Comparing Canon R5 to the X2D - Shocking Colour Differences

How does the world look on Canon's flagship model vs on the medium format Hasselblad X2D? Well, pretty different as it turns out.
I shot the same sessions on both cameras, outputted them as close as possible and compare the results in this video. I expected the X2D to be different but it's much more different than I thought. Check it out...
Visit my site at www.philtragen.com
Instragram @philtragenphoto
*EDIT*: I've ran off the portraits in DPP, Canon's proprietary raw converter - and while i did see an overall improvement in colour and also detail, it wasn't night and day compared to ACR's effort. It still looks colour wise a very different proposition from the Blad files fed out of Phocus. What did we learn...? Not sure.
I know I wont be using Canon's raw converter again because that program feels like it's from 2004.
#fuji #fujigfx #hasselblad #mediumformat #fullframe #canon #canonr5 #phocus #lightroom #photography #canon50mm

[@thomasjuddphotography5928]

Good side by side comparison. I am a commercial photographer that also shoots the Canon R5, Hasselblad X2D, and the Fuji GFX100S system. I think your results are on point for straight out of camera shots. Hasselblad's colors always seem very pleasing and accurate with minimal tweaking needed. Fuji's straight out of camera colors are also nice, and slightly different as well, especially with their different film sims. For most jobs requiring critical color accuracy (not just pleasing to the eye) I shoot a ColorChecker with each camera at least once during my shoot and by doing so it is possible to get any of the three camera systems' color output to match up pretty darn close when editing the respective RAW files. I don't typically shoot jobs with all three cameras, but I do sometimes use two systems on some assignments, particularly if I want to use the Hasselblad as my primary camera for static or posed shots, but then might require a zoom lens or longer focal length for secondary or action-oriented shots where the R5 is more capable. Been enjoying your videos!

[@PhilTragen]

I'm not actually familiar with how colour checker works - i usually just eyeball it. How come you've got two MF systems then? How does the Fuji differ from the Blad when you've got the R5 for all your action stuff?

[@michaeltaylor3835]

Colour calibration is the key eg X-rite. Colour will line up in all systems :)

[@stubones]

What you really need to ask is: Will your clients even notice? 99% of time the difference between cameras is a photographer issue, not a client issue.

[@PhilTragen]

Depends on how demanding your clients are - some of mine will appreciate it, some will not. Yes, assuming your competency isn't an issue, most of the job will always be choosing what goes in front of the lens and what doesn't, but once you've ticked those boxes the X2D system does make the world look a lot nicer. Plus it has real world practical advantages like leaf shutter lenses and more editable RAWs - in a lot of scenarios I'd pick the 'blad over my Canon even for logistical reasons.

[@Dewabarasunderan]

@@PhilTragenThere’s not a client in the world who’d notice this without a 1:1 comparison.

[@bciecko1]

Fair but also fair to point out that of you're more confident with your equipment it shows in the finished result as well, which then leads to more clients.

[@janplexy]

Fortunately, none of my clients ever said to me; it’s a great picture, but if only blues of my shirt were rendered better.

[@PhilTragen]

There’s no question that all the standard cameras are good enough for 99% of jobs. I’ve used them myself for years, and I don’t recommend this camera for anything except when you want the pictures to be as beautiful as possible. And the pictures off the Hasselblad are more beautiful - anyone who has used it will tell you that.

[@TeteRecinos]

It wasn’t until Manny Ortiz compared the X2D to a range of full frame cameras that I noticed how much Canon and Nikon skew green. This video confirms it. I wonder what the Leica SL3 files look compared to the Hasselblad but my guess is that the HNCS beats the Leicas. We live in incredible times.

[@PhilTragen]

Thanks for watching. :)

[@migzm14]

For the price I would buy the Canon R5 ANYDAY!

[@PhilTragen]

Well the R5 was £4300 when I bought one, and the L lenses are all around £2300. The X2D is more expensive for sure but it's not a LOT more expensive, and neither are the lenses.

[@peterfritzphoto]

I sold my R5 to buy the X2D. I’ve kept my R6 MKII for action photography and video, but I’m super happy with the X2D!

[@ZadakLeader]

Color can be modified and is subjective. Dynamic range, well... the Hassleblad has a bigger sensor. Also the price right now is 3x more than a Canon R5.

[@PhilTragen]

Very subjective yes. Even between monitors. :) It's a very expensive system for sure, but it makes special images.

[@dirkbaumbach7621]

Thank you for this report and your assessment, which I agree with 100 percent. I personally feel that the difference to the latest CCD sensors, for example the 40.2 x 53.7mm CCD sensor, is even greater. Especially in the bright areas, in nature, architecture and interiors. Sony sensors are almost everywhere these days. It is mainly the know-how in the software that makes a difference. It's a shame that Kodak has disappeared. The old Canon 5Ds also had something special.

[@ignaciocruzatcorrea3595]

Great comparison. Thanks for the work!

[@PhilTragen]

thanks sir!

[@zoltankaparthy9095]

I shoot M9 and M240 and Pixii A2572 mostly along with the X2D. From the first day I was convinced that the X2D was the hands down winner across the board. It costs a ton. You get your moneys-worth. Thanks for the vid.

[@deanvm9158]

This video should have been longer. I like these stuff. And I am a Canon fanboy

[@GOKULLRAW]

Hello, I came across your video by coincidence. I own multiple cameras from various brands including the R5 and the X2D. It’s nothing to do with the camera itself.., it’s the RAW support that’s provided by for eg LR or CaptureOne Pro which we use for RAW file processing. They create the profiles for the raw files & not the camera brands themselves.. On the other hand native raw conversion softwares either Canon or Hasselblad in this case do their best to process their own raw files. However Fujifilm and Nikon have shared their colour tech with Captureone and when you use these cameras you can select their respective colour profiles as an option besides what the software has to offer on their own. Last one is how you have set your white balance on your camera. So all these kind of comparisons this brand vs that brand on third party softwares are technically invalid. That’s the truth.

[@GOKULLRAW]

I’m even surprised not many people are speaking about this.

[@PhilTragen]

So Canon haven’t shared their ideal colour profiles to any other raw converters?

[@GOKULLRAW]

@@PhilTragenthey don’t even want to share their lens data to their party lens manufacturers, I sense insecurity.

[@PhilTragen]

It also guarantees that 95% of canon users, who’ll be in LR or c1, will never see the work they’ve put in. 😅

[@GOKULLRAW]

Canon has a paid raw conversation software and I think they depend on it for making extra revenue. Sad bit is that not much of the industry use it. They might as well open their tech so they have many more happy customers.

[@brunopradomusic]

The yellowish tone has been bothering me since the R series was introduced. I didn't get too much of that yellowish tone with the original R, but with R5, R6 and even my small R8. The DSLR Canon cameras have a better colour rendition IMHO.

[@cmeluzzi]

After seeing your comparison, I do prefer the Hasselblad color rendition. But your conclusion in the end, that the colors of the Hasselblad are more natural, is based on what apart from your impressions? Maybe if you used Canon DPP4 your conclusion would be different. The problem with these comparisons is that it is very difficult to reach a scientific valid result. Too many variables to control. Cheers!

[@PhilTragen]

This is the funny thing. Until I posted this video I didn’t even know there was a proprietary canon raw processor - and I’ve been using canon since 2006. 😅 and you’re right, there are a lot of variables. But we attempt to answer the question I suppose. 👍🏻

[@KellyPettit]

Very great comparision. Thank you.

[@PhilTragen]

Thanks Kelly, appreciate you - and what a discussion it’s creating. 😅

[@ryancorbyn]

Great video. Really fair explanation. Love it.

[@edmoore]

You're comparing ACR to Phocus here, and falsely attributing the results to the cameras.

[@PhilTragen]

Phocus does the best job of interpreting the Hasselblad files though. As for the Canon files it seems like much of a muchness to me. There are going to be fundamental differences in how the cameras see colour though - 16 bit vs 14 bit etc etc.

[@edmoore]

@@PhilTragen The word "interpreting" is doing all of the heavy lifting here, though. The difference in those skin tones and colour gradients have nothing to do with an extra two bits of quantisation that's down in the thermal noise of these sensors anyway (and you can't see it on your 8 or 10 bit monitor regardless)

[@obwez]

@@edmoore You are wrong re: skintones. HNCS is proprietary and the best results are often found in Phocus. Opening in Lightroom or other similar software will give you less than optimal results. There's unique calibration for each camera that happens at the factory - device dependant. In camera, the calibrated sensor data undergoes a series of colour transformations which remap the captured values ensuring skin tones are faithfully recorded. This ensures the best use is made of the available signal levels for placement of the highlight and black points, creating the best possible and most pleasing contrast in the image. After the image has been taken, the image data now exists in a device independent colour space (CIE LAB) When you say: "you can't see it on your 8 or 10 bit monitor regardless" - this isn't 100% accurate. You should revisit perceptual vs. relative colorimetric rendering intents, and how this fit into the context of color/working spaces. When I shoot in 16bit and I change my space to L* RGB (for example), I see a world of difference. Colours are less muddy, blacks are deep and the tonal range increases (perceptually).

[@kevindiossi]

Instead of matching each camera's color balance number, it may be better to match the colors based on a color checker. The R5 looked pretty awful here, and it would certainly hold up better with altered color balance that shows what the sensor can actually extract in terms of accuracy. They Hassey looks brilliant...just beautiful!

[@PhilTragen]

By colour balance here do you mean the white balance, or some other value? They were 5300k in each case.

[@kevindiossi]

@@PhilTragen It would appear that the Canon is rendering color differently at the same kelvin temperature value, but you don’t mention tint? So it would benefit from manual correction - even down to color levels in Lightroom. It surely proves your point that they render colors differently, but if there was a color checker card the R5 could be dialed in (hopefully) to match the Hasselblad. Might make for a cool video on how to match a Canon R5 to a Hassey? I would also be curious to see how they each render auto white balance.

[@marshall1864]

Again, a very useful video from you that wastes no time, which is welcome. From an editorial standpoint, I'd suggest a follow-on video processing the Hasselblad in Lightroom. I'm also an X2D user and would vastly prefer doing everything from ingest to export in LR. Staying in LR for ingest, cataloguing, editing and output is vastly preferable to involving Phocus---as long as color rendition is comparable. Adobe now says it is. I'd love to see that tested. Production-wise, I'd again suggest ditching the subtitles.

[@PhilTragen]

Will look into this stuff- I’m still a bit suspicious of non-Phocus colour processing even though I’d much rather use Lightroom. As for the subs, I made them smaller for you. 😅

[@TasteofTaboo]

from a pro commercial standpoint you would avoid ACR raw with all circumstances. hassi- > phocus and canon -> capture one. Skin tones and color rendering are the main reason to avoid the adobe raw conversion. in advertising and fashion there is only capture one and phocus... ok even hasselblad seams a bit weird, with their new focus on rich men with their new x system.

[@RonK]

wow, impressive... Thanks a lot

[@asamxs]

Canon is too distortion color on the Navy color, it has RGB color overall of the suite , not the Navy color. If you're need the perfect detail, color and exposure just for photographer , the first choice is the Hasselblad, you could the budget also.

[@sebastianreiprich3747]

This is a stupid comparison. Without even trying it I just assume, that the files from the X2D are somewhat better or more flexible than the ones from an R5 (which I personally own). But when you open the RAW files in different programs than - surprise - there will be a difference in rendering. If I open the files from my R5 in ACR they look different than in Capture One (which I prefer). So this just makes no sense to me. If you would like to compare colors then shoot both cameras in JPG with the standard color profile. Because that is the way the manufacturer intended them to work. Probably nobody would use this expensive gear in such a way, but for a comparison this at least would kind of make sense.

[@PhilTragen]

I'm not attempting to make a final statement here, just making a comparison to those who are interested. Most people will know that the files from the X2D are better, yes - this just offers some light on exactly how. And yes you could shoot JPEGS, and yes you could process your canon RAWs in DPP, but no one does either of these things, and most people will shoot RAWs and want their RAW files to not need a ton of work.

[@lucannon]

I would test the Nikon Z8 in this regard. The colors should be more accurate as on the R5

[@Test-jj4to]

You don't mention the white balance of the shots used on the cameras so your comparision is worthless

[@PhilTragen]

It’s in the video - set to 5300k on all shots. Did you watch the video?

[@Dstonephoto]

There’s a lot more going on under the hood with Hasselblad than what many anti-Hasselblad fanboys realize . Hasselblad is unparalleled.

[@PhilTragen]

Indeed yeah. A lot of the comments seem to be suggesting that th only material difference here is the RAW processing and it's just not that simple.

[@Dstonephoto]

@@PhilTragen if you try to match two shots taken with both gfx and a hasselblad you will fail. To match the Hasselblad ( unless you are a wizard ). Quite the technological oddity at play. The more that I deep dive into camera and film technology the more that I’m blown away by the degree of minute details and the variations present within them. You’ll see a similar amount of interesting stuff going on with bluetooth speakers and digital signal processing (otherwise we could duck tape car speakers to a battery and call it a day). My suspicion with all of this is that the analog to digital converters , color filter dyes, microlens arrays, and digital signal processing, are all much more acutely contributors to the end result than we realize. I’m beginning to suspect most of us don’t understand color and editing- and the limitations imposed upon us - as much as we think we do. Except maybe a select few .it’s quite a fascinating tapestry of creation when you really start to pry into the inner workings of digital capture.But the allure of simplicity is easy to synthesize into spreadsheet logic. Lastly, putting all that aside, who wouldn’t want a camera system that gives us turnkey like images instead of spending hours in editing for second rate shots.

[@lukasbusse2793]

My suggestion is to look at the Canon files in Canon DPP. You will only have a true comparison if you take the files to the raw editor of the manufacturer to have the intended look and the full color chain. Adobes colors for the R5 can be good, too. But often times they are a disaster. I also have an R5 and bought into Fuji GFX and later Hasselblad X, just to find out, that Canons color science, when you don't rely on any third party raw converter, is extremely good. With L lenses, AF and its versatility the R5 is the best overall package. I sold everything except for my R5.

[@brianrowland9993]

That is a big surprise - both the Fuji GFX and Hasselblad X are generally accepted at being superior in image quality - but the R5 is a very capable camera (I own one). What was the deciding factor - cost and limited range of lenses comes to mind?

[@PhilTragen]

I agree the r5 is the best overall package - the X2D is just the nest in terms of IQ. I don't think it's particularly close. I've used Canon DPP though and while it renders nicer colour and also detail, it's still not X2D level, and also the software looks like it comes right off a CDROM from 2004. It's horrible to use, don't you think?

[@lukasbusse2793]

@@PhilTragen Your video is about shocking color differences and I said that the comparison was done wrong. DPP doesn't provide up to date user experience, but it shows the Canon color in the Canon color pipeline. Only if you show Hasselblad Phocus vs Canon DPP you will be able to tell something about colors. ACR is not the right way to do it.

[@miguelalgarra3285]

Interesting and good video

[@pawelbrzozowski3899]

You didn't mentioned color profile used for the R5 and that's a fundamental thing. You should have used Canon DPP software for best color accuracy. Overall, your video is not informative but rather misleading.

[@PhilTragen]

There’s an edit added to the video description that does address this - DPP processing is better than Adobe’s in some minor ways but still renders very differently to the Blad.

[@NetvoTV]

What do you think of Nikon Zf? Do people use the dedicated shutter and ISO dials on the Zf or just get it for the look and end up just use the front and rear dials more which means the Z6III will make more sense with the better grip and even better EVF even let say you just want to use a small lens on it? Is Hasselblads X2D fun to shoot with or just like any shoot with a computer experience like any other mirrorless? I shoot for fun, art, contest and gig if possible tho I haven't done yet, my plan is to get that lens with Zf ith the 28-400mm and a Sony Xperia 1 VI phone (26,24,48,85-170, 2X macro) to be always with me waterproof and macro camera, down the line I might get the 14-30 and Voigtländer 50mm F1 if I want to maximize what I can get from wider shots and also when I need boleh which is rare time but that manual lens and aesthetic of the lens is nice! Hope they make a yellow leather of Zf soon! 💛

[@asamxs]

Sony, Nikon,Canon,Fuji is too distortion color the same. cause the bigger sensor has more dynamic color and pixel shift range of the color. if you expand the work on the bigger OLED monitor, you will see result too diffence when you are compare the Hasselblad photo with the other.

[@rumbolzpunktde]

Thank you! Crucial information.

[@asheeshkchopra]

Hi Phil, really enjoyed the video! However, I would like to point to the fact that it’s the colour detail in the raw file that matters which needs to be interpreted using a custom camera profile created for your particular camera piece using ColorChecker Passport or similar product. It’s only last year that I discovered the huge difference this makes to the colour in the images …it almost feels like magic. As someone else pointed out, once you do that, I am 99% sure that you would not see noticeable difference in the images from the two cameras. In fact it would be great if you could make another video on that. 😀

[@PhilTragen]

I"m sure you're right - but I think the Hasselblad camera has such nice colour out of the box that you really don't want to mess with it at all usually. I'm not sure why Canon has decided to have their own proprietary raw converter and make it a misery to use and also allow no 3rd party access to it.

[@dennyoconnor8680]

Apples and oranges. The picture out of both cameras is not straight off the sensor. Both cameras measure the charge on each pixel well and convert that to a digital number through an AD chip. There is further processing of the digital numbers as the RAW image is assembled by the software in the camera. Yes, the medium format has more pixels so there is more fine detail (should be for 8 grand) If you don't like the hue, chroma and value coming from the R5 then pre-apply a base adjustment in photoshop to each frame from the R5 as it loads, to make it look closer to the medium format, on average. Given you have different lens lengths, different image assembly routines, and different software for each of the two this is a subjective test of which image you like, more than a comparison. And yes, the Hassy makes a beautiful image.

[@shade599]

Can you compare the autofocus?

[@PhilTragen]

I can, though not favourably. The x2d is fine with things that don't move, it's fairly competent and accurate there. It's not got continuous focus though. The Canon AF, or of any other comparable system, will be streets ahead of the x2d. That said, it's not bad.

[@jimbrown4507]

@@PhilTragen I have both cameras and agree 100%. I tested the Fuji GFX 100 as well, and actually found the X2D to be more confident in the portrait world. R5 is quite strong with AF including eye auto which doesn’t exist on the X2D yet.

[@yohan2437]

You cannot generalize Canon color using only one model like the R5 and simply declare that Canon color is poor compared to the X2D because the R5 color is poor. Anyone that is experienced with Canon knows that different models render skin tones differently. Also, this could simply be a white balance issue. When I find my cameras render skin too green (like Nikon), I add a permanent magenta shift to my auto white balance and set and forget. Skin tones come out perfectly for the life of the time I own the camera.

[@PhilTragen]

Or, Canon could just do that work themselves - why should the user? Similarly I can’t adjust my camera colour balance purely for skin tones when portraits aren’t all I shoot. It’s just getting a dog and barking yourself.

[@MrBlubb80]

On my screen the r5 looks awfully greenish….

[@PhilTragen]

It is a bit isn't it.

[@nelsonclub7722]

We use Hass and Nikon as the protocols are the same for Flash

[@tomsun3159]

Very interesting comparison. didn't expect such big differences. Is it more camera side or on the lens side? Or ist that just fact that RAW is not really RAW but allready heavily processed by the internal optimization. So the last one is really my best guess, which leads to the proposal to extend the comparison to more camera brands (Sony, Nikon, Panasonic and of course my beloved Pentax) perhaps a test in laboratory conditions with a standardized subject Diorama with some charrts colour and greyscale, with standardized lightsources. If i remeber right ther was allready a comparison between some brands, and the Canon was always way off the others.

[@PhilTragen]

That would be a much more forensic video for sure. I'm not willing to make it. :))

[@POW.CREEPER]

The R5 made that Caucasian fellow look like a tanned puerto rican. Credit score went from 850 to 600 😂

[@PhilTragen]

You're a savage man. :)

[@jakilahmoulien9070]

Have u compared it with a nikon yet?

[@PhilTragen]

I don't shoot on Nikon. two systems is already brutal on my bank balance...

[@forgewire]

@2:20 So you opened Canon file in Adobe and Hasselblad in native piece of software? Can you do opposite and open Canon file in DPP and Hasselblad in Adobe instead? If you doing these tricks then at least post some RAWs here👎👎👎

[@PhilTragen]

I've opened the Canon file in DPP and it's a little enhanced, more or less the same. I've opened Blad files in ACR / LR editor (both the same) and they simply aren't as good. I've been attempting to open both files in their best raw converters, and it appears I could've done a bit better with the R5 file - but now I've checked it out, there's not actually much in ACR vs DPP.

[@forgewire]

@@PhilTragen Many people lack knowledge about what a RAW file is and how it is processed by default profiles in different RAW processors. The best way to develop RAW files is to create a linear RAW profile in Lightroom, and when using it, you will be surprised by how much information you can extract from a Canon RAW files

[@trondhelgehie6771]

Capture One as an RAW converter for the Canon please… And the R5C is slightly better than the R5 Thanks for the comparison…

[@gerhardbotha7336]

These are digital cameras. They don’t have colours. They have whatever you decide they ought to have when you process the RAW file. Programs like LR take the presets the camera was set for in order to produce the jpg thumbnail in the RAW file. BUT YOU DONT NEED TO STICK TO THAT!

[@PhilTragen]

Perhaps, but don’t we all want less work to do?

[@marcgilles4520]

@@PhilTragenexactly, and time is money. Great video

[@milesaugust1001]

Honestly, most of the color differences just look like white balance issues.

[@readitoutloud]

Yes 1’s&0’s but interpreted differently that’s what the difference is about. Interpretation! And the hasselblad interprets like a champ.

[@jgarcia237]

Are you jpeg shooter? 😂😂😂

[@PhilTragen]

Not lately but I can always start

[@dayeah765caoni3]

Who cares what others think. I’m getting my x2d with MY money

[@toosas]

how can these people talk about liking "RAW COLOUR RENDITION". So which raw processor do you like those colours rendered in? because raw is flat as f*ck least processed thing you can get out of the camera jesus f christ, have people gone dumber over the years? Now that I composed myself... you won't get same colours from either camera when using 2 different raw processors. You will most likely end up with 4 different looking photos

[@PhilTragen]

The Blad picture is coming out of Phocus, which is its preferred RAW processor. And the Canon files are coming through AdobeCR, which is not, but it's either that or C1 since nobody uses DPP. I think looking at the RAW colour rendition IS useful because one camera does the heavy lifting for you, and the other clearly does not, and we don't buy expensive gear to correct it before showing it to the world. When I process the X2D files out of Phocus I do very minor tonal controls but I'm able in more or less all cases to leave the colours and vibrancy alone; it's a draw of the brand. Not so with Canon. Why buy a dog then bark yourself? It's not like the R5 was a cheap body either. Now that I've composed myself, people haven't gotten dumber.. just more rude. Thumbs down

[@ddesai1080]

Absolutely wrong method used. Canon + ACR (Adobe Color) is bullshit combination. Canon RAW must and always should be process with Canon DPP to get True Canon Colours.

[@PhilTragen]

I’m learning a lot today..! I’ve been using Canon for years and I’ve never once used their own raw converters. At this point wouldn’t it be sensible for them to hand the profiles over to the major raw converters? Its how 95% of canon users will see these files: in LR or C1.

[@ryancorbyn]

Further gatekeeping from Canon. Nobody works like that.

[@KoenKooi]

@@PhilTragenyou can buy 3rd party profiles, like the colorfidelity ones that get the result very close to what DPP4 will give you. The M6II/90D/R7 images in Adobe software show my kids zombie grey, with the colorfidelity profiles they look a lot healthier :) I have set LR to apply those on import, so it’s no extra work after the initial setup.

[@ChrisBoultonPhotography]

It’s alright saying that one should use Canon’s raw converter but what working pro has got time to process in that and then export as Tifs into LR or C1? I would suggest very few … The reality is that most of use one of Adobes profiles and then get it to where we want (that’s where accuracy in monitor calibration comes in etc).

[@PhilTragen]

Yep, this is it. I’ve edited the video description to include that I’ve now ran my Canon files through DPP and it’s a bit better sure. But not enough to write home about. And you’re right, that software isn’t anywhere good enough on its own to justify adding it into the workflow.

[@kevins8575]

You have far too many uncontrolled variables for this comparison to be meaningful.

[@PhilTragen]

Well, we do our best. 😅

[@dayeah765caoni3]

@@PhilTragennever mind the keyboard pro photographers lol 😂

[@meshstore_technologies]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@PhilTragen]

Thanks, i think

[@fredbrackely]

I would sincerely hope for $8,200 the medium format would win out of camera. But, 30 seconds in PS eliminates that $5,200 price difference.

[@PhilTragen]

Speaking as someone who uses these every day, and not a successful dentist with money to burn, I can assure you that comment is not at all accurate. 😅

[@user-eh8jv2em2o]

No, you can't claim 'it's how the camera renders colors' if you're using RAW. Try comparing JPEGs instead, which reflect the camera's internal color processing. Additionally, use color checker palettes for calibration. After proper calibration, both cameras should produce almost identical colors.

[@PhilTragen]

Id be interested to try the jpeg option, to see what colours the different systems bake in. But at some point we will have to concede there’s a bigger capability to render colour in one system than the other, even if I we do work on all the smaller variables..:

[@jgarcia237]

If you cant achieve the x2d color on your raw files, you have no business becoming a photographer.

[@PhilTragen]

I’m still waiting for someone to back this claim up with an example, or anything at all, really. Half the people here accept very easily that the colours will be better on the Blad and some (like you) insist there should be no difference at all apart from in the competence of the photographer.

[@christianschneider1706]

Shooting studio portraits in f/2.5? 🤔 1. The detail: The Hasselblad is a medium frame camera with what, 100% higher resolution and 70% bigger sensor? 2. The colors. 2 min LR adjustment. That said. The hasselblad is my dream camera. But a comparison video between the technical products that has absolutely nothing in common except being a camera is unnecessary and not fair to the canon.

[@PhilTragen]

Firstly, what's the objection to a studio portrait in f2.5? It draws the eyes to the face, and it stops you seeing the pores of your white seamless. I didn't anticipate anyone having an issue with this... Secondly, the whole purpose of the video is compare the raw output of one to the other, and the conclusion I reasonably draw - and no one who has used both cameras would disagree with this - that the Hasselblad produces more natural and accurate results SOOC. As for them having nothing in common except that they're both cameras... that rather is what the video depends on, and how else are you supposed to weigh up the output of cameras except by comparing what they do?

[@brucemercer8441]

….I’m sorry !!… you are comparing medium format against full frame ….spare me your f$&kin spin!, that’s been known for decades! (What’s new!!!!!) ….

[@PhilTragen]

Honestly the comments here are torn between ‘of course there’s a massive difference’ like yours, and ‘if you can’t get them to look the same then you’re the problem’. So it’s really not as cut and dry as you think.