H and Amazon – thanks!

We are also on Facebook and there is a curated reader Flickr pool.

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards unless otherwise stated. All rights reserved