Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I alluded to this in some post here way long ago. Ultra-wide square format is an obsession of mine, and how I use the SL quite a bit at present with both Super-Elmar-R 15mm and Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm (set to 16mm).

 

An X1D with a similar high-quality 20-22mm lens would net a similar field of view with a 6200x6200 pixel image, more than double the size of the SL's output. For me it would be the digital SWC I've hoped for since 2002. The additional resolution would make it even closer to the SWC than the SL with my lenses, which is already a delight. When that 20-22mm-ish lens appears, it will be very hard to keep myself from punching the buy button. 

 

It was your interesting and very pleasing square photos that prompted me to link my post to you in the first place..

 

Out of interest, would the HDC 24mm, which I think would be around 18mm equivalent in 35mm terms on the X1D, be any good for your purposes, or not wide enough? It's not cheap either, of course.

 

Hasselblad have suggested a wide angle lens will be introduced at Photokina. Get your wallet warmed up just in case...

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

 

Hasselblad have suggested a wide angle lens will be introduced at Photokina. Get your wallet warmed up just in case...

 

If you mean for the X1D, not only suggested....it will be 30mm (24-ish equivalent).

 

Interestingly, the X1D will initially have the same lenses (FL) from the well liked Xpan.....30, 45, 90.

 

Jeff

Edited July 5, 2016 by Jeff S

[Peter H]

If you mean for the X1D, not only suggested....it will be 30mm (24-ish equivalent).

 

Interestingly, the X1D will initially have the same lenses (FL) from the well liked Xpan.....30, 45, 90.

 

Jeff

 

 

Thanks Jeff, I didn't know this had been confirmed.

[Jeff S]

Thanks Jeff, I didn't know this had been confirmed.

 

Interview with Hasselblad CEO, that I linked in post #106....and reported elsewhere.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

It was your interesting and very pleasing square photos that prompted me to link my post to you in the first place..

 

Out of interest, would the HDC 24mm, which I think would be around 18mm equivalent in 35mm terms on the X1D, be any good for your purposes, or not wide enough? It's not cheap either, of course.

 

Hasselblad have suggested a wide angle lens will be introduced at Photokina. Get your wallet warmed up just in case...

 

 

Thank you for the compliment! 

 

As you can see from this table ...

 

F     Haov   Daov

--    ----   ----

20    79.0   98.8

21    76.3   96.0

22    73.7   93.3

38    72.7   92.4 SWC

23    71.3   90.8

24    69.0   88.3

 

... a 24mm lens on the X1D, cropped square, is a little long compared to the SWC horizontal/vertical AoV. It's in the ballpark, but I'd rather go a little wider than a little longer. With so much resolution to play with, a little wider means a bit more room for framing and cropping. Aside from its cost (almost as much as the X1D body itself), the other downside of the HDC 24mm is that with the adapter tube it's going to be quite large on the X1D body, which cuts down on the handy quality of the camera system. 

 

I'll probably see what comes along over the next year or two ... There's no reason to be rushed. I understand the wide angle H is introducing at Photokina is a 30mm: 30, 45, and 90 mm makes a very useful kit overall for this body. It's not exactly what I want, because I have other cameras for that range of views and uses, but it can't be denied that this is a good setup.   

[fsprow]

Not sure this will add much but had a very brief (20 minutes or so) chance to try out the X1D with the 45mm lens. I am a Hasselblad film fan and have a SWC. Also an M240 and M4 with numerous lenses. I  had an SL briefly but found it could not substitute for an SLR, particularly for sports. Also found the lenses pretty heavy for their maximum aperture.

 

Quick observations:

 

-  Very nice feel in the hands.  I would say better than the SL with a 35mm M lens.

-  Nice controls.

-  Using some running kids in the Stockholm street, the follow focus is not as good as the SL and way inferior to a Nikon or Canon current SLR.

-  Images on computer screen looked quite excellent but I could not keep the card for further study.

-  I will very likely purchase one and slowly move away from the M, depending on further experience, staying with an SLR for sports and long tele use.

 

 

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure this will add much but had a very brief (20 minutes or so) chance to try out the X1D with the 45mm lens. I am a Hasselblad film fan and have a SWC. Also an M240 and M4 with numerous lenses. I  had an SL briefly but found it could not substitute for an SLR, particularly for sports. Also found the lenses pretty heavy for their maximum aperture.

 

Quick observations:

 

-  Very nice feel in the hands.  I would say better than the SL with a 35mm M lens.

-  Nice controls.

-  Using some running kids in the Stockholm street, the follow focus is not as good as the SL and way inferior to a Nikon or Canon current SLR.

-  Images on computer screen looked quite excellent but I could not keep the card for further study.

-  I will very likely purchase one and slowly move away from the M, depending on further experience, staying with an SLR for sports and long tele use.

Thanks for the review.  I have the X1D on order.  Am a little surprised anyone is comparing it to the SL?  Seems to me should be comparing to the S.  I don't see it as replacing my M, a 246, or my Q.  The M will continue to be unique with my M glass so will always have an M.

[Steve Spencer]

 

Thank you for the compliment! 

 

As you can see from this table ...

 

F     Haov   Daov

--    ----   ----

20    79.0   98.8

21    76.3   96.0

22    73.7   93.3

38    72.7   92.4 SWC

23    71.3   90.8

24    69.0   88.3

 

... a 24mm lens on the X1D, cropped square, is a little long compared to the SWC horizontal/vertical AoV. It's in the ballpark, but I'd rather go a little wider than a little longer. With so much resolution to play with, a little wider means a bit more room for framing and cropping. Aside from its cost (almost as much as the X1D body itself), the other downside of the HDC 24mm is that with the adapter tube it's going to be quite large on the X1D body, which cuts down on the handy quality of the camera system. 

 

I'll probably see what comes along over the next year or two ... There's no reason to be rushed. I understand the wide angle H is introducing at Photokina is a 30mm: 30, 45, and 90 mm makes a very useful kit overall for this body. It's not exactly what I want, because I have other cameras for that range of views and uses, but it can't be denied that this is a good setup.   

 

 

I could see a 20mm and a 25mm someplace in the roadmap someday. Perhaps they will make those lenses and with a mirrorless camera it is a lot easier to make wide angle lenses smaller. This camera with a 500-600g 20mm lens ought to work really well for your square format shooting.

[steppenw0lf]

Larger sensors generally have better dynamic range and colour than smaller sensor because they have a larger surface area to gather light. This means that at the same light intensity they have more signal (i.e., light) to convert into digital information. This generally allows the larger sensor to have better dynamic range and colour.

 

This is too general and stands on no sound foundation.

Compare the 24M from a 24x36 sensor of the M or SL vs the 50M from the 33x44 sensor area. 

And guess which has the larger area per picture element ?    Yes, exactly the SL or M.

So the trick with the area is simply wrong. Another clever theory, maybe ?

 

Additionally the Leicas offer Summiluxes, while the X1D has only comparatively slow lenses, that diminishes the light again by a factor of 4 to 8.

 

So to the scientifc eye this theory is simply extremely badly founded. 

[Jeff S]

Not sure this will add much but had a very brief (20 minutes or so) chance to try out the X1D with the 45mm lens. I am a Hasselblad film fan and have a SWC. Also an M240 and M4 with numerous lenses. I  had an SL briefly but found it could not substitute for an SLR, particularly for sports. Also found the lenses pretty heavy for their maximum aperture.

 

Quick observations:

 

-  Very nice feel in the hands.  I would say better than the SL with a 35mm M lens.

-  Nice controls.

-  Using some running kids in the Stockholm street, the follow focus is not as good as the SL and way inferior to a Nikon or Canon current SLR.

-  Images on computer screen looked quite excellent but I could not keep the card for further study.

-  I will very likely purchase one and slowly move away from the M, depending on further experience, staying with an SLR for sports and long tele use.

 

Omits my first priority, the EVF (in general, not follow focus).  How did it compare, say, to the SL?  I may go a demo on Thursday.

 

Jeff

Edited July 5, 2016 by Jeff S

[steppenw0lf]

Pixel size does matter, but sensor size is generally more important. For dynamic range and colour the size of the sensor (with bigger size meaning more light hits the sensor) and the efficiency of the sensor are the most important factors. Large sensors gather more light and efficient sensor do a better job converting the light to a digital signal. On a per pixel basis large pixels are generally better than small pixels at converting light, but small pixels when downsized to the same resolution as big pixels do pretty well and for dynamic range and colour there is even some advantage to downsampling that can help small pixels at least keep up with large pixels when downsampled. Image two pixels next to each other that are half the size of a big pixel. The big pixel will generally do better than each small pixel, but at some intense light levels the big pixel with go to all white. If the light on the small pixels, however, only makes one of the small pixels go to full white, then when these pixel are combined with downsampling the area they represent won't be blown out when it would have been with the big pixel. So downsized to the same resolution small pixels do quite well. If you look at each image blown up to 100%, however, which is really blowing up the small pixel image much larger, then the small pixel image will look better.

 

Another way to think about it is if you keep the same resolution (i.e., the same number of pixels) are larger sensor will have bigger pixels. In this situation it is more obvious why the bigger sensor with the bigger pixels will convert light better. On a per pixel and for the sensor as a whole the large sensor will do better. That of course assumes that they have roughly the same efficiency. 

 

By the way you can come close to comparing the SL with the X1D in measurements of dynamic range at this site: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

They don't have the X1D yet, of course, but they do have measurements of the Pentax 645Z which uses a very similar sensor to the X1D and they have measured the SL. At every ISO (and especially at base ISO) the Pentax has a lot more dynamic range than the SL. 

 

 

Again, the bigger sensor has the smaller pixels in this case (X1D). So this is all talk about non-existing sensors. And so the conclusions are just nonsense. Simply do the homework (calculations) first.

 

So let's wait a week and then we will see the real capabilities. And if it is better we will  know for sure it has nothing to do with size/area.

X1D           50M / (33x44) =  34.4 k Pixels per square millimetre

M or SL     24M / (24x36) =  27.8 k Pixels per square millimetre

Edited July 5, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Steve Spencer]

This is too general and stands on no sound foundation.

Compare the 24M from a 24x36 sensor of the M or SL vs the 50M from the 33x44 sensor area. 

And guess which has the larger area per picture element ?    Yes, exactly the SL or M.

So the trick with the area is simply wrong. Another clever theory, maybe ?

 

Additionally the Leicas offer Summiluxes, while the X1D has only comparatively slow lenses, that diminishes the light again by a factor of 4 to 8.

 

So to the scientifc eye this theory is simply extremely badly founded. 

 

I think you didn't understand my point at all. I was not talking about area per picture element. I was talking about surface area of the sensor. If the same intensity of light is shone on a small surface area and a large surface area there is more light (i.e., photons) shone on the large surface area. That is beyond dispute and all I was trying to say. If we talk about lenses with different apertures we are not talking about the same light intensity. So, if a bright light is shone on a small surface area and a dimmer light is shone on a larger surface are, then it is certainly possible for the small surface area to have more light shone on it. I have never questioned that. You explanation unfortunately is confusing and does not acknowledge the simple point and sound point that i was making.

 

But we don't have to be theoretical here. The dynamic range of the SL and the Pentax 645Z have been measured and the Pentax 645Z (which shares the same sensor as the SL) has substantially better DR across the whole range of ISOs and a bout a 2 stop advantage at base ISO. You can see the measurements here:  http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

There is every reason to believe that the Hassy X1D will have substantially more DR than the Leica SL. I am not saying that the SL doesn't have other advantages--it does, but the X1D should have a significant dynamic range advantage.

[steppenw0lf]

I think you didn't understand my point at all. I was not talking about area per picture element. I was talking about surface area of the sensor. If the same intensity of light is shone on a small surface area and a large surface area there is more light (i.e., photons) shone on the large surface area. That is beyond dispute and all I was trying to say. If we talk about lenses with different apertures we are not talking about the same light intensity. So, if a bright light is shone on a small surface area and a dimmer light is shone on a larger surface are, then it is certainly possible for the small surface area to have more light shone on it. I have never questioned that. You explanation unfortunately is confusing and does not acknowledge the simple point and sound point that i was making.

 

But we don't have to be theoretical here. The dynamic range of the SL and the Pentax 645Z have been measured and the Pentax 645Z (which shares the same sensor as the SL) has substantially better DR across the whole range of ISOs and a bout a 2 stop advantage at base ISO. You can see the measurements here:  http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

There is every reason to believe that the Hassy X1D will have substantially more DR than the Leica SL. I am not saying that the SL doesn't have other advantages--it does, but the X1D should have a significant dynamic range advantage.

 

I think you should simply do the calculations ...

The conversion into electrical energy is done in the single element. Neighboring elements have no influence - maybe in metaphysics but not in real  .

 

Conclusion the Pentax/X1D shows that your theory is wrong, as the area per pixel diminishes. (And if X1D and Pentax have the same sensor it will show exactly the same result.)

Edited July 5, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Steve Spencer]

Again, the bigger sensor has the smaller pixels in this case (X1D). So this is all talk about about non-existing sensors. And so the conclusions are just nonsense. Simply do the homework (calculations) first.

You seem to have a major misunderstanding that large pixels equals better dynamic range and that simply is not the case. Yes, the X1D has slightly smaller pixels than the Leica SL, but it also has over twice as many of those pixels because the sensor is bigger. Again I didn't say anything about the size of the pixels. If you thought that was what I was saying then you misunderstood. I was talking about surface area. And if you bother to examine the actual data on dynamic range which you can in the link I provided you will see that almost all FF 35mm systems have better dynamic range than almost all APS-C systems which almost all have more dynamic range than micro 4/3rds systems. Sensor size has almost not consistent relation to measured dynamic range. Simply put the surface area of the sensor correlates with dynamic range well, but pixel size does not. You can examine the data if you want, but that would mean you need to do you homework. That, however, is the scientific approach.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Steve Spencer

[Steve Spencer]

I think you should simply do the calculations ...

The conversion into energy is done in the single element. Neighboring elements have no influence - maybe in metaphysics but not in real  .

 

Conclusion the Pentax shows that your theory is wrong, as the area per pixel diminishes.

Ok, I will try to explain one more time. Yes, the conversion of energy is done by the single elements and each element of the SL may well convert more energy, but there are over twice as many elements for the X1D sensor, so the whole sensor of the X1D could easily (and does for the Pentax 645X) convert more energy than the whole sensor for the Leica SL. I don't care much about dynamic range per pixel. I care about dynamic range for the whole sensor, and given that the larger sensor can easily convert more energy than the smaller sensor (even if the smaller sensor has a bit better pixels) then it is not surprising that the larger sensor has more dynamic range.

[steppenw0lf]

Sorry, but this concept of "the whole is more than its parts" sounds like metaphysics to me. Maybe valid for a soccer/football team, but for a sensor ??

How can the dynamic range of the whole sensor be larger than the dynamic range of a single pixel ? It is only a collection of single pixels ...

[ramarren]

Thanks for the review.  I have the X1D on order.  Am a little surprised anyone is comparing it to the SL?  Seems to me should be comparing to the S.  I don't see it as replacing my M, a 246, or my Q.  The M will continue to be unique with my M glass so will always have an M.

 

 

The SL and the X1D are similar types of cameras: about the same shape, size, and weight; similar body features (except for focal plane vs in-lens shutter). The S and X1D are in the same sensor class. So the S and SL are both comparable to the X1D but with respect to different aspects of their technology. 

 

The SL is essentially a 35mm-class DSLR replacement system, where the X1D is a new class of medium format digital camera system, comparable to the Mamiya 6 and 7 in the film era. There's lots of crossover in all of these cameras and systems. 

[Steve Spencer]

Sorry, but this concept of "the whole is more than its parts" sounds like metaphysics to me. Maybe valid for a soccer/football team, but for a sensor ??

How can the dynamic range of the whole sensor be larger than the dynamic range of a single pixel ? It is only a collection of single pixels ...

 

Maybe it is a language thing, but I am only saying that the whole is equal to the the sum of its parts, and I am not saying that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts (which is the correct English expression). As an aside I would say the whole is greater than the sum of its parts in many social situations including soccer/football, but that is another story. For sensors all I am saying is that the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. You seem to be saying that the parts are all that matters and the whole doesn't matter at all. You also want to hold onto that theoretical claim when the data on sensor dynamic range completely contradicts it. So if the data can't open your mind I don't have much hope that my arguments can either. So, I give up for now.

Edited July 5, 2016 by Steve Spencer

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AndreasAM]

Gentlemen,

 

We are talking about the dynamic range, are we?

 

Will this help in the discussion?

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

Edited July 5, 2016 by AndreasAM

[steppenw0lf]

This is not about correct english expressions, but about correct (physical) facts.

Open your mind, read the Cambridgeincolor link above and explain why you state exactly the opposite of what is explained in the *Digital Cameras" sector ...

And finally stop these little personal villanies, better concentrate on the "scientific" content.

 

The question is not if the X1D has more dynamic range - a simple measurement will show it - but if this is related to the area of the sensor (and more specific to the area of the single pixel or to the total area).

The text shows an explanation why this could be related to the pixel area. But I have not seen yet an explanation how this could be related to the total area.  (no physical explanation = metaphysics)

Edited July 5, 2016 by steppenw0lf