Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

 

 

So, rather than focusing on the price, it is the quality of the file that makes the real difference and if you disagree, get a demo of a MF and you will notice right away. 

 

And the quality of the print depends on many variables beyond the file itself....throughout the overall workflow.  

 

And some people care about other things, too...  size, weight, ergonomics, viewfinder type and quality, weather sealing, lens line, aspect ratio, reliability, service, and on and on....

 

For instance, if someone needed/wanted live view, the S006 would be eliminated from the start.

 

Again, many different perspectives and evaluation criteria.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

.............

So, rather than focusing on the price, it is the quality of the file that makes the real difference and if you disagree, get a demo of a MF and you will notice right away. 

 

 

You've rather missed the point here.

 

In the post to which I was responding,  were being asked to compare the X1D with the S 007 specifically, rather than the SL. You can compare any two or more cameras, but when you are asked to compare two at quite different prices, then price becomes a factor for most people. Along with many other things, as Jeff points out in the preceding post.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[steppenw0lf]

As an SL user, I find the idea to buy a very limited camera for a big sum simply ridiculous. (X1D limited and expensive) 

As an MF user I have already an MF system and regard the SL as ridiculous, so I will not post in this thread. I have an MF system with a lot of features and lenses and wait until the X1D adds more flesh to the bone.  

 

So who writes here that he finds the X1D much much better than the SL ?

Maybe someone who has neither SL nor MF ? (Probably a Sony user who wants to give us fire ...)      

 

Good night !

Edited August 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[R3D-D0T]

"As an SL user, I find the idea to buy a very limited camera for a big sum simply ridiculous. (X1D limited and expensive)   :)"

 

Oh, the irony...

[steppenw0lf]

Is this your coming out ?

 

And for you again (who is still not understanding the causative principle): Price discussion please with the seller who makes the price and not with the buyer.

Edited August 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

As an SL user, I find the idea to buy a very limited camera for a big sum simply ridiculous. (X1D limited and expensive)  

As an MF user I have already an MF system and regard the SL as ridiculous, so I will not post in this thread.  ... 

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you aren't going to post in this thread, why did you post in this thread? 

 

Speaking of very limited, very expensive cameras, I also guess you've never heard of the Hasselblad SWC and would not consider buying one if you had. That's your loss: it produces superb and unique photos in the hands of a photographer who knows what to do with it... 

 

A large sensor camera with a slightly wide and slightly long lens doesn't pass for "limited" in my book, and by the standards of other medium format digital cameras, it's almost inexpensive. 

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As an SL user, I find the idea to buy a very limited camera for a big sum simply ridiculous. (X1D limited and expensive) 

As an MF user I have already an MF system and regard the SL as ridiculous, so I will not post in this thread. I have an MF system with a lot of features and lenses and wait until the X1D adds more flesh to the bone.  

 

So who writes here that he finds the X1D much much better than the SL ?

Maybe someone who has neither SL nor MF ? (Probably a Sony user who wants to give us fire ...)      

 

Good night !

 

 

Good morning!

 

I'm not sure I understand your point (as an SL user or as an SWC user).

 

Why is the X1D a "very limited camera"?  Do you mean it doesn't have many lenses?  I can't think of a single camera manufacturer which has released a new camera with a new mount and a complete suit of lenses.  If that's what you mean.  Otherwise, I'm sorry I really don't understand your point.

 

Expensive?  Well, $9,000 is a lot of money.  Do you care to give the prices of other cameras based on this sensor?  The cheapest Hasselblad H5D-50c is $14,500 and the H6D version is $26,000, and the PhaseOne versions a stratospheric leap ahead of that.  I don't really know what other cameras use this sensor, but I'd be very interested to know if they're cheaper.  I could buy a CFV-50c for $9,000 for my SWC, but I would be stuck with the 38mm focal length.  So, yes, $9,000 is a lot of money, but "expensive" isn't actually a word I would use for this camera.

 

The lenses at $2,300 and $2,700 look pretty reasonable compared to Leica SL and M lenses ...

 

As a MF user (albeit an SWC), I don't find the SL ridiculous at all.  Why is it ridiculous?  It is the first (and best so far) 35mm mirrorless full frame interchangeable lens camera (I'm not counting the Sonys).

 

Perhaps this was irony?  We had irony round here once - it didn't really fly well.

 

PS - sorry, forgot about the Pentax 645Z.  It costs $7,000 and has lots of lenses, ranging from over $4,000 to $600 (but only 2 of them D FA lenses, which are AF with weather sealing etc - the 90 mm and 55 mm).  The reviews of some of those lenses are ... less than compelling.

Edited August 29, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Joshua Lowe]

Is the X1D getting into customer hands?  I'm dying to try one out.

[Peter H]

Is the X1D getting into customer hands? I'm dying to try one out.

Hasselblad are running a series of demo days at selected dealers for people to use the camera in both studio and outdoors, but I don't think any date has been set for first deliveries yet. You should talk to your dealer.

[ramarren]

Hasselblad are running a series of demo days at selected dealers for people to use the camera in both studio and outdoors, but I don't think any date has been set for first deliveries yet. You should talk to your dealer.

 

 

My understanding deliveries should be starting in about three weeks or so. 

[EoinC]

" Quote : Price is a relevant consideration for most people and in this respect the X1D is closer to the SL than the S. Your question probably fits better when comparing the S 007 with the other Hasselblad cameras. "

 

 

The time they were playing in a different price league seem to be over.

 

SL+24-90 = 12,000 dollars

New S-E (006) = 10,000 dollars

 

Mint 006 + 45 mm = less 10,000 dollars

X1D + 45mm = 11,300 dollars

 

So, rather than focusing on the price, it is the quality of the file that makes the real difference and if you disagree, get a demo of a MF and you will notice right away. 

Sorry, Georges - You specifically stated that the question is to compare SL w/ 24-90 to S007 w/ 45 + 100.

Looking at current B&H pricing:

SL = USD $7,450

Vario-Elmarit 24-90 = USD $4,599

Total = USD $12,049

 

S007 = USD $16,900

Elmarit-S 45mm = USD $6,495 (reduced from $7,795)

Elmarit-S 100mm = USD $7,795

Total = USD $31,190

 

Delta = USD $19,141, meaning that the person asking the question could buy 2 sets of SL w/ 24-90 and have $7k left over to go out for dinner.

 

In other words, the question you answered was not the question you asked. Price is not the only consideration (as noted in nearly every equipment thread on this forum) but, it is a consideration.

 

In my case, the X1D and the CFV-50c are interesting. The SL is nice, but fills a gap I don't have. The S does not float my boat, in part because of pricing and its competition in that price range, and partly from a very subjective and silly standpoint of not wanting to reward Leica financially for its approach to dealing with the AF failures occurring in some S lenses. Great lenses, and hopefully a resolvable problem, but the Company's response (or lack thereof) is not sufficiently confidence-inspiring to attract my investment.

Edited August 31, 2016 by EoinC

[Guest satrycon]

more sensor delays i guess > https://www.rt.com/news/357748-earth...apan-kumamoto/

My understanding deliveries should be starting in about three weeks or so. 

[Guest]

I am extremely interested in this X1D, but I have to agree the photos shown on the X1D site are dreary almost boring. By contrast https://www.flickr.com/photos/mingthein/albums/72157670009490992

 

Ming Thein has some wonderful photos on his site using the X1D - any of these images are far superior to the example photos on the X1D website.

I had a look at the photos shown on their site (for X1D). They are rather uninspiring for me. 

[thighslapper]

Despite the last 260 posts it will all depend on that critical first half a hour of playing with the actual camera itself. 

 

You will either love it, scratch your head and wonder, or hate it. No doubt I will go and play with it like all the other Photophiles. 

 

The only good camera is the one you always reach for when you leave the house ..... and all the rest might as well go on eBay ........ which is exactly what I have done in the last 2 weeks.

 

A very cathartic exercise and to be heartily recommended to any GAS sufferers. Rather worryingly the proceeds will easily buy a Hassy system ........ 

 

Irrespective of whether it has 100mpx, goes to iso 1,000,000 and comes with a 14-500mm zoom lens, if it is a dog to use it is worthless...... and of course a photo not taken is a potential masterpiece lost .....

Edited September 1, 2016 by thighslapper

[David Dennis]

As a MF user (albeit an SWC), I don't find the SL ridiculous at all.  Why is it ridiculous?  It is the first (and best so far) 35mm mirrorless full frame interchangeable lens camera (I'm not counting the Sonys).

 

 

 

You know, I would count a camera ridiculous if the people who bought it got awful shots out of it, or if they hated its ergonomics, or something like that.  But the admittedly self-sampled set of people who actually bought the SL seem to love it to pieces and get wonderful results from it.

 

I have to admit, though, that I'm curious about the Sonys.  No reviewers seem to like them.  They say, well, the ergonomics and design is mediocre, the camera is sluggish, but they can't quite not recommend it because it's possible to get wonderful results with them in the right hands.  This seems to be a decent summary of what both Thom Hogan and Ming Thien say.

 

A Sony A7R II outfit with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens is $3,300 for the camera and $2,100 for the lens, so roughly $5,400.

 

The comparable SL outfit with the 24-90 f/2.8-4 is $7,500 for the camera and $4,950 for the lens, so roughly $12,450.

 

Sony's defenders seem to focus entirely on that price difference, which is understandable since it's enormous.  I have checked out the Sonys at the store, and there's something intangible about them that makes me find them not particularly likable.  By contrast when I saw the SL in the Leica store I was quite impressed by it.  The interesting bottom line is that I'm not sure why I didn't like the Sonys better.  On paper they are very similar to the SL.  I wanted to go back and see the Sonys again, but Best Buy no longer carries them.  Not sure if that's because a new model is coming or because they just don't see much in the way of sales.  (I don't want to bother the staff of a real camera store since I doubt that I'll ever be seriously interested in the Sonys).

 

So I'm curious, since Sonys are actual full frame cameras capable of taking pictures, why do you not consider them to exist?

[Guest]

Despite the last 260 posts it will all depend on that critical first half a hour of playing with the actual camera itself. 

 

You will either love it, scratch your head and wonder, or hate it. No doubt I will go and play with it like all the other Photophiles. 

 

The only good camera is the one you always reach for when you leave the house ..... and all the rest might as well go on eBay ........ which is exactly what I have done in the last 2 weeks.

 

A very cathartic exercise and to be heartily recommended to any GAS sufferers. Rather worryingly the proceeds will easily buy a Hassy system ........ 

 

Irrespective of whether it has 100mpx, goes to iso 1,000,000 and comes with a 14-500mm zoom lens, if it is a dog to use it is worthless...... and of course a photo not taken is a potential masterpiece lost .....

 

Agree completely ...

 

I am very early on the buy list but with the delay am considering a Canon C500 .... will live with my Q and pursue video at 4K raw ....

 

Or a Leica M-D 

 

 

Yes I am a bit conflicted but seems I am in good company.

 

Bob

[Guest]

You know, I would count a camera ridiculous if the people who bought it got awful shots out of it, or if they hated its ergonomics, or something like that.  But the admittedly self-sampled set of people who actually bought the SL seem to love it to pieces and get wonderful results from it.

 

I have to admit, though, that I'm curious about the Sonys.  No reviewers seem to like them.  They say, well, the ergonomics and design is mediocre, the camera is sluggish, but they can't quite not recommend it because it's possible to get wonderful results with them in the right hands.  This seems to be a decent summary of what both Thom Hogan and Ming Thien say.

 

A Sony A7R II outfit with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens is $3,300 for the camera and $2,100 for the lens, so roughly $5,400.

 

The comparable SL outfit with the 24-90 f/2.8-4 is $7,500 for the camera and $4,950 for the lens, so roughly $12,450.

 

Sony's defenders seem to focus entirely on that price difference, which is understandable since it's enormous.  I have checked out the Sonys at the store, and there's something intangible about them that makes me find them not particularly likable.  By contrast when I saw the SL in the Leica store I was quite impressed by it.  The interesting bottom line is that I'm not sure why I didn't like the Sonys better.  On paper they are very similar to the SL.  I wanted to go back and see the Sonys again, but Best Buy no longer carries them.  Not sure if that's because a new model is coming or because they just don't see much in the way of sales.  (I don't want to bother the staff of a real camera store since I doubt that I'll ever be seriously interested in the Sonys).

 

So I'm curious, since Sonys are actual full frame cameras capable of taking pictures, why do you not consider them to exist?

 

Of course the Sonys are extant ... but with their convoluted menus and marginal color science they will make your post process work very difficult. 

 

I was shooting 4K with the A7s in S Log and the weird twist of color space was unimaginable ... no correction possible. Stills a bit better but

not a patch on the newer Leica imaging.

 

They are somewhat comparable to the throw away cameras of the film era ... not very robust but have a lot of menu selections that do not 

improve the basic capture ... 

 

And a lot of photographers have shown wonderful pictures from the cameras.

 

More a sense of gestalt ... what defines your perspective on life and reality .... computer video game or a camera that is based on historical 

conventions for photography.

 

Sony's strength is sensors not haptics.

 

However whatever you choose ... ride it like you stole it.

 

Bob

Edited September 1, 2016 by docmoore

[lct]

Of course the Sonys are extant ... but with their convoluted menus and marginal color science they will make your post process work very difficult. [...]

 

I could not disagree more sorry. As far as my A7s mod is concerned, PP is very easy with C1, more so than with M240 files i must say. The latter's auto WB is mediocre compared to the Sony's and the latter does not suffer from over red saturation contrary to the M. Not a big deal to process both but criticizing Sony on this ground is not fair to me. 

[lct]

[...] They are somewhat comparable to the throw away cameras of the film era ... not very robust but have a lot of menu selections that do not 

improve the basic capture ... [...]

 

Not sure what experience you have with Sony cameras but my Sony A7s mod looks as robust as my Ms. Its menus are messy indeed but several buttons are programmable contrary to the M or the SL so that i find it a superior camera as far as ergonomics are concerned at least. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by lct

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Guest]

I could not disagree more sorry. As far as my A7s mod is concerned, PP is very easy with C1, more so than with M240 files i must say. The latter's auto WB is mediocre compared to the Sony's and the latter does not suffer from over red saturation contrary to the M. Not a big deal to process both but criticizing Sony on this ground is not fair to me. 

 

 

Not a comment on Leica's poor WB with the M240 or its exaggerated saturation ... more a reflection of the poor video implementation of the A7s.

 

In fact my 2015 Christmas card was a still from the A7s ... lots of pp for WB but otherwise a stellar capture.

 

Truth is the Sony Cine Alta division has unbelievable color science and build quality ... just need to see that in their 

consumer line.....

 

Bob