Test the Best – four high-end camera systems in use
My friend Christian Habermeier is a perfectionist in the positive sense of the word. He always strives for something new, not stubbornly, but curiously and always open to discovering new things. Last year he and his team had a highly acclaimed event Book about Adidas shoes published by Taschen-Verlag. My friendship with him is a precious jewel for me, and so it was a great privilege to travel with him and other friends for three weeks in Nepal in 2019. We always had time to talk about the different camera systems. This gave rise to the idea of comparing the high-end camera systems - not in a scientific test with charts and pixel peeping, but in practical use. Of course, the image quality also plays a big role, but handling and special features should also be taken into account in the assessment.
But we didn't know what we were getting ourselves into. We've put over 100 hours of work into this test, and the deeper we delve into it, the more complex it becomes. Because all of these high-end systems are excellent. The challenge is to still distinguish differences and include the entire workflow. In practice, there are so many intermediate steps between the moment the photo is taken and the final result - with these cameras this is usually a large, high-end print - that the data is processed, interpreted and interpolated several times. And so the real 1:1 comparison becomes very challenging. But read for yourself:
None of the manufacturers financed this test, but we were provided with free testing equipment by all brands. A big thank you to Matthias Schultis from Fuji Store Nuremberg, Marco Nietlisbach from Light + Byte/Hasselblad, Jean-Jacques Karatchian from Leica and Matthias Seidl from Phase One. Also a big thank you to our models – Michael, Sophie, Anna and Tina. All people involved were tested for Corona in advance. All images in this report are © by Christian Habermeier and Peter Schäublin. Publication on other platforms only with our consent. We used the following cameras and lenses (in alphabetical order):
Fujifilm GFX 100 (very briefly also 100S, but only a few hours), sensor size 43.8 x 32.9 mm, 100 Mpx, with
• 4.0/23 mm (we do not give the overall designation of the optics)
• 2.8/63mm
• 1.7/80mm
• 2.0/110mm
• 4.0/120mm macroHasselblad H6D, sensor size 53.4 x 40 mm, 100 Mpx, with
• 4.0/28mm
• 2.8/80mm
• 4.0/120mm macroLeica S3, sensor size 45 x 30 mm, 64 Mpx, with
• 2.5 / 35mm
• 2.5 / 70mm
• 2.0 / 100mm
• 2.5 / 120mm macroPhase One IQ4, sensor size 53.4 x 40 mm, 150 Mpx, with
• 3.5 / 35mm
• 2.8 / 80mm Mark II
• 4.0 / 120mm macro
• 2.8 / 150mm
The four high-end cameras harmoniously next to each other in Christian's studio, in order of their sales price: the PhaseOne IQ4 (case price approx. CHF 47,000, the Hasselblad H6D (approx. CHF 39,000), the Leica S3 (approx. CHF 21,000) and the Fujifilm GFX100 (approx. CHF 12,000)
Does the infamous medium format look exist, part 1?
Around 30 years ago I took photos on a shoot using a borrowed Hasselblad and my 35mm camera. When I compared the enlargements, I almost cried: the medium format images were much sharper and more nuanced. So it definitely existed back then – the medium format look. But what does it look like today? Due to the larger sensors, you work with different focal lengths in a medium format system. If you take an image with a 50 mm lens with your digital “full format” camera, you will receive the same section in medium format depending on the sensor size (there are also different sized sensors in medium format) with a 65 to 80 mm lens. If you work with the same aperture, the focus area will be smaller due to the longer focal length. And what about the image quality? We will answer this question later - even if it is not the focus of our test.
In the following, Christian and I describe the impressions we collected while working with the four camera systems. We ignore the film features because we believe that these cameras are primarily intended for photography.
Fujifilm GFX100
Generally: The GFX100 is the only mirrorless system in our test. It is also the only camera tested to have a built-in image stabilizer. These facts and the most advanced autofocus functions, including eye tracking, make the GFX100 the most universally applicable camera of the quartet. In continuous shooting mode, it shoots up to five images per second - top value in the medium format world. Like the Hasselblad H6D and the PhaseOne IQ4, the GFX100 has a built-in Sony sensor. The GFX world is the only system that does not offer central shutter lenses. This means that flash sync times are only possible up to 1/125 second, unless you are working with High Speed Synch (e.g. in conjunction with Profoto or Broncolor flashes). However, this means you lose a not insignificant part of the lightning energy. The camera can be connected to specialist format systems using an adapter.
Peter: The GFX100 offers the convenience of a full-frame KB system with the advantages of the larger sensor. The large camera body takes some getting used to, but not uncomfortable. Because only Christian with that GFX100s worked, I can't say anything about the new little sister of the GFX100. The eye tracking usually works, but not always, but especially with people in motion, the GFX100 has significantly less waste than the other systems. The system would be my first choice if I need to cover as much as possible with the medium format camera. In addition, the Fujifilm medium format system is the most attractive in terms of price.
Christian: I would like to add here that the 100s is significantly lighter and smaller compared to the 100. It is handy, but unfortunately equipped with a lower-resolution electronic viewfinder. In my opinion, the viewfinder is one of the central criteria for choosing a camera, and the deeper resolution viewfinder of the 100s can probably only be explained by the fact that Fuji wanted to achieve an absolute killer price for the camera. In my opinion, 400 or 500 euros more and a higher resolution viewfinder would have been a better decision. Autofocus and speed are unique for a medium format system, but still cannot be compared to a current “full format” system. Of course, the question always arises as to whether you need the complex autofocus machinery in medium format. The more options a camera offers, the more ballast you have to use. A simpler camera with fewer options offers more space for what's important - accurate and deliberate image composition. It is always a matter of weighing up individual needs with regard to your own way of working. What was very good for me was that you can deactivate many displays in the digital viewfinder. The many flashing fields bothered me more than helped me in my workflow. Because the GFX100 does not have a flip-up mirror, it is very quiet in use - this can be a decisive advantage in some situations.
Due to the many possibilities, the GFX100 cameras are complex and it would take more than the four days we had to program the camera optimally. From a standing start, I had a “hit rate” of around 35% for half-body portraits with the automatic eye tracking system.
First impression of the data we pulled onto the computer during the shoot: The files are clean and very sharp, which usually works well for material shots, but sometimes over-sharp for people. The colors of the RAW files tend to appear a bit exaggerated, especially with skin tones, but also with shiny metallic surfaces. It seems almost unbelievable how much underexposed images can be brightened - no other camera can do this so well. The dynamic range of the files is very good - all manufacturers talk about 15 f-stops. In our opinion, the Fujifilm files are the best in terms of dynamic range.
The whitening test
We photographed a football shoe with all camera models and brightened the file by two and five stops. The latter may be a bit impractical, because who exposes by five stops... But the brightened images show how much potential the system offers for exposure corrections. Simply click on the images for an enlarged view (generally applies).
Brightening in Lightroom: Two stops brightening is no problem at all for the Fujifilm GFX100X, and even with five stops brightening the file is still very stable. There is practically no banding visible in the black background.
In practice, you edit the images. That's why we've attached an edited picture of ourselves with each camera. These images have been edited to my (Peter's) taste in terms of brightness, contrast, color and clarity. So they are not directly comparable. It starts with a picture from the shoot with Tina and Anna.
Fujifilm GFX 100 with 1.7/80mm, 1/125 sec, f 11, 100 ISO, flash. Edited image
Hasselblad H6D
Generally: The H6D In terms of design, it is based on the analogue Hasselblads that are still present. We chose this because of the high resolution H system decided, which also offers a multishot version with 400 Mpx. Hasselblad is the only manufacturer to offer one SLR system (H) and a mirrorless system (X) to. This is also the case V system available. This means that Hasselblad has the broadest range in medium format. The sensor unit can be separated from the rest of the camera and used on a view camera. However, unlike the PhaseOne, the sensor unit does not have its own power supply, which has advantages and disadvantages.
Peter: I was traveling in Iceland with the H5D in 2014 and was sure that the successor model was also a great camera. The cube-shaped body fits very well in the hand thanks to the handle. The menu navigation at the back of the screen impressed me with its simplicity. The H6D probably only has one autofocus point, but you can save the focus point and then change the image section. The system calculates the resulting focus difference so that the point in focus always remains sharp. I really like the H6D files because, in my opinion, they appear more material than, for example, the Fuji data.
Christian: The H6D has pretty much everything you need in the studio. The operating concept is ingenious and allows you to understand the camera very quickly. The autofocus on the H6D - and on all other cameras - is slower than that of the Fujifilm GFX100/100s. However, I have the feeling that the H6D autofocus works very accurately. It is fast enough for many of my applications. I found the case a bit windy. In this regard, I would expect more considering the price tag stuck on the camera. The camera ran very stable. The H6D and the Leica S3 have never let us down. With the GFX100 and the PhaseOne we had to do a system reset two or three times. The reason for the blocking can also be due to operating errors on our part. I think it's great that there are lenses with a central shutter for the H6D. With the latest generation you can flash up to 1/2000 sec. (!) and still use the full flash power of my generators.
In terms of software, we have all cameras on the memory card and tethered shooting in CaptureOne21 worked. Because CaptureOne doesn't support Hasselbad files, we used the H6D for tethered shooting Phocus worked. Phocus is the Hasselblad counterpart to CaptureOne, is a very good solution and I quickly found my way around the software.
First impression of the data we pulled onto the computer during the shoot: Although Fujifilm builds the optics for Hasselblad and the camera also has a Sony sensor, the files seem a little softer and more “organic” to us than the data from Fuji. In general, the files have a slightly warmer tone than those from the other cameras.
The whitening test
Brightening it by two stops in Lightroom works without any problems. When brightened by five stops, you can see minimal banding in the fabric, and the file tends strongly towards red. This irritated us - and also Hasselblad. We wanted to edit all images in Lightroom for the best possible comparability. But the strong coloration at five stops of brightness prompted us to edit the image in Phocus, Hasselblad's image editing software:
The result is astonishing. The first thing you notice is that the brightening log rhythms apparently work completely differently than in Lightroom. Then the image still tends to have a slightly reddish tone, but not nearly as much as in Lightroom. So it plays a big role which software you use to import and edit the images. The fact that Hasselblad offers its own software for this can definitely be an advantage: the parameters can be adjusted exactly to the Hasselblad RAW files. Interesting detail on the side: In Phocus the data can only be brightened by two stops. You probably think at Hasselblad that no really good photographer misses the exposure by more than two stops ;-). I then brightened the file a little using the highlights and shadows controls to get at least about four stops of brightness.
You will read later in the report that we encountered a similar phenomenon with the PhaseOne files.
Hasselblad H6D with 2.8/80 mm, 1/125 sec, f 11, 200 ISO, flash. Edited image
Leica S3
Generally: At 64 Mpx, this system is the one with the lowest resolution. The S3 is a classic SLR camera in terms of construction. Despite the larger sensor, it is not much larger than comparable professional models in the full-format DSLR segment. The S3 is the only one that doesn't have a Sony sensor built in. This sensor is also not a so-called backlit sensor. The camera can be connected to specialist format systems using an adapter.
Peter: As you would expect from Leica, the S3 is excellently crafted. In terms of housing ergonomics, it is the camera that - of all the cameras I know - fits best in my hand. The optical viewfinder is 1A. In general, the S3 is the most comfortable of all cameras for me to work with. The big drawback, however, is that in normal mode it only has a single autofocus point when viewed through the viewfinder. For me, this significantly limits the possible uses and contradicts the philosophy of this camera, which is otherwise designed for fast, 35mm-like work. At least you can move the focus point at the back of the screen when the mirror is folded up. In contrast to the touchscreen on the 100GFX, you have to do this with the joystick, which slows you down. I noticed that the S3's data has more information in the midtones than the files from the other cameras. This makes the S3's image data unique for me. This is a big advantage, especially when editing portraits. When I don't need the speed of a GFX100, the S3 is my first choice for a variety of reasons.
Christian: I haven't worked with a Leica for a long time and had major prejudices against the S3. These quickly disappeared when I picked up the camera: never in my photography life have I held such an ergonomically good camera with such a great optical viewfinder. Yes - the camera offers less technologically in other areas, at least like the GFX cameras, but as already mentioned the question always arises: How much electronics do I need for my photography? However, I agree with Peter: a few more autofocus points would be great. It doesn't have to be 464, but around 20 would be helpful. The connection of the S3 to CaptureOne is very successful. The special tether cable with protection is great. With three frames per second, the Leica is in the middle of the field in terms of speed. Here too I have to say that this speed is sufficient for what I photograph in medium format. The images look exceptionally good on the computer screen – very clear, very modulated. In terms of corrections, the data is not quite as good-natured as the Fuji files, but more good-natured than the H6D and PhaseOne data. With the original lenses, the S3 delivers images that appear a bit more organic and harmonious than those of the other systems, the skin tones are wonderful, and the files can be modulated considerably. I then mounted my older Hasselblad lenses on the S3 using an adapter. This went smoothly and, interestingly, the character of the images became more harsh, which can be an advantage for stills. This has led to the question of whether the lenses have the biggest impact on the look of the images - much more than the sensor and camera brand. In my opinion this is a significant part, but I think the coordination of all components is very important and is best achieved on the S3. For me it is a big plus that the Leica lenses are also available with a central shutter. This makes them even more expensive, but it's great for use in the studio and flashing outdoors. Switching from AF to MF is also very convincing with the Leica lenses: If you want to focus manually, you simply turn the focus ring. The system then realizes that you are working manually and deactivates the autofocus. As soon as you let go of the ring and press the shutter button again, you are back in AF mode. There are four large programmable buttons on the back that are not labeled, which I think makes sense - so you can assign each button the function you want. I would also like to have a dial for quickly changing programs. This works via the rear dial. But the one second it takes to get into the menu is almost too long for me, but it may be something I get used to and I don't have to take my eyes off the camera. The diopter correction is also exceptionally well designed and of high quality.
First impression of the data we pulled onto the computer during the shoot: After the GFX100, the S3 delivers the cleanest files. They appear very nuanced and material.
The whitening test
Two f-stops of brightening are no problem for the Leica; five f-stops are still possible, but with slight streaking and a minimal tendency to red.
Leica S3 with 2.0/100 mm, 1/45 sec, f 4.0, 200 ISO, daylight. Edited image
Phase One IQ4
The Phase One IQ4 With 150 Mpx, it is the queen of medium format cameras (apart from the multi-shot variants). It also offers some sophisticated functions such as vibration measurement: If this is activated, the camera only triggers when the body no longer vibrates. That makes perfect sense, because even the smallest vibrations have an influence on the image in such high resolutions. Another special feature is the internal processing of focus stacking files. The sensor unit is removable and has its own power supply. This means it can be easily used with almost all view cameras. PhaseOne has with the XT system also a type of mirrorless system.
Peter: In my opinion, the IQ4 definitely belongs on the tripod. It is heavy and this makes the whole workflow the slowest. But that can also be an advantage. If resolution were my primary criteria and money was no object, I would look very closely at the PhaseOne system. The camera is very complex to use - in my opinion you have to work with it regularly so that you don't get lost in the navigation. The special functions already show that the camera is intended more for static photography. With the separate power supply for the back, it is also very interesting if you also want to use the back on view cameras.
Christian: I have been taking photos with various PhaseOne cameras since 2001. One of the big advantages was the connection to the CaptureOne software. But for some time now this has no longer been a unique selling point. Meanwhile, Fuji, Sony and now Leica are just as well implemented. The IQ4 with its 150 megapixels is a resolution miracle and has the highest resolution sensor of all the cameras tested. The workflow is slower than with the other models, and the shutter speed of one image per second limits the possibilities. For certain genres, such as fashion photography, this is tight. But for stills, car photography, landscapes, etc. it is great. Their software is definitely the most sophisticated for studio tasks. The adaptation of third-party lenses is also possible, as is the case with Hasselblad, Fuji and Leica. However, the electronics got stuck a few times when attaching older lenses. The files are very good up to 400 ISO, but the shadows cannot be brightened as much as the data from the other cameras. There are also lenses with central shutters for the IQ4, with which you can flash up to 1/1500 sec. The autofocus is rather sluggish and limited to one point. As with the H6D, the system calculates the focus correction if the image section is changed by panning the camera after the focus has been fixed. Here too, switching from AF to MF is ingeniously solved: you simply move the focus ring on the lens to a different position to switch. This is lightning fast.
First impression of the data we pulled onto the computer during the shoot: Zooming into the IQ4 files is an experience. 150 Mpx is its own shoe number. With large prints over 100 x 150 cm, this increased resolution becomes visible in the details.
The whitening test
Brightening the IQ4 by two stops is no problem either. At five apertures, the cloth in the background is still very beautiful and without banding, but a strange "rainbow effect" appears in the edges. But where does this rainbow effect come from? Is it possible that this effect doesn't come from the sensor but from Lightroom? Based on our experience with the Hasselblad files, we dragged the file into CaptureOne and brightened it by four stops (five stops is not possible). As with the H6D, the result is astonishing:
We have a completely different effect than in Lightroom. As with Phocus, the brightening algorithm apparently works completely differently in CaptureOne than in Lightroom. So it really depends on which RAW converter you use to open and edit the images. It would be another test in itself to open the images from different manufacturers in different RAW converters, edit them and compare the results.
Christian: «It can also work the other way around: We wanted to edit images of materials that we had created with a PhaseOne Back in Capture One. The result was terrible moirée effects and the associated graying of the colors (see picture on the right). In desperation, we opened the same raw data using the Photoshop RAW converter. There was no moiré and the images were perfectly editable. If you buy a new camera system, I recommend first opening some RAW files with different converters (Lightroom, Capture, Phocus, ON1, etc.), making some corrections - even and especially extreme adjustments - and comparing the results. Based on the results, you can then choose the RAW converter that delivers the best results. And if you're waiting to edit it, it might be worth editing a single file or a series of images in another program to see whether you can get closer to your desired result."
PhaseOne IQ4, 4/120 mm, 1/160 sec, f 4.0, 400 ISO, daylight. Edited image
Image noise in the higher ISO range
Up to 800 ISO, all cameras perform very well when it comes to image noise. But what about 1600 ISO? We want to know, but now it gets tricky: We took one image from a series of shots with Sophie that was photographed at 1600 ISO. People recordings are difficult to compare, but we deliberately wanted to include such recordings, knowing that they are less comparable than test charts. This is about image noise and not facial expression. But how do you compare four recordings that were made with different resolutions? Our friend Urs says you have to compare all data 1:1 in their original resolution. We are of the opinion that the lower resolution files should be extrapolated to the level of the PhaseOne recording, because the resolution advantage is one of the main arguments for the PhaseOne. So we did both: First, we opened all four recordings unedited, not interpolated, and used an excerpt from each. This is tableau 1. Then for a second tableau we extrapolated the images from the Fuji, Hasselblad and Leica to the 150 Mpx of the PhaseOne and then used a section from each. This is Tableau 2. A 150 Mpx file corresponds to a print of 90 x 120 cm at 300 dpi.
The Fuji shot is slightly darker, but we didn't brighten it because that would have increased the noise.
Table 1
All images unedited, in original resolution
Table 2
Fuji, Hasselblad and Leica interpolated to the size of PhaseOne:
Even after interpolation, the Leica file is the one with the lowest noise. This is surprising, because this file had to be extrapolated the most (we extrapolated using Photoshop). This shows us that the interpolation capabilities of the software are amazingly good with a very good source file and that the argument for a higher resolution sensor is not insignificant, but loses weight. Smaller files have the advantage that they take up less space on the computer and can be processed more quickly. We printed excerpts from these four files to assess the effect in the print:
Reproduction of skin tones
Christian: When shooting in RAW, the different cameras sometimes show considerable color differences in the same lighting situation and the same white balance setting. The representation of colors is particularly interesting in the area of skin reproduction.
Color perception is a subjective question of perception. What is too bright for one person is just fine for another, and what is perfect for one person is too pale for another. It also plays a role whether we compare the skin tones of the cameras at lower or higher ISO numbers. At 100 ISO the cross-comparison is different than at 1600, for example. After four days of testing, we would speak of clear tendencies of the camera models. In order to check our feelings, we showed the different files on the monitor to various people. Here is the result (all statements refer to unprocessed RAW files):
What was striking was the very strong coloring of the Fuji files. The skin tones appeared to be more reddish, and harsher color transitions were also visible in the skin compared to the other cameras.
The Leica S3 was convincing in terms of skin reproduction up to 800 ISO, the skin tones appear very modulated on bare skin, but not overly colored and very neutral, very close to the original, both in daylight, "poor" LED light, and studio flash. That changes at 1600 and 3200 ISO. At these higher sensitivities the files appear somewhat colorless, and underexposure results in increased image noise when the shadows are brightened The GFX100 was very convincing in these high ISO ranges, but the files are a bit too colorful even in the higher sensitivities.
We liked the PhaseOne files second best to the Leica files. Here, too, there are slight weaknesses from 1600 ISO onwards.
The skin tones look very pleasant on the Hasselblad H6D, which, according to Hasselblad, is the result of the slightly warmer orientation of the data. When the files are brightened, this red drift becomes negatively noticeable and must be corrected accordingly.
In general, the files stand out from 35mm files, especially in the area of skin reproduction. When making large prints for exhibitions, medium format data has a clear advantage in terms of editing options.
Photos of people are very difficult to compare. The top row was created with flash light, the bottom row with diffuse daylight.
The resolution test
Now things get really big, because probably the most important thing about a high-end camera system is the image quality for larger-scale prints. That's why we devote a large part of our test to this aspect. Again: The range of sensor resolution ranges from 64 Mpx (Leica S3) to 150 Mpx (PhaseOne IQ4). We asked ourselves how much you would see this difference in practice if you massively increase the size.
To do this, we extrapolated each file from three series of images so that it corresponds to a print of 300 x 200 cm at 300 dpi. This results in an insane resolution of around 900 Mpx. The PhaseOne file had to be interpolated almost exactly to 600%, the Leica S3 file to 1480%. We extracted a section of 3000 x 2000 px from each of the images that were extrapolated in this way.
We have prepared three series of images in this way - the “adidas still life”, the “watch still life” and a solitary football shoe:
The differences in the pictures are minimal. The biggest difference came from small focus differences of one, maybe two millimeters. To illustrate this, we show extreme excerpts from the clock still life here. We took these pictures with a 120 mm focal length, f 16, 100 ISO, 1/125 sec, flash. You'll have to scroll back and forth a bit, but that's unavoidable. You can find out why this is the case in the comment after the pictures.
Fujifilm GFX100
Hasselblad H6D
Leica S3
Phase One IQ4
With these motifs we always focused on the center of the dial. This is where the PhaseOne IQ4 scores. The extreme section shows that the 150 megapixels result in an increase in sharpness. But at such extreme magnifications, the focus area is minimal even at aperture 16. This means: If, despite working very carefully, we have misfocused by one or two millimeters, the image will appear blurry in comparison. That's what happened to us with the Leica image: the hands don't look completely sharp, but the numbers on the watch ring look a little sharper. A minimal focusing difference is far more noticeable than the difference between 64 and 150 megapixels. The Hasselblad image appears more contrasting than the other images. However, we do not attribute this to the lens, the sensor or the calculation of the data, but rather to a small difference in the angle of the camera to the object, which has changed slightly due to the height of the camera. You can also see that the shooting angles are slightly different from the reflection of the flash light in the watch glass (by the way, Christian deliberately did not remove the dust so that the impression of sharpness can also be assessed based on the dust grains).
There is practically no difference in the effect on the print. The PhaseOne image is a touch sharper, but even at an output size of 300 x 200 cm at 300 dpi, it's all a lot tighter and closer together than we expected.
Does the infamous medium format look exist, part 2?
It is beyond the scope of this review to compare the best full-frame systems with these medium-format cameras. Nevertheless, we also photographed the subjects here and there with our KB cameras. Below you can see an excerpt from the clock image, photographed with the Canon EOS 5DSR (50 Mpx) at 100 ISO (like all the other shots) with the Canon EF100mm 2.8L Macro (an excellent lens), also scaled up to 300 x 200 cm 300dpi. If you compare the images from a medium format system on the computer with the images from a very good 35mm system, the differences on the screen are initially minimal. Only when you zoom in on the data do you see differences. In the excerpt shown here you can see that the data is no longer quite as concrete and that the surfaces appear more restless. This is also noticeable in print.
When editing the images for brightness, contrast, clarity, etc., in my experience, medium format files are more forgiving than 35mm files, meaning they have a greater scope for correction.
So today we would say that the medium format look exists, but the difference in quality is no longer as big as it was in the analogue era. In general, the larger the output format, the more noticeable the difference between 35mm and medium format.
Canon EOS 5DS R. Due to the smaller sensor and the resulting shorter focal length (100 instead of 120 mm), the field of focus is larger with the 3D image.
We admit it: we printed pretty excessively because we really wanted to know. At the back you can see the excerpts from the clock image. Logically, the prints can no longer be assessed via the screen; you have to see them 1:1 in real life.
Conclusion
We deliberately didn't want to carry out a laboratory test, but rather a four-day practical test. But such a practical test is very challenging, because the factors “human” and “chance” are much more important in such a practice-oriented test than in a laboratory test.
We shot all the still lifes and some of the people shots using a tripod. Due to the different heights of the bodies and sometimes different focal lengths (we didn't have an 80 mm for the Leica), the cameras had to be repositioned slightly. This meant that the light reflected differently, which in our opinion made a bigger difference in the effect of the images than the different sensor resolutions. These systems are not worlds apart, but rather nuances.
All four camera systems deliver excellent image results. The Hasselblad files are generally a little redder than the other three systems. But that's not a "killer criterion" because if necessary, counteracting this slight red overhang in Phocus, Lightroom or Photoshop is no problem at all.
The Fujifilm system has a unique selling point compared to the other systems because it is the only mirrorless system in the test. At the same time, it is also the only system for which lenses with a central shutter are not available. In practice, this means that with flash sync times shorter than 1/125 sec. you have to work with high speed sync systems and therefore lose a lot of flash power. It should be noted again that the Hasselblad X system is also mirrorless and, unlike the GFX, lenses with a central shutter are available for it.
There are sometimes big differences in the handling of the camera systems. If money is no object, you can choose the system that suits you best in terms of operation. In our opinion, the factor “How much does a camera inspire me when I work with it” is a very important one, and with these close test results this aspect becomes more important. The answer to the question of which camera suits you best will be different for each person.
If you don't upscale the images or don't upscale them massively, the difference in resolution between the different systems is almost unnoticeable.
If you prepare the data for very large prints (by this we mean prints that are larger than 100 x 150 cm), the images from the Phase One IQ4 appear a bit more detailed. The three pursuers are practically level. As mentioned, a minimal focus difference has a much greater impact on the impression of sharpness than the different resolution.
An image can appear more or less material. Here the Leica seems to have the edge: We showed the series of football shoe pictures to ten people (some with and some without a photography background) and asked them which picture spontaneously struck them as the most beautiful. Six chose the Leica S3 image. This test would also have to be carried out with different motifs and on a broader basis in order for it to be truly meaningful. But one thing is clear: resolution isn't everything, and - it should be mentioned again: the differences are very small in the top segment.
All of this leads us to one of the most important questions: How do the images look when printed? We printed around 50 meters of paper for this. We met to discuss the prints. Urs Tillmanns from fotointern.ch also took a look and took photos of us analyzing:
Christian and I analyzing the prints. Photo: Urs Tillmanns
It is impossible to show the effect of the prints on the screen. Even after analyzing all the printouts, our conclusion is the same: there are differences, but they are smaller than expected.
Large prints of data from these four systems are in a class of their own and, in our opinion, visibly better than prints from our very good full-format systems.
In our opinion, the decision criteria for choosing the right medium format system are as follows:
The first criterion is the purchase price. Depending on your financial possibilities, this limits the choice.
If you need a function for your type of photography that only one of the systems offers, this point will determine the choice.
Otherwise, in our opinion, what matters is how much a camera inspires you. They are all tools, but they are different. If you want to get started with a medium format system, you would do well to test the cameras you are considering beforehand.
At the end of the day, all the technology is just there to capture and reproduce the light. Photography is painting with light. The camera – the brush – is not insignificant. But what is much more important is the master who wields the brush.
A little look behind the scenes
My wife Ursula and Christian's assistant Angelika captured a few impressions over the four days - but in contrast to the test cameras with low-profile equipment ;-). If you're interested, you can take a look behind the scenes.
