Hasselblad X1D II 50C vs Sigma sd Quattro H: A Pro Medium Format Duel with a Twist

When serious photographers ponder medium format mirrorless cameras, the Hasselblad X1D II 50C often floats to the top of their wishlists, embodying Scandinavian design elegance and imposing a certain lofty aura. Meanwhile, the Sigma sd Quattro H lurks somewhat under the radar - an intriguing beast that promises high resolution through its unique Foveon sensor and a wallet-friendlier price tag.

Having spent years hands-on with both cameras, I’ve witnessed their strengths, quirks, and sometimes puzzling choices. In this detailed comparison, I’ll walk you through everything from sensor tech and ergonomics to real-world performance across the gamut of photography styles - all peppered with my practical insights, because specs alone rarely tell the full story.

So grab your favorite brew (or espresso, if you fancy), and let’s dig into how these cameras stack up beyond the marketing hype.

The Tale of Two Bodies: Size, Shape, and Handling

Let's start with the tactile first impression - you know, the "how it feels in your hands" factor that makes or breaks long shoots.

The Hasselblad X1D II 50C is a compact medium format camera that's easy to mistake for a slightly chunky mirrorless. Its rangefinder-style design is sleek, unassuming, but unmistakably solid. It weighs in at a manageable 725 grams and measures roughly 150x98x71 mm - small for medium format but still noticeably heftier than standard full-frame mirrorless. The craftsmanship screams luxury, with clean lines and an intuitive control layout.

In comparison, the Sigma sd Quattro H is a bit of an oddball - slightly bigger at 147x95x91 mm, though weight specs are unspecified, it feels robust and substantial in hand. Its body is more angular, sporting deeper grip contours, which aids handling, especially with heavier lenses. However, the design leans more toward the utilitarian, prioritizing mechanical durability over elegance.

Size Comparison: Hasselblad X1D II 50C (left) vs Sigma sd Quattro H (right)

In daily use, I found the Hasselblad’s smaller footprint easier to tuck away when commuting or traveling, while the Sigma’s broader grip offers a steadier hold during longer shoots but demands a bigger camera bag.

Interestingly, both cameras ditch a traditional mode dial, which frustrates some purists craving quick tactile exposure swaps, but Hasselblad compensates with well-placed customizable buttons - I appreciated how the X1D II’s controls felt more mature and ergonomic. The Sigma’s setup, while serviceable, sometimes led me to dig through menus more often than I liked, especially given the smaller, non-touch 3-inch screen.

Visual Command: LCD and Viewfinder Experience

User interface is another pillar of the shooting experience, so let’s peek at their viewfinders and rear screens.

The X1D II offers a generous 3.6” touchscreen LCD with a resolution of 2360k dots - crisp, bright, and responsive. Its touchscreen gestures make quick menu changes or focus point shifts a breeze. Meanwhile, the Sigma’s non-touch 3” screen lags behind in both size and resolution at 1620k dots, which felt less lively and vivid in side-by-side viewings.

Hasselblad’s electronic viewfinder (EVF) leads as well, boasting a remarkable 3690k-dot resolution and 0.87x magnification, making framing and focus checking a joy - almost eerily real. The Sigma’s EVF is respectable but trails at 2360k dots and 0.73x magnification, not terrible but less immersive, especially under bright outdoor conditions.

LCD and interface: Hasselblad (left) shows touchscreen and clean UI; Sigma (right) more basic LCD without touch

Daily use proved the touchscreen on the X1D II an invaluable asset - rapid refocusing and setting changes became second nature. Sigma on the other hand demands more deliberate button navigation, which can slow workflow when you’re racing a fleeting light or fleeting moment.

The Sensor Saga: Medium Format Giants but Different Philosophies

Now, the heart of the camera - its sensor. Here’s where these two take wildly different paths despite sitting in the same medium format playground.

The Hasselblad X1D II 50C features a 51.4MP CMOS medium format sensor measuring 44x33mm, giving an expansive sensor area of 1452 mm². This large surface translates to superb image quality, especially in terms of dynamic range and color depth. The sensor employs a traditional Bayer filter array and includes a modest anti-aliasing filter to keep moiré in check.

Contrastively, the Sigma sd Quattro H uses a unique 45MP APS-H-sized Foveon X3 CMOS sensor at 26.6x17.9mm (476 mm² sensor area), smaller than Hasselblad’s but packed with a different kind of magic. The Foveon sensor captures color information differently - pixel-by-pixel layer stacking mimics film’s color capturing nature rather than conventional Bayer interpolation, promising incredibly rich, painterly images with fine detail and color fidelity.

Sensor comparison: Hasselblad (top) vs Sigma Foveon sensor (bottom)

While Hasselblad boasts a stellar DxOMark overall score of 102 - the highest I’ve personally tested in medium format for overall image quality - the Sigma has not been officially DxO tested. However, from practical testing, I can attest the Sigma’s images have a unique, granular sharpness to fine details that the Hasselblad's smoother, richer files take a different approach on.

What’s more, the Hasselblad’s native ISO range maxes at 25600 with excellent low-light behavior (DxO low-light ISO ~4489), while the Sigma caps at ISO 6400 and tends to struggle more with noise above ISO 800–1600. So, for environmental flexibility, Hasselblad takes the win.

Autofocus: Accuracy vs Speed – The Snap Decision

Autofocus technology can make or break decisive moments. How do these cameras fare?

The Hasselblad X1D II 50C features a contrast-detection AF system with 117 focus points, supporting face detection and eye AF in live view mode. While lacking phase detection, the AF is surprisingly performant - accurate, smooth, and capable of tracking moving subjects, albeit not at blazing speeds.

Sigma’s sd Quattro H relies on a combination of phase-detection and contrast-detection, but disappointingly uses only 9 focus points, a limited selection that feels archaic compared to modern cameras. While face detection is supported, there is no animal eye AF. The AF system is functional but slower and less reliable, especially under tricky lighting.

In wildlife and sports photography - where subjects dart unpredictably - the Hasselblad’s autofocus, although limited by slower continuous shooting rates, generally edges out the Sigma thanks to more sophisticated tracking and focus adjustments.

Continuous Shooting and Burst Mode: Catching the Action

Burst rates are crucial for fast-paced photography - sports, wildlife, or street.

The X1D II barely manages 2.7 fps in continuous shooting, a rather slow cadence given its price and capabilities. Sigma improves slightly with 3.8 fps, but still nothing to write home about for rapid action.

Meaning? Neither is a true sports or wildlife-savvy pro camera when it comes to burst shooting. Photographers expecting to freeze fast action shots will have to lean into autofocus precision and patience rather than brute-speed burst fire here.

Image Quality Deep Dive: Raw Delight or Color Quirk?

Let's talk image files - why you choose medium format in the first place.

On the Hasselblad, every file is a treat: 16-bit 11-15 stops of dynamic range rendering shadows and highlights with headroom that leaves DSLR rivals breathless. Colors appear lush but natural in all lighting including skin tones - which photographers swear by for portraiture.

The Sigma’s Foveon files flip the script with their exceptionally rich detail - fine textures in landscapes, fabrics, and architectural subjects almost seem hyperreal. Yet, they sometimes suffer from lower dynamic range (closer to 12 stops) and more restricted ISO latitude, making highlight preservation a more delicate dance.

If resolving detail - think majestic mountain vistas or complex fabric weave - is your goal, the Sigma sparks joy. But for superior tonality and effortless portrait skin tones, the Hasselblad nudges ahead.

Hasselblad X1D II 50C front Hasselblad X1D II 50C screen back Sigma Quattro H front Sigma Quattro H screen back

Left: Hasselblad X1D II 50C image sample; Right: Sigma sd Quattro H image sample

Lenses and Ecosystem: Where Choices Count

Lens availability shapes long-term user experience. The Hasselblad X system offers about 13 native lenses with superb optical quality - prime glass optimized for medium format. Some are even among the finest lenses available, supporting your creative vision without compromise.

Sigma’s SA mount originally launched with more extensive lens support at 76 lenses and benefits from Sigma’s stable of lenses repurposed for this system, yet many of these are adapted from DSLR designs, and fewer are truly medium format optimized.

So if you prize access to a dedicated, well-curated, and meticulously engineered lens line, Hasselblad wins again. Sigma's lens ecosystem may suffice on a budget but demands compromise.

Build Quality and Environmental Sealing

Both cameras boast weather-resistant bodies (though not fully waterproof or shockproof), a relief if you’re shooting in temperamental conditions.

The Hasselblad’s refined build inspires confidence with premium materials and a compact form, whereas Sigma’s chunkier machine feels tougher but less sleek. Neither will invite reckless rain or mud battles, but both provide workhorse-level resilience.

Video and Audio: Medium Format Moving Pictures

If video matters to you, this is a critical comparison point.

The Hasselblad X1D II supports video at 2720 x 1530p (30 fps), which isn’t 4K but offers pleasing medium-format-like color granularity and a clean H.264 codec. It sports microphone and headphone jacks - a boon for serious video shooters.

Sigma, however, omits video entirely - no recording capabilities, no audio input, nada. For hybrid shooters or vloggers, Hasselblad is the only viable option.

Battery Life and Storage

Neither camera boasts headline-grabbing battery life. The X1D II uses dual SD cards, whereas the Sigma relies on a single SD slot. In practice, the Hasselblad’s dual slots are a professional convenience (backup or overflow), while Sigma’s single slot is a limitation.

Exact battery endurance depends on use and EVF time, but medium format systems commonly underperform here compared to smaller formats. Carry spares.

Connectivity and Workflow

Hasselblad wins with built-in Wi-Fi and GPS, letting you geotag images and remotely control the camera - a nifty touch for travel and studio photographers who like tethered control. Sigma misses out, lacking wireless features.

Both cameras offer USB 3.0 high-speed connection and HDMI outputs for quick tethering.

Price Tag and Value Considerations

Let’s talk dollars.

• Hasselblad X1D II 50C: Approximately $5750 - a serious investment aimed at pros or serious enthusiasts craving impeccable image quality, compact medium format design, and a modern user experience.

• Sigma sd Quattro H: Roughly $1134 - a much more accessible gateway into medium format-like resolution and color science but with clearly evident compromises in speed, autofocus, and ergonomics.

The big-hitters like Hasselblad shape the pinnacle of performance and refinement; Sigma appeals to those valuing resolution budgetwise or intrigued by the Foveon sensor uniqueness.

Photography Genre Suitability: Who Shines Where?

To make this real, here’s how these cameras perform across varied photography styles:

Portrait Photography

The Hasselblad’s rich color depth, wide DR, and smooth bokeh deliver exceptional skin tones and subject separation. Its eye detection AF helps nail critical sharpness on faces. Sigma’s detail-obsessed files can render skin somewhat literal, sometimes too clinical, and autofocus is less reliable for moving subjects.

Landscape Photography

Both excel in resolution, but with Hasselblad’s broader DR, retaining highlight and shadow detail is easier in challenging light. Sigma’s unique Foveon sensor superbly captures fine textures and colors but demands slower, deliberate shooting due to AF and ISO limits. Hasselblad’s weather sealing supports outdoor shoots well.

Wildlife and Sports

Both fall short on burst shooting speed. Hasselblad’s better autofocus tracking is a modest advantage but neither camera is a natural natural pro animal or sports camera. Traditional DSLRs or mirrorless competitors outperform here.

Street Photography

On portability, Hasselblad’s smaller size and quieter shutter make it more street-friendly, albeit medium format size isn’t ideal compared to compact full-frame. Sigma’s heft and slower AF make candid snaps trickier.

Macro Photography

Neither offers built-in image stabilization, but autofocus precision favors Hasselblad. Both require dedicated macro lenses - Hasselblad’s glass edges ahead here. The Sigma's detail capture is a treat for close-up textures but demands patience.

Night and Astro Photography

Hasselblad’s high ISO strength and broader dynamic range mean cleaner stars and shadows. Sigma suffers from noise at higher ISO and less DR, requiring careful exposures.

Video

Hasselblad is head and shoulders above Sigma with 1530p video and audio channels, suitable for quality medium format video workflows.

Travel Photography

The compactness and GPS connectivity of the Hasselblad make it an excellent travel companion if you can handle the bulk and expense. Sigma is heavier, less connected, and slower but a more budget-friendly way into large sensor photography.

Professional Workflow

Hasselblad’s dual cards, superior raw files, physical controls, and wireless integration cater well to professional workflows demanding reliability and efficiency. Sigma’s niche appeal and slower interface suit hobbyists or specialized fine art shooters more.

Top view: Hasselblad’s elegant control layout (left) vs Sigma’s more dated design (right)

Overall performance: Hasselblad X1D II 50C dominates in most categories except burst speed

Photography type scores: Hasselblad leads in portraits, landscapes, and video; Sigma shines in resolution-driven fine detail capture

Final Verdict: Who Should Buy Which?

If your budget allows and image quality, ergonomic finesse, modern autofocus, and a balanced feature set are paramount, the Hasselblad X1D II 50C is the clear winner. It blends medium format image excellence into a package that’ll delight portraitists, landscapists, and pro photographers alike - with bonus video features for hybrid shooters.

On the other hand, if you’re an enthusiast or fine art photographer drawn to the unique color science and resolution of the Sigma’s Foveon sensor, who can tolerate slower AF and shoot mostly static subjects in controlled environments, the Sigma sd Quattro H’s affordable price makes it an intriguing alternative. Just temper expectations about speed, video, and autofocus.

Each camera carved its own niche: Hasselblad as premium, elegant precision; Sigma as quirky, detail-obsessed far from the mainstream. Choose according to your priorities, workflow, and budget - but either way, you’re stepping into a world of exceptional image quality and creative possibility.

About the Tester

With over 15 years and thousands of cameras in the field - under rain, scorching sun, and freezing nights - I’ve learned that specs don’t always tell the whole story. Real-world handling, image quality nuance, and tailored workflows matter most. My aim with comparisons like this? To provide you no-nonsense insights so you find your perfect photographic partner.

Whether you lean toward the statuesque craftsmanship of Hasselblad or the Foveon-fueled optimism of Sigma, both cameras deserve respect as medium format pioneers. Now, which story will you create?