MEDIUM FORMAT vs. FULL FRAME – what's the difference?! | Hasselblad X1D II vs. Sony A7R III


*correction 120 format film

VINTAGE preset & DUST filter pack HERE: ▷



VINTAGE preset & DUST filter pack HERE: ▷



▵ PODCAST ▵ (Listen on Spotify, Apple Podcast, Anchor)

▵ MORE ▵
Storyblocks ▷
Free trial of Skillshare ▷

Music in this video is from Musicbed ▷
Check out my personal playlist on Musicbed ▷
Get your Epidemic Personal Plan HERE ▷



  1. Tobin Wazzan on March 15, 2021 at 8:40 pm

    awsome music. Where from?

  2. Iran 1974 on March 15, 2021 at 8:41 pm

    You are much more beautiful than Hasselblad

  3. fat korn on March 15, 2021 at 8:42 pm

    It’s for pro photographers that want to be taken seriously, bring it on a shoot then switch. Now if you already have a studio of lenses and a digital back doesnt cut it for you it makes sense

  4. Nurali Kushkov on March 15, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    gee, didn’t expect all the cuteness getting into a camera review. thanks for both! <3

  5. Szilard Ioo on March 15, 2021 at 8:44 pm

    Uses Hasselblad, doesn’t know back button focus technique.

  6. AJ Media on March 15, 2021 at 8:46 pm

    Wow annoying voice alert

  7. Marcel Big on March 15, 2021 at 8:46 pm

    this video did not convince me that Hasselblad is better than Sony. It’s just that Hasselbad is more expensive and not practical. In a word, Sony remains Sony, and GH5 the most popular camera! Hey Lizzie, where can I see some WOW pictures of Hasselbad?

  8. 7 Bells Productions on March 15, 2021 at 8:47 pm

    Lizzie at 0:25: "That was quite a mouthful!"
    Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 6K Pro: "Hold my beer."

  9. I Prosopon on March 15, 2021 at 8:48 pm

    Medium format definitely has a look (and it’s often gorgeous). I think the best way to kinda sorta come close is to shoot full frame (or small format) with a good 80mm lens (as your 50mm) at f5.6-f8 with the subject close. You get some depth with the background out of focus but sharp subject focus. Also try the using the LAB color space. Then crop to 4:3 (or not). You may now yell, scream, and call me names for having the temerity to even hint at suggesting such foolishness.

  10. DIY Astro on March 15, 2021 at 8:51 pm

    I’m a little surprised that a medium format camera with relatively large pixels doesn’t keep up with the Sony R3 for low light, and I’m not sure the aspect ratio is that big of a thing when you can change it both in camera and in post, but it was a fun video regardless 🙂

  11. B. Willroth on March 15, 2021 at 8:51 pm

    Did I just watch a comparison video by someone who has not the slightest idea what she is talking about? Ok, it’s probably meant to be for a broad audience and therefore less technical and more focused on obvious differences. But I’ve never seen a tech review that .. clueless I guess.
    Performance however is excellent: videography, sound, music, color grading .. very professional. But seriously, get some help with the storyline.

  12. Faras Ahamed on March 15, 2021 at 8:51 pm


  13. Germane Vision on March 15, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    All the while when we split our hair over autofocus capabilities of Panasonic and Nikon there comes a very costly camera which is bad in autofocus and low light. If this review is really true who is this camera made for? Most journalistic photography happens indoors and in dimly lit conference rooms in fast paced action.

  14. JP dJ on March 15, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    The sensor in the Hasselblad is made by Sony. So what? Sony Corporation has this operating company (legal entity) of electrical components that makes the sensors. They have another operating company (legal entity) making cameras (with old Konica-Minolta in it). These two are as separated from each other as possible or else no 3rd party would buy chips from the chip bakers. Large corporations have "corporate policies" to manage such separation: "standards of business conduct and ethics" and so-called "Chines Walls" to prevent conflict of interests.
    Is a sensor important in a digital camera? Not in the way you imply. At all. A basic sensor is a passive ("dead") analog chip with not one, but millions of sensors and each tiny sensor is a photovoltaic cell (PVC).
    So that PVC is analog. And a PVC is monochrome – colorblind if you like, registering light across the spectrum visible to humans. So, somehow these dumb ass PVCs need to be accompanied by a) something to turn analog measurement values to digital, b) something to scan each PVC one by one, c) something to enable color registration, and the rest of the alphabet before a sensor has enough around it to make the first test shot.
    Look at the "Fluke t3000 FC" digital thermometer on the Fluke website. The photo of the device shows a cable with connector next to it. The tip of that cable is the temperature sensor (compare with 1 PVC) that is called a thermocouple. The device compares to what a camera does with a sensor with millions of PVC, scanning them one by one. The Fluke device can log measurements, like a camera records shots. How does a sensor’s quality impact measurement results? Well, the type of PVC determines dynamic range, repeatability or consistency between measurements and has some impact on potential noise (faulty measurements).
    The newest generation of Sony sensor chips have some analog to digital circuitry (AD conversion) built in, but an old Nikon D700 or a new Hasselblad would still have a discrete circuit for that. When the sensor has the AD conversion integrated, this limits what you can do with it. Sony’s Chip Bakery claims 16 bits, but if you read the details, then they mean 14 bits for the photo and 2 bits for the overhead with the rest of the camera. Cheats.
    To get your dumbass sensor to provide color, it gets a filter overlay of tiny filters where each PVC has its own filter. 50% of the filters are green, 25% are red, 25% are blue. The PVC now are still monochrome, but register only in a narrower band of visible light. We are far removed from pixels – as pixels are defined to have red, green and blue – and we have red only or green only or blue only. The sensor does not change anything to this.
    How does the >camera< get to pixels? By scanning and measuring all the PVCs and storing the values and next start an incredibly smart calculation process that guesstimates for each PVC readout what the missing two colors could have been. When you use a sensor based on the Bayer arrangement of monochrome color filters (R-G-G-B) then this might be called de-Bayerization. The problem is though that simple algorithms to figure out the missing colors in the PVC readout, lead to artificial mosaic patterns and these need to be removed (demosaicking). Somewhere in the process, image recognition may be going on and apply sharpening, help demosaicking and a couple other tricks. If the camera worked at the speed of reading this story, in a couple weeks your raw file may be cooked up (invented, created – it’s fake).
    Color science – stop using that term, I ask as scientist – is not in the sensor, but in the filter layer, in the voltage regulation for the measurement (scanning) of the cells in the sensor, the algorithms, and so on and forth.
    The Hasselblad does 16 bits color depth. It says. But that is at the monochrome PVC and AD conversion level. Just as 14 bits in a Canon, Nikon or Sony are at the monochrome PVC level.
    And we now know RGB pixels must be faked, still. This is how DxO arrives at measuring 26.3 bits color depth or 25 for good full frame cameras, including Hasselblad. What does that mean? That the result of the color science and all the guesswork gets us a bit more than 8 bits: 8 bits per color is 24 bit RGB and we get a maximum of 26.4 or so with the best cameras. Well, 26 with 2 bits more means it is 4 times as good as 24 (in gradation, or nuance resolution, but we still have to project those bits on the dynamic range). In the 1980s, it was stated somewhere that humans can distinguish some 11 billion color nuances. That number needs 34 bits.
    Wait, am I saying that our expensive full frame is barely better than a JPEG with 24 bit pixels? Yes and no. No, as the problem with JPEG is that it got stripped of what I would call unused information that would have been in the raw file, and it had details abstracted in the compression, so you loose a lot. Yes because a raw file is not much better in bit depth than that, but it still has the unused information. (By the way, some applications have smart AI that makes guesses about the missing information.)

    Now you know. Everybody talking about "camera X’s sensor was made by company Y" is a poser, an imposter, and cannot be trusted in any way when technical photography details are discussed. People talking about color science? What do they know about science?

  15. mugflub on March 15, 2021 at 8:52 pm

    Awesome content. Thank you!

  16. Harry Joseph on March 15, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    Thanks for the video, but I didn’t see that much difference between the pictures ? I went back and looked them over 4-5 times…

  17. photos on film on March 15, 2021 at 8:53 pm

    It’s not 120mm film.. just ‘120’

  18. Todd Kuhns on March 15, 2021 at 8:55 pm

    not sure that a Hasselblad is a "prosumer" camera…….

  19. Kesin Jai on March 15, 2021 at 8:55 pm

    Damn! do any one know about MFT format?

  20. Blackmind on March 15, 2021 at 8:55 pm

    .so, buy some 120 films and a real hasselblad with a top hasselblad objectiv – which makes to look of hasselblad – not 4:3 , and learn how to make good photos…..

  21. Snarlagg theoverlord on March 15, 2021 at 8:56 pm

    What’s the opening song you used?

  22. John Krill on March 15, 2021 at 8:56 pm

    Surprised the boom box didn’t blow you into space. Left after that boom box intro.

  23. SABARI on March 15, 2021 at 8:58 pm

    Please say the gear uses in description

  24. William Inbody on March 15, 2021 at 8:58 pm

    Yeah, if the image matters, Hasselblad wins….brilliant.

  25. 101francis101 on March 15, 2021 at 9:01 pm

    How has the Hasselblad got worse dynamic range than the Sony? How did they manage that with a larger sensor from the same manufacturer. Unless it’s just wrong. The Hasselblad must have better highlight handling surely?

  26. tr d on March 15, 2021 at 9:02 pm

    Wow, very well produced video and a Canadian!!!. Prompted a look see at your channel and site intro – "who am I in 60 seconds". Suspect your site will continue to grow.

  27. Phillip Pugh on March 15, 2021 at 9:02 pm

    Soooo color science is not subjective????? I shot Sony Canon and Nikon love all three for different reasons . My only issue with Sony is what you see on the back of the camera might not be what you get in the computer doesn’t mean I hate there popping colors

  28. Lance Robinson on March 15, 2021 at 9:05 pm

    Great video. . .subbed

  29. Lizzie Peirce on March 15, 2021 at 9:05 pm

    How did you guys like those Hasselblad pics?!

  30. Hugo Couto on March 15, 2021 at 9:06 pm

    M43 has also a native 4:3 aspect ratio

  31. الساحلي on March 15, 2021 at 9:07 pm

    عملة بحر

  32. Cesare Parmiggiani on March 15, 2021 at 9:08 pm

    The Hasselblad it’s only for a very, very, very rich prosumer.

  33. Phil L on March 15, 2021 at 9:09 pm

    Are there different kinds of lenses for the Hasselblad X1D?

  34. Haurjie on March 15, 2021 at 9:10 pm

    I came across someone’s Instagram post and my comment to them was "sometimes I really can’t tell whether his photos were taken in real life or they were 3D rendered completely." Because they look really clean and smooth. And he responded by saying it’s the Hasselblad medium format, which in my 3 years of videography/photography was not something I really know much about or even looked into. Which is what led me to Googling and YouTubing up to this video.

    Now I do have a better understanding of what medium format is and what the Hasselblad brand is known for after watching this, but now it brings up another question. I like this person’s photos and want to replicate the same quality and look. I already have a Nikon Z6. Do I spend extra money buying a Hasselblad X1D or are there certain filters/editing in Photoshop I could do to mimic it??

    Thank you so much for the informative video!

  35. Karim Ghantous on March 15, 2021 at 9:16 pm

    I had to quit before the end of the first minute. Photography videos do not need music. Please anyone who is listening, hear my lament.

  36. Luis Salazar on March 15, 2021 at 9:18 pm

    Nice job, I am a old guy so the hasse, for me is always the best.

  37. Brian Fischer on March 15, 2021 at 9:21 pm

    I shoot the 645z. It’s a little older but has the same 50mp sensor. It produced wonderful files!

  38. Gino Rigucci on March 15, 2021 at 9:22 pm

    I wish the video had more than just a fly by introduction to the Hasselblad vs Sony comparison.

  39. Makta972 on March 15, 2021 at 9:23 pm

    What a useless video !

  40. Michael Whyte on March 15, 2021 at 9:25 pm

    I love the 4:3 aspect ratio…I shoot m43 which shares the same aspect ratio as medium format…This has me thinking if I ever decide to go up to the large sensors…should I just skip FF and go straight to medium format…(of course if budget allowed)…

  41. Kiran sankar pati on March 15, 2021 at 9:26 pm

    Only difference is perspective. You get the telephoto compression even with less telephoto angle of view. Because medium format could use greater focal length for same wide shot , this will cause less distortion when shooting wide. Aspect ratio is bluff , even an apsc can use 4:3 aspect ratio, so what is the difference between medium format and apsc ? Watch the movie Joker dance scence. You would understand what medium format look is.

  42. Atte Leskinen Photography on March 15, 2021 at 9:28 pm

    Good video! I was just surprised you said nothing about the depth of field difference with medium vs full frame. The medium format has such a unique look to it because of the bigger censor size.

  43. Porash S on March 15, 2021 at 9:29 pm

    u have to be a fan for that price

  44. JP dJ on March 15, 2021 at 9:29 pm

    Medium format is medium because it is between small and large. The aspect ratio has nothing to do with that. Any old pro would shoot for any aspect ratio with the format they had by allowing a crop towards the intended ratio. Meaning, you can shoot 16×9, 3×2 or 5×4 with a camera with a square format.
    If we define "medium format" as starting with any decent format on 120 film that fills it to the edge of the film, and "large format" as starting at "9 cm x 12 cm" (as per my old photography school) then digital cameras called medium format or full-frame are all "small format". Still in line with the old definitions.
    Rounded off in centimeters, medium format starts at 6 x 4.5. 127 film and down would be small format.

  45. Steven Casteel on March 15, 2021 at 9:29 pm

    Straight to the point!

  46. Zachary Bennett on March 15, 2021 at 9:30 pm

    This review/comparison/introduction had lots of energy and little practical information. Aesthetically pleasing, but practically useless. Enjoy this free comment on your way out~

Leave a Comment