Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL unites R and M with modern AF lenses (and with many other old and new brands if you want).

If Leica plays it cool, they have me hooked for the next 20 years.

 

The X1D is just one more system with its own set of lenses. For me it plays the same role as the Rollei 6x6 I once had (actually still have). No synergy with other systems. And in the long run not good enough on its own.

 

And yes it is very much about taste: I like the way Leica renders skin. And also other FF or  smaller sensors. (And I really cannot think what a Panasonic look is like - simply said: What a nonsense.  Or "harsh": What amount of "integrated" stupidity   ) And I really can see no advantage in the Hasselblad pictures. I had a look at the photos shown on their site (for X1D). They are rather uninspiring for me. And I assume they selected only the best.

Maybe others find in that exactly what they have been waiting for. But I cannot, sorry.  (And also this talk here of "integrated" and seamless versus harsh completely passes me by.) 

I also never liked to use flash, while for the X1D this seems to be its main strength. And the shutter in the lens (like with the Rollei lenses) always felt kind of slow, noisy and all in all cumbersome to me.

 

All photos I have seen until now are just yelling at me: Can you see the difference ?   And no, I can't.

And anyway, thinking of modern commercial photos: Which percentage is "in camera" and which percentage is Lightroom or Phocus or whatever is currently the best software. If I like the software, no reason to buy the big camera.

[Peter H]

 

 

 

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

All photos I have seen until now are just yelling at me: Can you see the difference ?   And no, I can't.

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

 

 

I agree that promotional photos are meaningless, and other people's photos are almost as hard to interpret.

 

But there are differences between photos from different cameras as you say yourself: "And yes it is very much about taste: I like the way Leica renders skin". 

 

I have little interest in compatibility because I have little desire to use a wide range of lenses, so that is not a factor in my consideration as it is for you. 

 

We're all different and there may well be photographic things that the X1D does differently from the SL, for better or worse according to our individual taste, that makes a subjective visual comparison of the photos that come out of them a valid and sensible thing to do. If they turn out to be indistinguishable, fine, that will have answered one question. If they are different, we can each decide which works best for us.  But it's not all nonsense, as I think you imply it is.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Peter H

[Jeff S]

 

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. 

 

Pardon the excerpting of these two last statements.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the first, adding things like the VF experience (how one sees the subject), weather sealing and more.  Others may disagree or have different criteria.

 

But, if your first statement is true, then the second statement may be too limiting, since these users are looking beyond 'quality' (assuming you mean image quality) benefits.  Sticking with one manufacturer doesn't mean a common interface and user experience.

 

For instance, I'm looking for another system to complement my digital M's, primarily to use wider and longer lenses (I don't like using the M240 EVF add-on).  I'm considering both the SL and X1D (and maybe other cameras).  I assume (subject to my own critical testing) that IQ will be superb for both the SL or X1D.  But even if I stick with Leica and choose the SL, the whole user experience (VF, menu interface, etc) is already significantly different from the M.  Same with the X1D.  And, if I want to stick with native AF and weather sealed lenses, then the current options are limited for both the SL and X1D.  There are tradeoffs everywhere.

 

It's hard to generalize.  I think each person has his/her own needs and preferences....and overall workflow (including to print and display in my case)....to consider.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

I must say, I'm always somewhat bemused by comparative shots as well.  People post a corner crop from an image and say it's rubbish, and to be honest I usually don't get it.  Half the time, I don't even know what I'm looking for.  There are so many variables, and processing provides such a huge opportunity for me to screw things up that I tend to gravitate to system which are easy and pleasant to use.

 

I'm hoping to try the X1D while I'm in New York next month (could be a faint hope).  Here's my take.

 

I love the M system - compact, beautiful lenses, 21-90 range.  I have zero problems with the CMOSIS sensor or the CCD sensor in my Monochrom (and at some stage, I'll have to get it replaced).  The two film Ms are just lovely to have.  But the lenses, they are the gems.

 

SL, I have the two zooms, and can use 8 M mount lenses, and my one R lens as well.  All work perfectly, and the choice of focal lengths from 15mm to 360mm.  The sensor is fine, the EVF fantastic and the user interface as only Leica seems to be able to achieve.

 

These two systems combined give me the choice of compact and manual through to huge and fully automated.  Seriously, what could be better?

 

The X1D offers two focal lengths 45 (roughly 35mm equivalent fov) and 90mm (roughly 75mm fov), with 30mm (25mm fov) to come.  From everything I've read, the lenses are of a standard that even if I went looking from problems, I'd be hard put to find them.  Similarly, the sensor is proven - any quality issues will probably turn on my shooting technique or incompetent processing.  The user interface is typical Hasselblad, and much like Leica - driven by what photographers typically want and actually need, rather than what the technology can offer.  I'm sure there will be many who will complain about this and that, but coming from a 500 series Hasselblad from many years ago, I get it.  We get large files, lovely big sensor, good glass, leaf shutters and a Hasselblad interface.

 

In the end, though, by comparison, I get a camera with 25-35-75 focal lengths (no 50, but still my most used focal lengths) in a compact package.  Why wouldn't I take my SL, either with the 24-90 zoom (despite its size), or the SL or an M with 21-28-50, and/or a 75 or 90 (they are way smaller than the XCD lenses)?  The SL with the Noct or 21-28-75 Summilux on it is smaller than the X1D with either of its lenses.  It all comes back to that sensor, I guess.

 

The other thing to bear in mind is that by all accounts the X1D will be slower (more contemplative) in use than the M or the SL - the EVF seems to be inferior to the SL (probably better than the M(240) clip-on and reviewers seem to be saying "good enough", but coming from the SL?), and the ISO range and shutter speeds not as wide as the SL.  That all seems to come down to the demands of the sensor.  Both the SL and the X1D are very attractive cameras, and the haptic of both (to my taste) seem fantastic.  

 

I do wonder, though, if I wanted a compact AF camera to carry with me, I would choose the X1D with 45mm lens over the SL with its bulky zoom.  But then, I could take the SL with the Noct on it, and a 28 in my pocket ...

 

Size, haptic and usability are all important (and the pleasure of use, to be honest), but it all comes down to the quality of those files.  The X1D will, I expect, have its frustrations with the speed of its AF and the quality of its EVF.  I expect the SL to be more polished, but the X1D undoubtedly has appeal.  It would be my M cameras that might end up on the shelf, rather than the SL, I suspect.

Edited August 23, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[thighslapper]

I wouldn't under-rate the EVF in a mirrorless camera ...... it is the one thing that makes or breaks.

 

I used my Leica Q this weekend after a long lay-off and 100% SL use.

 

I thought the EVF was faulty and spent ages fiddling with the dioptre adjustment thinking it was wrong.

 

In reality, it just doesn't compare with the SL which is getting close to glass/mirror standards.

 

EVF improvement is the one single thing that will get me to upgrade .... and in that I include the M successor,Q, SL and T. 

 

Once you are used to an SL quality EVF there is no going back .......

[IkarusJohn]

As the SL has the only EVF I have (apart from my iPhone), it is the issue with the X1D which concerns me the most ...

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I've said before, here and/or elsewhere, if and when a 20-23mm focal length lens for the X1D becomes available, it becomes interesting to me as a 'digital SWC' camera.

 

I don't have any need to see comparison photos or to spend time poring over graphs and spec sheets. I know from having seen the early units on their announcement road show that the body is just fine, the viewfinder works very well, etc. I know that the firmware I saw the camera with was extremely early and that the production camera will be far superior to anything I saw. I'm certain the lenses will be very very good as well. 

 

BTW: 'Interesting' does not require a purchase.  

That takes further consideration.

[Jeff S]

 

In the end, though, by comparison, I get a camera with 25-35-75 focal lengths (no 50, but still my most used focal lengths) in a compact package.  Why wouldn't I take my SL, either with the 24-90 zoom (despite its size), or the SL or an M with 21-28-50, and/or a 75 or 90 (they are way smaller than the XCD lenses)?  The SL with the Noct or 21-28-75 Summilux on it is smaller than the X1D with either of its lenses.  It all comes back to that sensor, I guess.

 

 

The M lens alternative of course works well if one doesn't care about AF or maximum weather sealing (SL with native lenses).  

 

The Hasselblad CEO has confirmed future zoom(s) for the X1D, and the rep at the demo I attended hinted at another lens (besides the 30 at Photokina) by year end.  

 

Besides the quality of the X1D EVF (my top concern), the wild cards for me are the future lenses....type and timing...for both X1D and SL systems, and user reports on weather sealing for the X1D in real shooting conditions (similar to reports on the SL, which I assume will mirror positive feedback on the S system).

 

Either way, I'll rent both systems for a week to get a better feel....for handling and for print results...probably in another 6 months or so to let things shake out a bit more.  The S006 + zoom didn't meet my criteria after testing for a week, but I still haven't ruled out the S007 with primes as a system alternative if prices plunge as they did with the 006, and if Leica better addresses lens issues and service turnaround (although size/bulk remains a concern).  I expect more MF competition at Photokina or soon after.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

As the SL has the only EVF I have (apart from my iPhone), it is the issue with the X1D which concerns me the most ...

 

 

It looks like the same EVF as Fuji put in the XT1 & 2. 

[ramarren]

It looks like the same EVF as Fuji put in the XT1 & 2. 

 

Your statement was unclear as to what "it" referred to.

• Fuji XT1 and XT2 have 2.36 Mpixel viewfinders. X1D has the same.
• Leica SL has 4.4 Mpixel viewfinder. 

So yes, the X1D could be using the same EVF panel as the Fuji XT1/XT2. Which is a good EVF, even if not the same resolution as the Leica SL. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by ramarren

[Jager]

Back in the day, if one had, say, a Nikon F5 or or Leica M6 and suggested that such gear could achieve comparable imagery to a Hasselblad or Rollei or Mamiya medium format camera... we would have been laughed at.  The smaller format cameras certainly had their strengths - speed and agility being paramount - but at the end of the day there was no gainsaying the benefit of that larger media surface when ultimate image quality was desired.

 

Nothing has changed.  The X1D will produce higher quality images than the SL.  Full stop.

 

Alas, we now have the internet and jpegs and the resulting perception that all is, or can be, the same.  When I drop off a roll of Portra 160 from my Hassy and get back a dozen of those little postcard-sized prints I don't notice any difference either.  It's only when I run those negatives through my Flextight X1, or wet some big paper in the darkroom, that that advantage reveals itself.

 

Peering intently at a jpeg on your monitor trying to discern the "benefit" of medium format digital is a fool's errand.  It's chasing ghosts.  It's only when delving deeply into those RAW files that MFD smiles at you.  But if you go there it does it every time, in every file.  It's not particularly subtle.

 

This all begs a larger question... to what end?  How big must we go until we're satisfied?  Especially given how infrequently images get printed anymore.  I'd argue we're all well-past good enough.  Frankly, an iPhone is sufficient for the purposes most pictures get put to these days.

 

None of which is to detract from the Leica SL.  Talk about a wondrous camera system!  Indeed, I think a credible case can be made that it is the best all-around camera in the world.  It will comport itself in so many more use cases than the X1D, and thus be able to come home with images - sterling images - that were always off the table for the Hassleblad.

 

But it's not medium format.  And pretending it is, or can be, is... just kind of funny.

 

Or sad.  Because the greatest truth of all is that it usually doesn't matter.  The camera is the least of it.  Always has been. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by Jager

[steppenw0lf]

I agree that on film "medium format" was always much "sharper" and had more details than anything called "Kleinbild"=FF. If the topic was accessible for MF, then FF could not compete regarding optimal quality.

But somehow it does not translate into digital for me.

Without defending any brand or camera, I cannot see a clear difference. Maybe this is also "lost in translation" from analog to a digital sensor.

The sensor is clean and gives no additional details when treated in special ways, while the chemical emulsions did, and the larger film could be treated in more intensive ways.

 

It is probably also because I only use LCD/video monitors (high res 5k) and no printed posters. I am sure that in printed media (like images high as a house, see Olympics) there is still a big difference. 

At the same time I do not like prints (the printed medium) very much, because of their limited contrast (reflected, compared to "actively" shining images on a monitor. )

 

So I do not fully understand it, but for me the difference/the gap has grown much smaller. (between mini"MF" and "FF"). Actually the difference in sensor size is now also far smaller than in the days of 6x6 the difference in film sizes.

 

If I am shown photos and asked where they are from (MF vs FF vs APS-C) I often have no idea. Sometimes I can detect a different style (and sometimes the additional DoF), and make my conclusions from that. But very often it is just guessing.

And when taking pictures created by stacking it is completely impossible for me.

Edited August 27, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Jeff S]

In general, I agree with Jeff (Jager), but digital does in fact introduce differences that were not considered with film, e.g., some camera sensors (within a given format size) have AA filters, some not; the Monochrom lacks a bayer array and greatly enhances b/w resolution, etc.

 

I particularly agree that the camera is only a part of the equation, just as it was in the darkroom; many if not most of my print enhancements over the years have been attributable to parts of the workflow (including display) beyond the camera or lens (due to PP gear, print materials, improved techniques, etc.)  And now digital PP offers so much more flexibility and choice, especially when starting with a robust digital file, that some IQ issues can be better addressed in the lightroom than ever possible in the darkroom (at least for me).   Even free software upgrades can often offer improved print results.  And In both film and digital, print size matters; distinctions are often more readily noticed at larger sizes.

 

At the end of the day, all that matters to me is actually making prints using my gear with my files and my workflow.  That's what I do when considering any new gear....through rental, demo or purchase...test and see for myself.  I've made some preliminary tests with the SL, and plan to more, along with the same with the X1D, after lens rentals makes gear available.  If only gear mattered, we'd all produce the same results.  Even then, we each have our own assessment criteria on print results, let alone our other assessment criteria on camera handling, ergonomics, etc, etc.

 

No need to theorize.....try and see.  

 

Jeff

Edited August 27, 2016 by Jeff S

[ramarren]

... the greatest truth of all is that it usually doesn't matter.  The camera is the least of it.  Always has been. 

 

 

Indeed. 

 

With film, I agree completely on the technical side: No 35mm camera can ever match what comes out of a medium format camera. It comes down to the properties of the recording medium ... the film. 

 

Moving to digital capture, the distinctions blur a little bit because the properties of the recording medium are less significant to the quality of the captured image. What becomes more significant are the coupling of DoF and FoV, the qualities of the lenses, etc ... and the distinctions become more subtle. A large sensor camera produces a different look and feel from a small sensor camera still, but on an average photo at an average size, the nuanced differences are there but are often not as apparent. It can take much greater print size or much more extreme subject or light to bring them out.

 

But as the above quoted material says, 'it usually doesn't matter.' Great cameras, in the end, just capture light. It's up to the photographer to know what to point to, where to focus, when to press the shutter release, and how to render what was captured into an image. Great photographs have been made with everything that can record light on media... by great photographers. 

[Peter H]

It's all true, that great photographers make great photos with any equipment. It's also true that different cameras have different characteristics and some are more congenial to individual people's styles than others.

 

On one level the differences between a Leica and a Hasselbled and a Nikon are trivial, especially in comparison with the crucial matter of the idea behind the photograph, the reason why you made it in the first place, which is way more important than any other part of its creation.

 

But the camera differences are not so trivial to make us indifferent as to what we use. Witness the amount of money we've individually and collectively spent on our cameras over the years.

[Georges]

Interesting discussion but somewhat flawed.

 

It is not because the SL and the 1XD both have EVPs, because both are new systems that their quality / files can be compared. We are in two totally different worlds.

 

I tried the SL with the 24-90 and I was disappointed about the quality. Not sure if it is the zoom (I mostly use primes) or if it is the sensor (I mostly use Monochrom or MF), but the pictures lacked "bite", "sharpness".

 

So, if the question is : which one to buy? Let's wait till we get finished X1D cameras and lenses and we can judge the final quality. But judging from the MFT charts, combined with a proven Sony sensor, it looks very promising.

 

So, the question on this Leica forum is more, is the X1D with a 45/90 better than the 007 with a 45/100 or not? 

 

We will know the answer soon.

[Peter H]

Interesting discussion but somewhat flawed.

 

It is not because the SL and the 1XD both have EVPs, because both are new systems that their quality / files can be compared. We are in two totally different worlds.

 

I tried the SL with the 24-90 and I was disappointed about the quality. Not sure if it is the zoom (I mostly use primes) or if it is the sensor (I mostly use Monochrom or MF), but the pictures lacked "bite", "sharpness".

 

So, if the question is : which one to buy? Let's wait till we get finished X1D cameras and lenses and we can judge the final quality. But judging from the MFT charts, combined with a proven Sony sensor, it looks very promising.

 

So, the question on this Leica forum is more, is the X1D with a 45/90 better than the 007 with a 45/100 or not?

 

We will know the answer soon.

It's an interesting question, but not a pertinent one for those of us who have no intention of buying an S 007 and a couple of S lenses.

 

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.

[lct]

Apple and orange with respect. I seem to perceive the same kind of difference between S and M240 files as between 6x6 and 24x36 bodies in the film days. Different DoF different FoV, whatever the reason MF and 24x36 don't play in the same league IMHO.

Edited August 28, 2016 by lct

[Jeff S]

 

So, the question on this Leica forum is more, is the X1D with a 45/90 better than the 007 with a 45/100 or not?

 

 

 

That's your question, not the question.

 

People have different concerns, preferences, styles, goals, etc.  Doesn't make any of the questions 'flawed'.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Georges]

" 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. 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Georges