Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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. 

Well, I guess I was born yesterday and didn't know they were similar size.  Ha!  But I think they are not in the same class at all.  Otherwise, I wouldn't consider the XD1.  Have a few excellent 35mm cameras already. Have long given thought to the S, however.  Glad Hasselblad took this step.

[fsprow]

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

 

I would say both EVF's are excellent, the SL the best.

[Jeff S]

How so?  In bright daylight as well as darker room?

 

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Well, I guess I was born yesterday and didn't know they were similar size.  Ha! 

 

[According to B&H listing]

 

X1D...    5.9 in (150mm) x 3.9 (98) x 2.8 (71) and 25.6 oz (725 g) with battery

 

SL...      5.8 in (147mm) x 4.1(104) x 1.5 (39)  and 29.8 oz (847 g) with battery

 

 

Jeff

[Steve Spencer]

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)

 

Ok, one more time. My contention is that the size of the surface area of the sensor is quite important in increasing dynamic range.  The theory behind that is that the large sensor as opposed to a smaller sensor  captures more light (i.e., photons). Capturing this extra energy can be used to increased dynamic range. I haven't spoken to the how this happens, but it isn't mystical or metaphysical. It is a simple matter of combining pixels through software. Modern cameras do that all the time (that is how we get different colours that red/blue/and green by the way). Big pixels do have better dynamic range than small pixels, but more small pixels can have better dynamic range than fewer slightly larger pixels. As an aside, if a pixel is blown out it won't be useable when combining with other information, but if it isn't blown out you can combine information quite nicely and you need to realize at the shadow end of dynamic range this works very well. So, you are focussing on the fact that if you blow out a scene you can't combine pixels, but you are missing that at the other end of dynamic range you can combine pixels quite effectively to bring up the shadows. Incidentally this is why high megapixel cameras do well with noise at high ISO as well--combining pixels by downsizing is a great way to reduce noise. This same process, however, also allows you to bring up shadows and increases the dynamic range.

 

So that is the theory. Let's test it against measurements of dynamic range. If the reasoning outline above is correct, then two cameras with the same size pixels but different sized sensor should not have the same dynamic range. The camera with the larger sensor should have more dynamic range. Since this is a Leica forum there is a great test of this prediction. Does the S or the SL have better dynamic range? The cameras have the same sized pixels. In measurements and I am pretty sure in people's reports as well, the S has quite a bit more dynamic range. Now if pixel size was the only thing that mattered then they would have the same dynamic range and they don't. Maybe that is a weird example. Let's look at Pentax. Does the MF 645Z have more dynamic range than the new K1 with larger pixels? If you look it up in the link I posted above the 645Z has substantially more dynamic range than the newer and K1 that has larger pixels. What about examples from Canon? The only one I know if is the Canon 5D MKII (or MKIII they are basically the same sensor and have quite similar dynamic range) have more dynamic range than their 8 MP APS-C bodies (there are a lot take your pick)? The answer is that the bigger FF 35mm sensor has more dynamic range by quite a bit even though the pixel size is identical. What about Sony? How does the Sony A7r which has very similar pixel size to the Sony 16mp sensor in their APS-C bodies compare? The pattern should be pretty obvious by now. The larger FF 35mm sensor has substantially more dynamic range than the smaller APS-C sensor. I challenge you to find an example where the same manufacturer has a smaller sensor with the same pixel size as a larger sensor and the larger sensor does not have greater dynamic range.

 

So there is the theory and the data that supports it. It isn't just metaphysics. It is data. The question is whether you are going to consider the data or just close your mind and maintain your view.

[pop]

Ok, one more time. My contention .....

Sorry, but this happens not to be the case.

 

Perform this simple test. Take a digital camera with a removable lens. Take a picture of anything at all. Remove the lens. Cover half of the sensor with a black piece of paper. Attach the lens. Take the same picture again.

 

The dynamic range of the of the sensor does not change. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the area of the sensor. It's the ratio between the brightest and the darkest value it can detect. 

 

The dynamic range usually will be larger for the more modern sensor. When the sensor technology, the signal processor, the filters and so on are the same, the dynamic range will be larger for the larger pixel cell. The dynamic range will not be larger when there are more cells of the same size. It won't be smaller, either.

[fsprow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How so?  In bright daylight as well as darker room?

 

Jeff

 

Only opportunity I had was in the doorway on a cloudy day.

[AndreasAM]

Without wanting to step in this discussion, I see and understand two reasonings;

1. The bigger the pixel the more photons are captured, thus potentially increasing the dynamic range. But the dynamic range of this pixel is still dependant on the efficiency of the capturing the photons by the pixel and the quality of processing by the A/D converter.

2. A bigger sensor, with an increased amount of pixels, can improve the dynamic range because it can mean there is an increase of the absolute total amount of photons captured by the sensor, comparing it with an sensor of lesser size or amount of pixels.

 

Comparing the dynamic range of different camera's with a variation of pixel and sensor sizes is impossible, and therefor senseless, if we don't know the yield of the amount of photons per pixel and the capacity and processing efficiency of the pixel and the converter of the individual sensor. We can't determine the dynamic range for each type of pixel and thus sensor, let alone from an individual camera. Only measuring results of each camera makes sense before drawing conclusions about better DR of the one or other camera's

 

I would say a draw? 

 

Let's wait for real world comparisons of the new Hassie-pictures. 

 

Steve, I believe you are the first who is able to test the new camera?

 

I am looking forward for the first results, the X1D looks very promising and sure is a beautiful picture by itself........

Edited July 5, 2016 by AndreasAM

[Steve Spencer]

Sorry, but this happens not to be the case.

 

Perform this simple test. Take a digital camera with a removable lens. Take a picture of anything at all. Remove the lens. Cover half of the sensor with a black piece of paper. Attach the lens. Take the same picture again.

 

The dynamic range of the of the sensor does not change. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the area of the sensor. It's the ratio between the brightest and the darkest value it can detect. 

 

The dynamic range usually will be larger for the more modern sensor. When the sensor technology, the signal processor, the filters and so on are the same, the dynamic range will be larger for the larger pixel cell. The dynamic range will not be larger when there are more cells of the same size. It won't be smaller, either.

 

Sorry that is the wrong test, but yes dynamic range is the ratio between the brightest and the darkest value that you can use in the shot. As such it is very much related to shadow recovery and sensor size is related to shadow recover. If you do your test and then try to print to the same size of output you will see that the shot with half the sensor covered does indeed have less dynamic range because you won't be able tor recover as much from the shadows as you will be downsizing less, and downsizing allows you greater shadow recovery. So, I don't think your test shows what you assume it does, at least if you produce the same size print.

[Steve Spencer]

Without wanting to step in this discussion, I see and understand two reasonings;

1. The bigger the pixel the more photons are captured, thus potentially increasing the dynamic range. But the dynamic range of this pixel is still dependant on the efficiency of the capturing the photons by the pixel and the quality of processing by the A/D converter.

2. A bigger sensor, with an increased amount of pixels, can improve the dynamic range because it can mean there is an increase of the absolute total amount of photons captured by the sensor, comparing it with an sensor of lesser size or amount of pixels.

 

Comparing the dynamic range of different camera's with a variation of pixel and sensor sizes is impossible, and therefor senseless, if we don't know the yield of the amount of photons per pixel and the capacity and processing efficiency of the pixel and the converter of the individual sensor. We can't determine the dynamic range for each type of pixel and thus sensor, let alone from an individual camera. Only measuring results of each camera makes sense before drawing conclusions about better DR of the one or other camera's

 

I would say a draw? 

 

Let's wait for real world comparisons of the new Hassie-pictures. 

 

Steve, I believe you are the first who is able to test the new camera?

 

I am looking forward for the first results, the X1D looks very promising and sure is a beautiful picture by itself........

Yes, I do have a pre-order in on the camera now and I will report how the camera does for dynamic range. I suppose I could cancel my order or send it back when it comes, but I am not inclined to do so right now. If I don't like the EVF I may, however. Like Jeff that is my biggest worry and I think the SL almost certainly has a better EVF in most respects. It is a pity the Hassy didn't go with a bit better EVF.

 

I don't think it is hard to devise a test for dynamic range, however. The link I posted is one such test. DXOmark has their test as well. Such tests can show which cameras have greater dynamic range and these two tests do show general agreement when they have tested the same two cameras. The Pentax 645Z has the same sensor as the Hassy and in such tests it shows substantially more dynamic range than the Leica SL, so I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the Hassy will have more dynamic range than the SL. That may not be popular around here, but I think that is what the evidence, as opposed to some of theorizing, suggests. We won't know for sure until we have the Hassy in hand of course (they could have modified the sensor in some way), but I think it is quite unlikely that it will be much different than the sensor in Pentax. 

[lct]

Slow AF on fly-by-wire lenses would concern me much more than dynamic range that will be wider than that of most 35mm cameras anyway.

[Steve Spencer]

Slow AF on fly-by-wire lenses would concern me much more than dynamic range that will be wider than that of most 35mm cameras anyway.

 

For what I primarily intend to use if for--landscapes and portraits--I am not too concerned about the AF. For portraits I also have the HC 100 f/2.2 and the 150 f/3.2 coming (and the adapter of course). With those lenses, I will be able to manual focus if I want--and I probably will do that most of the time--and it won't be fly by wire. For landscapes I can live with just about any focus mechanism, so I think that will be fine too, but I am sure others will be bothered by the slow AF, which is another way this camera is much different from the SL.

[AndreasAM]

Yes, I do have a pre-order in on the camera now and I will report how the camera does for dynamic range. I suppose I could cancel my order or send it back when it comes, but I am not inclined to do so right now. If I don't like the EVF I may, however. Like Jeff that is my biggest worry and I think the SL almost certainly has a better EVF in most respects. It is a pity the Hassy didn't go with a bit better EVF.

 

I don't think it is hard to devise a test for dynamic range, however. The link I posted is one such test. DXOmark has their test as well. Such tests can show which cameras have greater dynamic range and these two tests do show general agreement when they have tested the same two cameras. The Pentax 645Z has the same sensor as the Hassy and in such tests it shows substantially more dynamic range than the Leica SL, so I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the Hassy will have more dynamic range than the SL. That may not be popular around here, but I think that is what the evidence, as opposed to some of theorizing, suggests. We won't know for sure until we have the Hassy in hand of course (they could have modified the sensor in some way), but I think it is quite unlikely that it will be much different than the sensor in Pentax. 

 

Well everybody is looking for the holy grail!

 

There is more than only the quality of the Dynamic Range of a camera when choosing a camera.

Ergonomics, colors, UI, durability, weatherresistance. choice and quality of lenses, price, the looks etc, etc....

No brand or camera has it all or will it ever have....

 

I think Leica is conservative when it comes to increasing the amount of pixels on the sensor. The size of the pixels is now the same on all the FF and MF ranges (M, SL. S), around 6 ūm. I guess they are trying to increase the quality of these pixels and conserve the "Leica" quality of colours and tonal range, instead of going down the "easy" marketing road  of increasing the amount of pixels. They are making great progress the last two years in development, although they are dependent on "smaller" producers of sensors and components.

There is something to like about this consistent albeit slow and steady improvements.

 

The Sony 50 Mp MF-sensor has a size of 5,4 um., and is giving a very good image quality, if handled with competence and vision. Something Hasselblad has already proved it can do, with the H-series.

But the constant and feverish increase of the amount of Megapixels by Sony doesn't for me automatically mean they can preserve the same constant qualities in the sensors in future generations like that Leica is doing right now. So this is a gamble for Hasselblad. Or they already have a roadmap for future generations agreed with Sony.

 

But let's say nobody, on this forum, would object when Leica would produce an S008 with 50 Mp, retaining the S007 image quality, in a SL- body for a X1D price!

 

But as an longtime 903SWC owner, for the moment, a renewed and competitive Hasselblad is for me more than welcome. Let's hope the X1D lives up to the current hype.....

Edited July 5, 2016 by AndreasAM

[LD_50]

Well everybody is looking for the holy grail!

 

There is more than only the quality of the Dynamic Range of a camera when choosing a camera.

Ergonomics, colors, UI, durability, weatherresistance. choice and quality of lenses, price, the looks etc, etc....

No brand or camera has it all or will it ever have....

 

I think Leica is conservative when it comes to increasing the amount of pixels on the sensor. The size of the pixels is now the same on all the FF and MF ranges (M, SL. S), around 6 ūm. I guess they are trying to increase the quality of these pixels and conserve the "Leica" quality of colours and tonal range, instead of going down the "easy" marketing road  of increasing the amount of pixels. They are making great progress the last two years in development, although they are dependent on "smaller" producers of sensors and components.

There is something to like about this consistent albeit slow and steady improvements.

 

The Sony 50 Mp MF-sensor has a size of 5,4 um., and is giving a very good image quality, if handled with competence and vision. Something Hasselblad has already proved it can do, with the H-series.

But the constant and feverish increase of the amount of Megapixels by Sony doesn't for me automatically mean they can preserve the same constant qualities in the sensors in future generations like that Leica is doing right now. So this is a gamble for Hasselblad. Or they already have a roadmap for future generations agreed with Sony.

 

But let's say nobody, on this forum, would object when Leica would produce an S008 with 50 Mp, retaining the S007 image quality, in a SL- body for a X1D price!

 

But as an longtime 903SWC owner, for the moment, a renewed and competitive Hasselblad is for me more than welcome. Let's hope the X1D lives up to the current hype.....

 

The Sony sensors are already better than those in Leica's cameras. The slow and steady approach Leica is taking isn't about ultimate quality, as they're already behind. I'm not saying Leica's sensors are poor, just worse than the competition. 

 

If Leica were using Sony sensors the IQ would be better, we would have PDAFand CDAF available in the SL, and we'd have higher resolution options. I think Hasselblad made the only sensible choice, not a gamble. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Without wanting to step in this discussion, I see and understand two reasonings;

1. The bigger the pixel the more photons are captured, thus potentially increasing the dynamic range. But the dynamic range of this pixel is still dependant on the efficiency of the capturing the photons by the pixel and the quality of processing by the A/D converter.

2. A bigger sensor, with an increased amount of pixels, can improve the dynamic range because it can mean there is an increase of the absolute total amount of photons captured by the sensor, comparing it with an sensor of lesser size or amount of pixels.

 

Comparing the dynamic range of different camera's with a variation of pixel and sensor sizes is impossible, and therefor senseless, if we don't know the yield of the amount of photons per pixel and the capacity and processing efficiency of the pixel and the converter of the individual sensor. We can't determine the dynamic range for each type of pixel and thus sensor, let alone from an individual camera. Only measuring results of each camera makes sense before drawing conclusions about better DR of the one or other camera's

 

I would say a draw? 

 

Let's wait for real world comparisons of the new Hassie-pictures. 

 

Steve, I believe you are the first who is able to test the new camera?

 

I am looking forward for the first results, the X1D looks very promising and sure is a beautiful picture by itself........

 

I agree with you, wholeheartedly. It's simplistic to say that only sensor size or only pixel size influence dynamic range. They both do. But so does a half dozen other things. If all else is equal bigger is better but when comparing the SL and Sony sensors all else isn't close to equal, or even known.

 

I don't see the big deal. The sensor in the X1D is already used by several companies, including Hasselblad themselves. It's a known quantity, including how Hasselblad choose to read off the sensor and how the raw converter reacts to the sensor information. We can download files now from the HD5C 50mp camera and see exactly what the sensor is capable of. Or Pentax 534Z files, for that matter. There's no *if*. The sensor in the new Hasselblad is capable of more dynamic range than the SL. This is fact. I've done side by side tests with these two sensors and processed the files. The DR of the X1D sensor is a known quantity. Hasselblad and Pentax files are readily available if someone wants to have a look for themselves.

 

It'll be up to the lenses as to whether H can extract what the sensor is capable of.

 

Gordon

[ramarren]

The Sony sensors are already better than those in Leica's cameras. The slow and steady approach Leica is taking isn't about ultimate quality, as they're already behind. I'm not saying Leica's sensors are poor, just worse than the competition. 

 

If Leica were using Sony sensors the IQ would be better, we would have PDAFand CDAF available in the SL, and we'd have higher resolution options. I think Hasselblad made the only sensible choice, not a gamble. 

 

 

(bolded) I disagree on that. I had a Sony A7 and the Leica M-P, M-D, and SL outperform it handily in my experience, and with the same "old" lenses. That's why I sold the A7. 

 

Since I prefer manual focus and use mostly manual-focus-only lenses, the speed of PDAF and CDAF aren't very important to me (what I have is good enough already). I've yet to find my photos were lacking in resolution since the better 6 Mpixel and above cameras came available in the 2006-2008 time frame; 24 Mpixel is luxuriously more resolution than I really need. 50 Mpixel in the X1D is mind-blowing. 

Edited July 6, 2016 by ramarren

[DezFoto]

I'm struggling with this same dilemma right now, I was looking at selling all my Nikon gear and getting and SL for set stills but if the X1D is as quiet as it should be with it's leaf shutter lenses and lack of mirror, it could be a viable option. It would be really nice to be able to shoot without a blimp while they're rolling sound and 1/2000 flash sync can be incredibly useful when you're shooting strobes but have no control over the ambient lighting. The ability to use my current H lenses via adaptor is also very appealing. 

 

I really wish Leica had released the SL as a leaf shutter system.  

Edited July 6, 2016 by DezFoto

[ramarren]

The recording that someone posted of the X1D shutter sound reminded me of the sound of the Leica SL. I don't believe it is much quieter or louder; they seemed quite comparable. 

 

The SL has a very refined shutter, very quiet for a focal plane shutter. Utterly different from previous FP cameras I've had. 

https://youtu.be/3NY3bFdGQKk?list=PLFe00UU2hH3AxhBFp_zog_zwgocztsPyj

Edited July 6, 2016 by ramarren

[SirPiet]

Ming Thein has posted a short hands-on with samples from the X1D as well as some first impressions at https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-impressions-with-samples/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

Ming Thein has posted a short hands-on with samples from the X1D as well as some first impressions at https://blog.mingthein.com/2016/07/06/hasselblad-x1d-early-impressions-with-samples/

 

 

Looks promising...