Tonal Photo

Tonal Photo Trying to make a business of my photos

A variant of this question lands on almost every Hasselblad forum almost every week in some form. "Help me bridge the ga...
07/19/2026

A variant of this question lands on almost every Hasselblad forum almost every week in some form. "Help me bridge the gap: 35-100mm zoom or the 55V prime?" "35-100 or 90V + 38V?" "One lens to rule them all?" The answers inevitably split the same way, half the room swearing by the zoom that never leaves their camera, the other half insisting primes are the whole point of the system.

I have been on both sides of that argument with my own money. It was a very expensive journey. I bought the XCD 35-100E after a long wait, sold my primes to fund it, and found myself regretting the trade on a trip to Italy within a few months. So I went back. I rebought the primes (my poor credit card), watched the zoom sit in a drawer, and eventually sold both of the E-series zooms I owned. Twice now I have chosen between these lenses, once in each direction, which at least means I can tell you exactly where the decision turned for me.

💡A note on support: This post represents my personal exploration and testing, not official technical support or guidance from Hasselblad. If you need assistance with your Hasselblad equipment, please contact Hasselblad directly: [email protected] for global support, [email protected] for the Americas, or visit hasselblad.com/support for regional options.

Key finding: The XCD 2,8-4/35-100E is the best one-lens answer in the X system: 35-100mm in one mount, rendering close enough that image quality rarely decides it. I still sold mine for the f/2.5 V primes; my low-light work wants the light. What you shoot decides this, not the spec sheet.

XCD 2,8-4/35-100E
The four V primes

Focal coverage
35-100mm (28-79mm FF equivalent)
25, 38, 55, 90mm (20-71mm equivalent)

Maximum aperture
f/2.8-4
f/2.5, all four

Weight
894 g
350-592 g each; 1,865 g for all four

Filter thread
86mm
72mm, shared across all four

Flash sync
1/4000s
1/4000s on 25V and 90V; 1/2000s on 38V and 55V

Close focus
1:8 wide, 1:4 at 100mm
1:5.8 to 1:6.4

US price
$4,599
$3,699 each; $4,299 for the 90V

Figure 1: One mount covering the whole mid range, or four lenses that open to f/2.5. All figures from the XCD lens guide.

What does the 35-100E get right?

Almost everything. This is the part both camps agree on more than the forum arguments suggest: the 35-100E is an excellent lens, full stop. One commenter called it "a zoom full of quality primes,"¹ and having shot one for months, I would not argue with that. The focal range covers the entire mid band a landscape or travel photographer lives in, 28mm to 79mm in full-frame terms. Put it on the camera in the morning and there is a real chance you never take it off.

The one-mount argument goes beyond convenience. Every lens swap in the field is a dust opportunity on a 100-megapixel sensor, and skipping swaps entirely is a legitimate reason to own this lens. The weight math surprises people too: the zoom's 894 g sounds heavy until you notice that carrying all four V primes costs 1,865 g plus the bag space, and even a two-prime kit lands within shouting distance of the zoom once you add the second lens.

It also does things no single prime in its range can. Its 1:4 close-focus at the 100mm end is the best near-macro capability in the system outside the 120 Macro itself, genuinely useful for the casual close-ups landscape shooters run into. And unlike its sibling, the 20-35E, it supports continuous autofocus and carries the control ring from the V series.

Have you seen the guide? I've published Essential Phocus 4.x for Mac - 85 topics across 8 sections and 246 pages covering everything from HNCS color science to HDR workflows. It's the reference manual Hasselblad hasn't updated since 3.8. It's $49, and updates are included.

Get it here

The case for the primes is light, not sharpness

If you came here expecting "primes are sharper," I have better news and worse news. At overlapping focal lengths and equal apertures the rendering is close, close enough that in a blind test I would not bet on telling my 55V frames from my 35-100E frames at 55mm. The forum debate on long-end sharpness runs both directions, some owners reporting softness in the 70-100mm range on the 100-megapixel sensors and others pointing at MTF data to argue parity,² and my own copies never settled the question for me. Sharpness is the wrong hill for the prime argument to die on.

The real difference for me is one and a third stops. The zoom gives you f/2.8 at its wide end and f/4 by the long end; every V prime opens to f/2.5, everywhere. At 90mm that gap is the difference between ISO 800 and ISO 2000 in the same fading light, or between a shutter speed that freezes leaves and one that does not. Italy is where that stopped being hypothetical for me: evening light in narrow streets, interiors, blue hour, all the light my kind of shooting actually happens in, and the zoom's f/4 long end kept asking my ISO to cover for it. Medium format compounds the aperture gap in a second way: f/2.5 on an XCD lens renders depth of field roughly like f/2 on full frame, so the primes are also buying subject separation the zoom cannot reach.

There are smaller cases too. The primes share 72mm filters; the zoom's unusual 86mm thread means a second, more expensive set of polarizers and NDs, chosen from a thinner field, since not all the popular filter vendors make an 86mm and even fewer of the quality magnetic mount systems do. The 25V goes wider than the zoom ever will. And a single prime on the body is a smaller, lighter, less conspicuous package than the zoom for street and city work.

Which should you buy: the 35-100E or the primes?

Where your photographs happen decides this, not which lens wins on paper.

If your light is generous, buy the zoom. Daylight landscapes, travel in open country, anything on a tripod where shutter speed is free: the 35-100E covers all of it in one mount with optics you will not outgrow. This is also the answer if you loathe changing lenses in the field, and it is the cheaper answer, since the zoom costs less than any two of the primes.

If your light is scarce, buy primes. Blue hour, interiors, forests under canopy, handheld work at the edge of usable shutter speeds: f/2.5 everywhere is worth more than focal-length convenience, and no zoom setting substitutes for light you did not capture.

If you are bridging a gap in a prime kit, the real comparison is the 35-100E against the 55V alone, not against the whole prime lineup. The zoom wins on flexibility; the 55V wins on speed, size, and sharing your existing 72mm filters. I went the 55V route the second time around, but I shoot a lot of my work in low-light conditions. A gap-bridger who mostly shoots daylight should probably take the zoom.

The threads will keep reappearing regardless of what I decided in Italy, because the next person asking has different light than either of us. If the numbers matter more than my opinion, the full spec tables for every XCD lens are in the lens guide, sorted the same way as the table above.

References

1. r/hasselblad, "Help me bridge the gap: 35-100mm Zoom or the 55V Prime?" - representative thread of the recurring question, including the "zoom full of quality primes" assessment.
2. r/hasselblad, "35-100e vs 38v, looking for input and opinions" - the long-end sharpness debate argued in both directions.
3. Hasselblad, XCD 2,8-4/35-100E product page - official specifications.

The 35-100E is the best one-lens answer in the X system. I still sold it for the f/2.5 V primes. Where the decision actually turns.

Every week the same question surfaces on r/hasselblad, in the Facebook groups, or in my inbox: what does a sensible Hass...
07/18/2026

Every week the same question surfaces on r/hasselblad, in the Facebook groups, or in my inbox: what does a sensible Hasselblad workflow actually look like, start to finish? The answers people get are usually fragments. Someone explains their culling setup, someone else defends Phocus, a third person says they dropped Phocus entirely and never looked back.

This post is the whole thing in one place: the workflow I run on every shoot with my X2D II, which apps handle which stage, and the reasoning for each handoff. The short version is three stages: cull fast before Phocus ever opens, do a small and deliberate set of adjustments in Phocus, then hand a 16-bit TIFF to Lightroom Classic for everything else. The long version, including what I deliberately try to avoid doing in each app, is below.

💡A note on support: This post represents my personal exploration and testing, not official technical support or guidance from Hasselblad. If you need assistance with your Hasselblad equipment, please contact Hasselblad directly: [email protected] for global support, [email protected] for the Americas, or visit hasselblad.com/support for regional options.

Key finding: My complete Hasselblad workflow: cull in Palomino, then in Phocus 4.2 apply only the RAW-dependent steps (HNNR, white balance, highlight recovery, shadow fill, lens corrections), export with the built-in TIFF-16 preset, and finish in Lightroom Classic. Global exposure, curves, crops, and masking wait for Lightroom. The boundary between the apps is the whole method.

Figure 1: The five stages and the boundary rule. Each app does only what the others cannot.

Why use three apps instead of one?

Each stage of this pipeline does something the other two cannot, and the workflow works because nothing overlaps. Palomino culls at speeds Phocus cannot approach, because it reads the embedded JPEG preview instead of rendering 100-megapixel RAW data. Phocus renders with HNCS, Hasselblad's render-time color pipeline, and runs HNNR noise reduction on RAW sensor data. No other application has access to either. Lightroom Classic then does what it is genuinely best at: cataloging, masking, object removal, and final output. Pretty much all of my serious editing happens there, with an occasional handoff to Photoshop for the things Lightroom cannot do.

You can absolutely skip stages. Lightroom Classic and Capture One both open X2D II 3FR files directly now, and I have measured how the three renderers compare rather than guessing. Opening the 3FR straight in Lightroom is a legitimate choice, it is just a different one: you get Adobe's rendering of the sensor data instead of Hasselblad's, and no HNNR at all. I went through exactly what you keep and what you lose when you skip Phocus in a separate post. This workflow is for the days you want Hasselblad's rendering in the final file.

Stage 1: Cull in Palomino before Phocus opens

The single biggest speed win in this workflow happens before any editing app launches. A full card of 100-megapixel files is miserable to cull inside Phocus, so I do not. I cull in Palomino, the macOS culling app my friend Neil and I build (full disclosure: I added its Hasselblad 3FR support myself, and I wrote up how a 1,500-frame cull comes down to about fifteen minutes when it launched).

Two settings matter at export for this particular pipeline:

* XMP sidecars off. Phocus does not read Adobe-style XMP, so those files would sit next to your 3FRs as clutter. XMP is for the direct-to-Lightroom path, which this workflow is not.
* .phos sidecars on. Palomino writes the same bare-bones sidecar Phocus creates at import, carrying your star ratings, so the keepers arrive in Phocus already rated.

The keepers export as untouched copies of the original 3FR files into a folder Phocus imports from, and that folder will be on local storage: Palomino deliberately refuses to export to a network mount. Apple's SMB implementation gets unreliable under the sustained writes an export produces, a lesson learned building backup software before I ever owned a Hasselblad, so the app declines rather than risk a half-written export. Culling from a NAS works fine; exports land on a local SSD.

Stage 2: The Phocus pass, in a fixed order

My Phocus stage is short and it is disciplined. The rule, which I keep in my head as a single sentence: apply only what requires RAW data or the HNCS pipeline, and export clean.

HNNR first, when the shot needs it. For me that means ISO 1600 and up: on those files I run Hasselblad Natural Noise Reduction before touching anything else. HNNR operates on the RAW data using the Neural Engine and produces a new RAW-and-sidecar pair; adjustments made to the original file before denoising may not carry across, so denoising first avoids redoing work. A denoised file also frequently shows richer color than the original, which changes every tonal decision that follows. Lower-ISO landscape work skips this step entirely.

White balance second. White balance in Phocus is not a simple slider. It selects which illuminant matrix and chroma LUT the HNCS pipeline uses, then reruns the render from sensor data, which is why the same Kelvin number set later in Lightroom produces different color relationships. I covered the mechanism in How HNCS Actually Works. My own habit makes this step quick: I shoot a fixed Daylight white balance (5000K) rather than auto, so the illuminant selection stays stable across the entire shoot and most files need no adjustment at all.

Highlight recovery and shadow fill third. These two are on the Phocus side of the boundary because they reconstruct from RAW channel data that no longer exists once the file is a TIFF. Clipped skies come back in Phocus in a way Lightroom cannot replicate from the exported file. Shadow fill lifts the low end while preserving the HNCS color rendering, and it behaves differently from the equivalent sliders downstream: Phocus raises the lower midtones and shadows as a broad band while leaving deep blacks alone, where Lightroom and Capture One dig more aggressively into the values approaching black. I compared the tools side by side in the highlight recovery and shadow fill post.

Have you seen the guide? I've published Essential Phocus 4.x for Mac - 85 topics across 8 sections and 246 pages covering everything from HNCS color science to HDR workflows. It's the reference manual Hasselblad hasn't updated since 3.8. It's $49, and updates are included.

Get it here

Lens corrections fourth, though this one mostly takes care of itself: corrections are on by default in Phocus. Hasselblad holds the distance-aware optical correction data for its own lenses, so geometry and vignetting belong here, where the original data lives. The step is confirming the defaults are in place, not doing work.

The HDR detour, when an image earns it. I do not shoot much HDR, but sometimes an image begs for it. When one does, I enable HDR in the Exposure tool while still in Phocus, so the exported file carries the HDR render rather than the SDR one. Two things matter once that checkbox is on. Highlight recovery is set separately per mode: Phocus keeps independent recovery values for HDR and SDR, with a ghost marker on the slider showing where the other mode sits, so set recovery specifically for the HDR render rather than assuming your SDR value carries over. The mechanics, ghost markers included, are in the Phocus 4.x HDR workflow post.

The second is the one exception I make to my own no-levels rule. Before touching the recovery slider, I use the Phocus Histogram tool to set the white point start, and rarely the black point. As much as I prefer keeping levels out of Phocus, my experience is that if those start points are not set here, no amount of work in Lightroom or Capture One gets the HDR file right afterward. The histogram adjustment feeds the SDR render too, so flick back to SDR occasionally and confirm nothing has blown out; plenty of viewers are on standard displays, and the SDR version is what they get.

Then stop. That is the entire Phocus pass. Everything else is deliberately left alone.

Where Phocus ends and Lightroom begins

The split follows one mechanical fact: every adjustment baked into the TIFF becomes the floor the next app builds on, whether it was a good decision or not.

Apply in Phocus
Defer to Lightroom Classic

HNNR noise reduction
Global exposure

White balance
Curves and levels

Highlight recovery
Saturation and color grading

Shadow fill
Crop and geometry cleanup

Lens corrections
Local adjustments and masking

HDR enable, per-mode recovery, Histogram start points (HDR images only)
HDR fine-tuning on the exported file

The one that surprises people is exposure. In my experience, a global exposure shift baked into the TIFF is exactly the kind of adjustment that fights the finishing app afterward: small slider moves downstream produce outsized, erratic tonal swings because the second application is remapping an already-remapped signal. Highlight and shadow reconstruction must happen in Phocus because they need RAW data. Exposure does not. It works cleanly on the 16-bit TIFF, so it belongs in Lightroom, where it stays revisable forever.

Cropping follows the same logic for a different reason. A crop in Phocus is locked into the export; change your mind and you are re-exporting. A crop in Lightroom is a checkbox away from being undone.

Stage 3: Export with the built-in TIFF-16 preset

The export step generates more confused reader mail than any other part of Phocus, and the current answer is short. In Phocus 4.2: File > Export, confirm the TIFF-16 Output Preset is selected, leave its defaults alone, set your destination, and export at Full Size. That is the entire procedure. The built-in preset handles format, bit depth, and color profile correctly for a Lightroom handoff; there is no need to open the preset editor, click the "+" button, or hand-pick a profile.

Figure 2: The built-in TIFF-16 preset in the Output Presets editor. You never need to open this dialog; it is shown here so you can see the preset's defaults are already what a Lightroom handoff wants.

Full Size matters because resolution given away at export is gone. And this workflow as described is for standard SDR output; HDR is a different pipeline with different export formats, which I covered in the complete guide to HNCS HDR in Phocus.

A 16-bit TIFF is generous, but it is not RAW. It carries less recovery headroom than the 3FR it came from, which is one more reason the Phocus pass exports clean instead of pushing tones hard and hoping Lightroom can pull them back.

Stage 4: Finish in Lightroom Classic

The TIFFs import into Lightroom Classic carrying HNCS rendering, and HNNR where it was applied, baked in. From here the work is ordinary Lightroom, with an occasional handoff to Photoshop for complex stacking work: global exposure, curves, color grading, cropping, masking, and object removal, all non-destructive on a clean file.

Why Lightroom Classic rather than Capture One for the finishing seat? For my landscape work specifically, Lightroom's masking and object removal are far ahead, and that outweighed ten years of Capture One habit when I switched in mid-2026. If your finishing app is Capture One, the workflow is identical up to the import; the Phocus guide covers that variant of the handoff in detail. The boundary rule does not change either way: RAW-dependent moves in Phocus, everything revisable in the finishing app.

What does this workflow cost?

Disk space, re-export friction, and backup diligence. Palomino exports keeper copies rather than moving originals, and the 16-bit TIFFs are large files sitting alongside your 3FRs, so a big shoot exists on disk three times by the end. A baked decision, meanwhile, is a re-export away from being changed. If I later want a different white balance or a deeper highlight recovery, I go back to Phocus and export again. In practice the disciplined, minimal Phocus pass makes that rare, which is rather the point of keeping it minimal.

The backup cost is the one nobody warns you about. Any workflow with a separate finishing app leaves you holding a RAW and its sidecar (two RAWs if HNNR ran, since it writes a new RAW-and-sidecar pair), plus a master TIFF that is the base for every finishing edit. All of it needs backing up, and losing the master TIFF means redoing the Phocus pass from the RAW. My own approach: storage is relatively cheap, so everything lands on the NAS, which pushes to Backblaze B2. The bigger pain point than storage is network speed. I have deliberately upgraded the network segments the backup pipeline crosses most, because the problem is less about holding the bits than getting them to the storage.

What I get back is a cull that takes minutes instead of an evening, Hasselblad's color science in every delivered file, and a Lightroom catalog where every remaining decision is still open. If you want the Phocus stage in full step-by-step depth, every dialog and setting in this post is documented in my Phocus 4.x guide.

References

1. Palomino on the Mac App Store
2. Palomino for Hasselblad shooters
3. Hasselblad, "Hasselblad Natural Colour Solution", the official description of HNCS render-time color processing.

My end-to-end Hasselblad workflow: cull in Palomino, HNCS and recovery in Phocus, 16-bit TIFF export, finishing in Lightroom Classic.

Search for the X2D 100C's RAW bit depth or its continuous shooting buffer and Google mostly hands you an article about a...
07/18/2026

Search for the X2D 100C's RAW bit depth or its continuous shooting buffer and Google mostly hands you an article about a different camera. The Hasselblad X2D II shares a sensor lineage with the original X2D 100C, but the two bodies handle continuous shooting differently enough that specs for one don't transfer to the other.

This post is about the original X2D 100C, the 2022 camera that brought Hasselblad's 100-megapixel BSI sensor to the X System and introduced the company's first in-body stabilization. If you shoot the newer X2D II, its continuous-mode bit depth behavior works differently, and I've covered that separately.¹

💡A note on support: This post represents my personal exploration and testing, not official technical support or guidance from Hasselblad. If you need assistance with your Hasselblad equipment, please contact Hasselblad directly: [email protected] for global support, [email protected] for the Americas, or visit hasselblad.com/support for regional options.

Key finding: Hasselblad's datasheet lists the X2D 100C's continuous rate as 3.3 fps in 14-bit. Unlike the X2D II, its FAQ and product page describe 16-bit as available in Continuous Drive Mode too, just not at that peak rate. Hasselblad publishes no buffer-depth figure in frames.

The X2D 100C's RAW Bit Depth: 16-Bit, Up to 15 Stops of Dynamic Range

The X2D 100C's baseline RAW capture is 16-bit. Hasselblad's official datasheet lists the camera's "Colour Definition" as "16-bit; dynamic range up to 15 stops."² The sensor is a 100-megapixel back-side illuminated (BSI) CMOS unit, 43.8 x 32.9mm, producing 11656 x 8742-pixel files at a 3.76-micron pixel pitch.²

Sixteen-bit color depth gives you 65,536 tonal levels per channel, versus 16,384 for 14-bit. Hasselblad's own FAQ frames the comparison directly: "16-bit colour depth can deliver 281 trillion colours, 64 times higher than 14-bit."³ That's the marketing framing. Whether the extra two bits are visible in a finished image is a separate question, one I've addressed at length for the X2D II's sensor generation, and the physics argument (sensor noise floor exceeds what 14-bit versus 16-bit quantization can resolve) applies here too.¹

What the Datasheet Says About Continuous Shooting: 3.3 fps at 14-Bit

Hasselblad's official X2D 100C datasheet lists a single line for burst performance: "Capture Rate: 3.3fps in a 14-bit colour depth."² That's the number you'll see repeated across spec aggregators and comparison charts, and it's accurate as far as it goes. Hasselblad ties its rated peak continuous shooting speed to 14-bit capture specifically.

What the datasheet doesn't say is whether 14-bit is mandatory in Continuous Drive Mode, or just the setting that gets you the fastest number on the spec sheet. For that, you have to read the FAQ and the product page, and they tell a different story than you might expect from the X2D II.

Does Continuous Drive Mode Force 14-Bit on the X2D 100C?

No. Unlike the X2D II, where selecting Continuous drive mode grays out the 16-bit option entirely,¹ the X2D 100C treats bit depth as a setting you choose, not one the camera forces on you when you switch drive modes.

Hasselblad's X2D 100C FAQ answers the question "When should I use 14-bit and 16-bit colour depth?" directly: "Choose 14-bit colour depth to keep outstanding colour while increasing the continuous shooting rate. Use 16-bit to increase the number of tonal nuances in colour for natural transitions."³ That phrasing treats 14-bit and 16-bit as a live tradeoff you make, available regardless of drive mode, not a setting that vanishes the moment you pick Continuous.

The product page is more explicit still. Describing the camera's built-in SSD, Hasselblad writes: "Thanks to its high-speed storage performance, the X2D 100C is able to continuously shoot 16-bit RAW images in Continuous Drive Mode, providing a stable and reliable continuous shooting experience."⁴ That sentence reads as an implicit comparison to older or slower medium format bodies that couldn't sustain full bit depth during a burst, framed as a selling point built around the internal SSD's write speed.

Here's how I read the three sources together, and this reconciliation is my inference, not a direct Hasselblad statement: the 3.3 fps figure in the datasheet is the ceiling you get specifically at 14-bit. Choosing 16-bit in Continuous mode is possible on the X2D 100C, but Hasselblad doesn't publish what frame rate you get when you do. Given that reading and writing more data per frame takes longer regardless of camera, it's reasonable to assume 16-bit continuous shooting comes in below 3.3 fps, but I have not tested this myself and Hasselblad has not published a number for it. Treat the sub-3.3-fps assumption as informed speculation, not a spec.

If you own an X2D 100C and have measured your actual continuous shooting rate at 16-bit, I'd like to hear about it.

Have you seen the guide? I've published Essential Phocus 4.x for Mac - 85 topics across 8 sections and 246 pages covering everything from HNCS color science to HDR workflows. It's the reference manual Hasselblad hasn't updated since 3.8. It's $49, and updates are included.

Get it here

What Is the X2D 100C's Continuous Shooting Buffer Depth?

Hasselblad doesn't publish one. I checked the official datasheet, the FAQ, and the product page for a buffer depth figure, meaning how many consecutive RAW frames the X2D 100C can capture before the frame rate drops. None of the three states one.²ˎ³ˎ⁴

What Hasselblad does publish is the infrastructure behind the buffer. The X2D 100C's built-in 1TB SSD writes at up to 2,370MB/s and reads at up to 2,850MB/s.² That's the number Hasselblad points to when explaining why the camera can sustain continuous shooting at all: fast enough internal storage that the buffer clears quickly rather than filling up and stalling the camera. But sustained write speed and buffer depth in frames are two different specs, and only one of them is on the datasheet.

If precise buffer depth matters for your shooting (sports, wildlife, anything requiring long bursts), Hasselblad's own materials won't tell you the number. You'd need to test it yourself with a stopwatch and a memory card, which I have not done, since I don't own this camera.

RAW File Size and Storage

A single X2D 100C RAW capture (Hasselblad's proprietary 3FR format) averages 206MB, according to the datasheet's "Image Size" field.² At that file size, a 1TB SSD holds roughly 4,600 RAW-only images before it fills, a figure Hasselblad states directly in the FAQ.³ The camera pairs the built-in SSD with a CFexpress Type B card slot supporting up to 512GB of additional storage.²

None of this changes based on whether you're shooting 14-bit or 16-bit. Like most RAW containers, the X2D 100C's 3FR format appears to reserve the same storage footprint regardless of actual bit depth captured, based on the pattern Hasselblad documents for the X2D II's identical file container.¹ Hasselblad's X2D 100C materials don't state this explicitly, so treat it as a reasonable inference from the sibling camera's documented behavior, not a confirmed X2D 100C spec.

X2D 100C vs. X2D II: Two Different Answers to the Same Question

If you've read both this post and the X2D II continuous-mode piece, the difference in the two cameras' approach to continuous-mode bit depth was the actual finding.¹ Hasselblad tightened the X2D II's behavior: Continuous drive mode simply removes the 16-bit option, no exceptions, and the camera settles on a rated continuous rate around 3 fps that Hasselblad explicitly frames as measured in AF-C.

The X2D 100C predates that constraint. Its 3.3 fps rating is tied to 14-bit, but 16-bit stays selectable in Continuous mode according to Hasselblad's own FAQ and product copy, likely at a slower, unpublished rate. The 100C also lacks AF-C entirely (autofocus is AF-S only, with up to 294 PDAF zones, versus the X2D II's 425-zone PDAF and AF-C support), so "continuous shooting" on the 100C never has to account for continuous autofocus tracking the way the X2D II's rated 3 fps does.⁵

If you're weighing whether to buy the X2D 100C or upgrade to the X2D II, the bit-depth-in-burst behavior covered here is one piece of a larger picture that includes price, autofocus, and stabilization differences. I've covered that comparison separately.⁶

Bottom Line

The X2D 100C's baseline RAW capture is 16-bit, up to 15 stops of dynamic range, per Hasselblad's own datasheet. Its rated continuous shooting speed, 3.3 fps, is specifically a 14-bit figure. Unlike the X2D II, the 100C doesn't appear to force 14-bit the moment you switch to Continuous drive mode: Hasselblad's FAQ and product page both describe 16-bit as available in that mode, just not confirmed at the 3.3 fps peak.

Buffer depth in frames isn't published anywhere in Hasselblad's official materials for this camera. The closest documented figure is the built-in SSD's sustained write speed (up to 2,370MB/s), which explains why the camera can sustain bursts at all, but doesn't tell you how many frames you get before the rate drops.

References

1. Hasselblad X2D II: Why Your RAW Files Drop to 14-Bit in Continuous Mode (And When It Matters), Tech Behind the Frame: covers the X2D II's continuous-mode bit depth behavior, which differs from the X2D 100C's as described in this post.
2. X2D 100C Datasheet (PDF), Hasselblad: "Colour Definition: 16-bit; dynamic range up to 15 stops." "Capture Rate: 3.3fps in a 14-bit colour depth." "Image Size: Stills: 3FR RAW: capture 206MB on average." Storage write speed up to 2,370MB/s, read speed up to 2,850MB/s.
3. X2D 100C - FAQ, Hasselblad: "Choose 14-bit colour depth to keep outstanding colour while increasing the continuous shooting rate. Use 16-bit to increase the number of tonal nuances in colour for natural transitions. 16-bit colour depth can deliver 281 trillion colours, 64 times higher than 14-bit." Also: "the X2D 100C can store approximately 4,600 photos" shooting RAW only on the built-in 1TB SSD.
4. X2D 100C product page, Hasselblad: "Thanks to its high-speed storage performance, the X2D 100C is able to continuously shoot 16-bit RAW images in Continuous Drive Mode, providing a stable and reliable continuous shooting experience."
5. Hasselblad X System Reference (internal vault note, cross-checked against the official X2D 100C and X2D II 100C datasheets): AF-C availability, PDAF zone counts, and IBIS stop ratings for both cameras.
6. Hasselblad X2D II vs X2D 100C: Is the Upgrade Worth It?, Tech Behind the Frame.

X2D 100C continuous shooting explained: 3.3fps at 14-bit, 16-bit behavior in Continuous mode, and the buffer spec Hasselblad doesn't publish.

Address

San Acacia, NM

Website

, ,

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Tonal Photo posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Tonal Photo:

Shortcuts

Share

Category