Dating hasselblad bodies
So with the asterisks and disclaimers, DPR can breathe easy. I saw it and read it, as did many other people, but it was removed for reasons unknown. So, its this sort of thing that makes people lose faith in the non-partisan nature of Dx O.
One can only speculate as to why the 645Z's score was removed, but it does seem odd that the X1D is 'headlining' now, as the 'first medium format camera tested' with a score no different to that of the 645Z that clearly was tested a few years ago. No, they're meaningless because they're based on weighted ratings across multiple categories arbitrarily selected by Dx O. So it becomes the podium leader solely by winning the LL-ISO measurement.
But the RAW files would contain the entire, full circle, complete with meta-data about the shot's original aspect ratio and orientation.
This way you could change your mind later, while still benefiting from the best that the entire sensor could offer. Brian The "only" thing that has been improved is high ISO performance due to the larger sensor.
For sure this X1D is very capable and at reasonable price, but it lacks the feeling of holding the legacy Hasselblad cameras, especially those attractive rapid sequential mechanical sound when you press the shutter release... Seems like they should have had points taken off for that. Hard to believe they scored 2 points higher than the Pixel 2 without that. This preposterous conflict of interests should be enough to have NOTHING of that they say and do ever validated, even taken seriously or even even accepted as any sort of a rating standard all-together.
Given that Hasselblad is a part of Chinese maker DJI, I think they are missing a big opportunity here. Considering the hard time DPR give the Pentax K1 for its autofocus, this camera does not belong here. Capturing movement or sports with a decent hit rate just isn't going to happen. They aren't biased at all, they base their reviews on objective, quantitative measurements.
Now here is a thought: that image circle has an area of around 1450mm², ((43/2)^2 * pi), whereas the 36x24mm format has an area of only 864mm², using about 59% of the image. With an area of 924mm², it would use 63% of the image circle.
A 34.4x25.8mm rectangle would also fit that image circle, and with an aspect ratio of 4:3 (as opposed to 3:2) would be more aesthetic to some (like me). But for me, the PERFECT sensor would be a 43mm diameter, circular one.
I know any dethroning of anything Nikon must be enormously anguish-provoking for DPR, but I do acknowledge we're dealing with an apples and oranges comparison here.From a single shot, you could extract any of the above formats, both landscape and portrait. Then all are the same size on your Facebook page or in your album.And arbitrary tilt: you'd never have a wonky horizon ever again! One thing that surprises me is that we do not have square format in any camera. Maybe time for a kickstarter for a camera with square photos only.Their detailed reviews contain some useful information, but their overall scores are complete BS. I guess wakaba may also believe that nice cars , homes and fine restaurants aren't worth the money either. Overall then the Nikon has done very well with a smaller FF sensor compared to the MF one of the Hasselblad... : Lets see, so now DXO gives the Hasselblad X1D their highest "rating" ever?
Additionally, they're pretty sketchy in that they review products from companies who pay them for services. Basically they charge consulting fees to hep you optimize your products to score well on their tests. I mean, who cares about DXO scores when you have a flying MF camera ! As kodachromeguy said, "if you are not interested or unable to afford, move on to another product". I don't recall medium format film being that small. Medium format should ne at least 645, ideally 55x55mm like the Hasselblads (what happened to their slogan "ideal format is square"??? More that 3 year worth of excuses that they "could not get a Pentax 645z at hands to test" and later changed to "they could not finish the review", served them very well worth of staying mum, finally now to release the same breakthrough numbers coming from another brand using the exact same imaging sensor.
I am sick of how the media happily takes the bate every single time. Even the Sony mirrorless camera partly fits that description as it is partly used for adapting 35 mm FF lenses. So, it is quite reasonable to say: nope, I will not get that one. Film, and its fixed formats, has gone the way of the Dodo. Also Sigma had one (SA-mount) and there was a Samsung (PK-mount). In truth, seriously, just what percentage of current digital camera owners, EVER attach one of their old film-era lenses to their precious new bodies? Maybe more on this forum, but I mean the REAL population, not photo-buffs! somewhere between APS-C and 645 there are the biggest cameras that still are of a reasonable size to carry around.