Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[sector99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Point taken. My intention was to illuminate the Zeiss/SL lens utilization choice and to mention the mf/iris preferences of videographers.

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Spencer]

Point taken. My intention was to illuminate the Zeiss/SL lens utilization choice and to mention the mf/iris preferences of videographers.

 

Well there is little question the SL has some pretty significant video features that are absent from the X1D. 4K video to start, but it also can shoot in 60 fps, and can use a much wider selection of lenses. The X1D can't even use any lenses that have a de-clicked aperture ring and that are designed for video. So although the X1D shoots video, its capabilities are quite minimal. The SL is a very capable camera for video.

 

That said the X1D has some unique features as well, such as flash synchronization up to 1/2000, and leaf shutters in the lenses. The X1D and the SL are very different cameras with very different capabilities, but they are fairly similar in price and they are both mirrorless, so someone looking for a high level mirrorless camera (and that includes me) is likely to consider both option. Still it is a pretty apples to oranges comparison and I think the real question is whether you want an apple or an orange and not which fruit is better.

[DezFoto]

The staff member responded to me by writing that the Hasselblad H4D and lenses (zooms and primes) broke down far more frequently than other gear, and that the turnaround time to Denmark was several months (if it's Sweden, he goofed).

 

 

Yeah but what are they comparing it to? The only MF cameras they carry are Pentax, so he's likely including Canon, Nikon et al in his comment.

 

I've had far more issues with my Leica gear, than with my Hasselblad gear, which is to say I've had several issues with Leica and have never had to send anything in for repairs or adjustment with either of my H lenses or bodies (knock on wood). I've also had several nightmare experiences with Phase One rental units constantly needing the backs removed and both camera and body being restarted. I've also had Phase One lenses lock up on me and refuse to fire, or focus, or both. 

 

Of course these are just my experiences and others may have had different experiences, but I've found my Hasselblad equipment to be very reliable work horses. 

[steppenw0lf]

The X1D comes closer and reality also comes closer.

I have finally seen the two lenses with the lens hood. I assume it is necessary to use it, as the glass is quite unprotected (not in a deep recess/hollow). And with that the lenses are suddenly not small anymore. (No wonder they are usually shown without shade).

The speed of the AF is not great, who cares. But in a church or concert hall perhaps the noise of the AF but certainly the noise of the in-lens shutter is embarrassing. While the SL is well usable in quiet environments.  (AF is noiseless with my 90-280, the shutter noise is as low as that of an M.)

If you add a flash it is even more intruding - but maybe also better acceptable. While the SL with a light-fast lens (M or the future AF 1.4/50) and its nice high-ISO performance can often do without and is again maintaining a low profile.

Edited August 3, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Jager]

I don't see much of a comparison.  The SL is a splendid platform, with any number of great strengths, but intended for the professional (and serious amateur) FF DSLR shooter.  The X1D, in contrast, I think, is targeted at two camps:  current medium format users who yearn for a smaller, lighter, more portable platform; and current FF DSLR shooters who are intrigued at the prospect of greater image quality than they've gotten with 35mm, but have been restrained by the breathtaking cost-of-entry.  Hasselblad's price point was very deliberate.

 

When the SL was introduced it raised little interest for me.  Alas.  As outstanding as that new camera was in just about every other respect, the bottom line is that I could get no better image quality from it than from my M240 or M246.

 

As the owner of a CFV-50c I'm very familiar with how the sensor in the X1D renders.  The increase in resolution is obvious, of course.  But beyond that images are notably richer, with greater tonal depth and much better color fidelity.  Files are very malleable, yet ironically require less post-processing than either Leica or Nikon RAWs.  There is a beguiling, seductive pleasure in working with them.  And although Phocus is properly touted as the optimum package to work them in (it is), Lightroom does nearly as well.

 

The downside to working with such rich, amazing files has always been the effort to obtain them.  When I pick up one of my Leica M's - still by far my most-used camera platform - the camera gets completely out of my way.  It's small and inconspicuous and using it is effortless.

 

In contrast, the Hasselblad is a notably deliberate system.  And because my 500C/M shutter speed maxes out at 1/500, the big mirror and rolling shutter impose quick limits on one's shooting envelope.  Frankly, to get the most out of that CFV digital back requires a good tripod and careful technique.

 

What the X1D promises is to give you those big, robust files... yet freed from some of those constraints.  Yes, a tripod will still get you the best there is to be got - just like with any camera system.  But the notion of being able to pick up a relatively small, relatively lightweight camera and take it so many places and use it in so many ways... freely and effortlessly, like I do my M's today... and then come home with those big, rich files... is fairly intoxicating.  

 

The camera is far from perfect.  I was at the Gaithersburg, MD demo with some of you a few weeks back.  I still have concerns with the EVF (relative to the the huge optical viewfinder of the prism finder in my Hasselblad, or the crystal clear OVFs in my Leica M's).  Shutter latency has to come down over what the demo units displayed.  And as one who simply loves the overall haptics of my Leica's, how this new Hasselblad will end up is still something of a question.  But in the end, I'm convinced those are just niggles.

 

What matters most is what you come home with.  Those files.  The X1D will deliver those in spades.

[ramarren]

... So there is actually something of a comparison to be made, eh? :-)

 

Since I still have a complete Hasselblad V system, and the price of a CFV-50c isn't so much different from what the price of an X1D plus lenses would be, if I happen into the windfall that makes it reachable, I might just go with the digital back since I already have the SL and it works beautifully.

[orc999]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

+for the Hassy is flash sync and resolution

 

+for the Leica are the zoom lenses and the lightweight M lenses

 

I think everything else is up to taste.

I currently prefer the look I get with the Leica SL over the look of the Hassy H4D I used to have.

But that's just me and that's just now.

 

I would not know how to match the look in post, nor would I want to do it.

[Peter H]

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

I currently prefer the look I get with the Leica SL over the look of the Hassy H4D I used to have.

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

 

 

Interesting, thank you.

 

Are you able to describe (or show us) how they differ? Would you say the differences are subtle or obvious,  and are they particularly dependent on variables like conditions and processing methods and viewing regimes?

 

I've booked a full-day trial of the XiD with its own new lenses and I'll be able to bring home the photos I make and put them through my normal straightforward processing, but that won't be for a few weeks yet. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by Peter H

[orc999]

Not that there is anything wrong with Hasselblad look

I assume the x1d will be similar.

 

I try to find something in similar focal length, looks like I can only post links here.

So far I only have wider shots with the SL, so does not make sense to show 150mm Hasselblad pictures.

With native lenses that is what the X1D will cover anyway now.

 

H4d-40 with 50mm

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/67800303

 

SL with 24-90 at 28mm

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/67777071

 

Let me throw in one with the Pentax 645z, but at 120mm

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/67852069

 

H4D gives more of a painterly look, while the Leica has a harder and clearer look.

Maybe thats just in my mind. For traditional beauty pics the Hasselblad might be better.

[Peter H]

Not that there is anything wrong with Hasselblad look

I assume the x1d will be similar.

 

I try to find something in similar focal length, looks like I can only post links here.

So far I only have wider shots with the SL, so does not make sense to show 150mm Hasselblad pictures.

With native lenses that is what the X1D will cover anyway now.

 

H4d-40 with 50mm

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/67800303

 

SL with 24-90 at 28mm

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/67777071

 

Let me throw in one with the Pentax 645z, but at 120mm

http://www.viewbug.com/photo/67852069

 

H4D gives more of a painterly look, while the Leica has a harder and clearer look.

Maybe thats just in my mind. For traditional beauty pics the Hasselblad might be better.

 

 

Thanks for the links.

 

It's hard to know from these because the quality is high, the lighting is excellent and the significant differences such as they are will probably only emerge in prints.

 

 I think, though I'm far from being completely confident, that I could distinguish the SL photo from the Hasselblad and Pentax photos. It has a more familiar 35mm digital look, but at  a very high level, so  it's not a negative thing to say. I think at the resolution I'm looking at, it's hard to be definitive isn't it?

 

And of course the X1D will have new lenses which will also be interesting to see.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Peter H

[Guest satrycon]

the H4D pic is smooth as silk.. the pentax is very close..the SL seems very harsh.

Thanks for the links.

 

It's hard to know from these because the quality is high, the lighting is excellent and the significant differences such as they are will probably only emerge in prints.

 

 I think, though I'm far from being completely confident, that I could distinguish the SL photo from the Hasselblad and Pentax photos. It has a more familiar 35mm digital look, but at  a very high level, so  it's not a negative thing to say. I think at the resolution I'm looking at, it's hard to be definitive isn't it?

 

And of course the X1D will have new lenses which will also be interesting to see.

[elopezso]

the H4D pic is smooth as silk.. the pentax is very close..the SL seems very harsh.

I would say the lighting was harsh, but it is an outdoor pic in middle of day. Would be eager to see the same pic with the same lighting from the three cameras.

 

By the way, excellent photos!

[orc999]

thanks for your feedback!

 

lighting, time and distance on hassy/sl shots are quite similar. The water might make a difference.

 

the lighting on the nude girl in the pool is also a very hard light and in broad daylight. It was elinchrom ranger quadra head.

the girl on the chair at the pool is a b1 without modifier, in strong sun. I would say that is very similar. both have a similar angled reflector and a milky protection cover in almost the same dimension. However the hasselblad shot brings in more water reflection and features professional makeup, while the shot at the chair with the leica was just the girls makeup.

 

I would say the comment about the hasselblad being smooth as silk and the SL being harder, is quite right.

There is no good or bad, just different. I see this hard clarity also in the the shots with my Q.

[Peter H]

thanks for your feedback!

 

lighting, time and distance on hassy/sl shots are quite similar. The water might make a difference.

 

the lighting on the nude girl in the pool is also a very hard light and in broad daylight. It was elinchrom ranger quadra head.

the girl on the chair at the pool is a b1 without modifier, in strong sun. I would say that is very similar. both have a similar angled reflector and a milky protection cover in almost the same dimension. However the hasselblad shot brings in more water reflection and features professional makeup, while the shot at the chair with the leica was just the girls makeup.

 

I would say the comment about the hasselblad being smooth as silk and the SL being harder, is quite right.

There is no good or bad, just different. I see this hard clarity also in the the shots with my Q.

 

 

Interesting. Thanks again.

 

I thought the "hardness" might just be an effect of the light but from what you say it is a quality of the camera/lens, and probably more to do with the sensor than the lenses which I expect are all superb in this respect.

 

So as you say, it's not really a matter of which is better but which you prefer, or is more suited to the photo you're trying to create.

 

I must say though that whilst I usually prefer the extra clarity/transparency that a modern ASPH M lens gives compared with older, more "characterful" but still excellent pre-ASPH lenses, here I find that smoothness of the Hasselblad exceptionally appealing, especially now you've explained the shooting conditions more.

 

The X1D is clearly designed to be a more portable, less studio- or set-based camera so I wonder how it will perform in less controlled and perhaps more tricky lighting conditions.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Peter H

[Guest satrycon]

totally..the hasselblad shot is very balanced and feels "integrated" and seamless..and hence silky smooth..the pentax shot has very nice skin details too...the SL shot personally to me feels a bit pansonic-like.. [thats quite a harsh comparison but just how it feels]

 

 

thanks for your feedback!

 

lighting, time and distance on hassy/sl shots are quite similar. The water might make a difference.

 

the lighting on the nude girl in the pool is also a very hard light and in broad daylight. It was elinchrom ranger quadra head.

the girl on the chair at the pool is a b1 without modifier, in strong sun. I would say that is very similar. both have a similar angled reflector and a milky protection cover in almost the same dimension. However the hasselblad shot brings in more water reflection and features professional makeup, while the shot at the chair with the leica was just the girls makeup.

 

I would say the comment about the hasselblad being smooth as silk and the SL being harder, is quite right.

There is no good or bad, just different. I see this hard clarity also in the the shots with my Q.

[orc999]

Skin tones on the Hasselblad are just king. no P1, Leica or Pentax can match that. Only if developed in Phocus Software. 

each system has it's advantages. 

The Leica shot is developed in C1 btw.

 

For me the reason to go for the Leica SL was lens selection/weight.

[DezFoto]

Skin tones on the Hasselblad are just king. no P1, Leica or Pentax can match that. Only if developed in Phocus Software. 

each system has it's advantages. 

The Leica shot is developed in C1 btw.

 

For me the reason to go for the Leica SL was lens selection/weight.

 

The above shots are lit some completely differently, that it's hard to know what to take away from those examples. 

 

Personally I prefer the skin tones from Leaf DB's but it's really all a matter of personal taste. 

[thighslapper]

c'mon guys ...... how many times have we posted here complaining about 'comparisons' between cameras where all the images are different, taken at different times, with different lighting, different ISO and different apertures ?

 

The three posted images tell you precisely ZERO. 

 

The same will go for isolated images taken with the new Hassy ..... you only get to see the really good ones ...... 

 

Same goes for all the techie testing and graphs and figures ...... they also tell you ZERO about real world performance.

 

As someone who has spent (ie. wasted) numerous days for this forum taking identical pictures with two/three different cameras and multiple lenses and then trying to process them to produce valid comparable results I can tell you the process is littered with pitfalls and problems. Then you get some bright spark asking you to repeat them all upside down at exactly f4.3......

 

I can tell you now that the differences will be marginal and only noticeable in quite specific applications of the images themselves.

 

Far more important is ergonomics, ease of use, available lenses, extras and value for money ...... although the fact you are on this forum means the latter probably doesn't apply ...... 

 

Nice as it looks...... the advantages of staying within one single system (Leica) outweigh any possible 'quality' benefits. 

Edited August 23, 2016 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

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

 

Nice as it looks...... the advantages of staying within one single system (Leica) outweigh any possible 'quality' benefits. 

 

 

That's as subjective as anything else isn't it?

[ski542002]

c'mon guys ...... how many times have we posted here complaining about 'comparisons' between cameras where all the images are different, taken at different times, with different lighting, different ISO and different apertures ?

 

The three posted images tell you precisely ZERO. 

 

The same will go for isolated images taken with the new Hassy ..... you only get to see the really good ones ...... 

 

Same goes for all the techie testing and graphs and figures ...... they also tell you ZERO about real world performance.

 

As someone who has spent (ie. wasted) numerous days for this forum taking identical pictures with two/three different cameras and multiple lenses and then trying to process them to produce valid comparable results I can tell you the process is littered with pitfalls and problems. Then you get some bright spark asking you to repeat them all upside down at exactly f4.3......

 

I can tell you now that the differences will be marginal and only noticeable in quite specific applications of the images themselves.

 

Far more important is ergonomics, ease of use, available lenses, extras and value for money ...... although the fact you are on this forum means the latter probably doesn't apply ...... 

 

Nice as it looks...... the advantages of staying within one single system (Leica) outweigh any possible 'quality' benefits. 

 

Thighslapper, I concur...

 

I remember back in the early days of digicams.  We had one of the first Canon CCD-sensor bodies (no LCD screen and 6mp if that?).  Then we purchased Canon's first CMOS sensor body.  The guys sat around a Mac in the studio, looking at comparison files at 100, 200 400%, strobes, outdoors, ambient light etc. The conclusion was, the CMOS files were "soft" in-comparison; of course everyone thought the latest sensor technology was crap.  In the ensuing weeks of shooting, not one client complained about files coming from the new body and we didn't loose a client because we used the "new-tech" CMOS Canon body.  The only true test of new gear is for me, ease of use and my clients' reaction to the images.