Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[alib]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

November is demo delivery in Zurich. Looking forward to that hoping that it lives up to the hype and 'media excitement'.

 

I surprised there has not been more hype. Remember this forum when the SONY A7 was announced? In fact, I am hoping the opposite to what happened with the SONY A7 which was over promised and under delivered and required a mkII version in very quick succession.  

[Advertisement]

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

[steppenw0lf]

This should probably be the subject of a new thread but I am in the same boat as you are...

 

I own a Hy6 and 12 Rollei lenses (4 AFD primes and 8 Rollei 6000 lenses).  I never invested in a digital back because I had the feeling it was going to be a dead end...

 

After the acquisition of Sinar by Leica I was hoping that Leica would release an adapter for the S.  There were some rumors as well... but it does not seem to be happening...

 

Fotodiox recently released a bunch of Rollei 6000 adapters for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and M43 but unfortunately none for the Leica SL...

 

 

The only full function adapter for the Rollei 6000 lenses I found is an offer by ALPA (a swiss company).

It offers both in-lens shutter (1/500) as well as in-camera shutter (1/4000) with the Alpa 12 FPS (Focus Plane Shutter). AF is also supported !  And there is even the possibility of shift (by 12mm max.) It also works with most other MF lenses and even with almost any digital back of the last ten years.   https://captureintegration.com/introducing-new-alpa-accessories/

But this great amount of flexibility also has a big price.   

Edited October 15, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Peter H]

I spent an afternoon with an X1D, not quite the final production version yet but very close to it apparently. 

 

To say I was impressed would be an understatement.

[Jeff S]

I spent an afternoon with an X1D, not quite the final production version yet but very close to it apparently. 

 

To say I was impressed would be an understatement.

 

Did the EVF have full functioning, e.g., multiple focus points, etc.  If so, what was your assessment....compared to, say the SL, if you've handled that as well?  The demo unit I handled in June was not that impressive EVF-wise, but reps said that it would be much improved by production.

 

Jeff

Edited October 20, 2016 by Jeff S

[IkarusJohn]

I spent an afternoon with an X1D, not quite the final production version yet but very close to it apparently. 

 

To say I was impressed would be an understatement.

Hi Peter,

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Cheers

John

[Peter H]

Did the EVF have full functioning, e.g., multiple focus points, etc.  If so, what was your assessment....compared to, say the SL, if you've handled that as well?  The demo unit I handled in June was not that impressive EVF-wise, but reps said that it would be much improved by production.

 

Jeff

No. Still just a single centre point. You can use the rear screen to tap a point to magnify to 100% to help with manual focussing, or use AF on the central point. This is probably just as it was when you saw it. They say there have been so many FW updates that they save them rather than load them during a demo tour to prevent anything going wrong, so the camera(s) I used were not quite the latest version. 

 

Overall, I found the EVF very nice to use. In fact I genuinely didn't think to spend time examining it too closely because it was so natural, clear and responsive that I sort of forgot that it was an EVF at all, and concentrated on using the camera to take photos, which is either a sign that I am easy to please or that it really is a very good EVF. I know how important the viewfinder is to you, so I still recommend scrutinising it for yourself, as I know you will. It was fine for me. It is not as large as the SL's  but I found the differences insignificant in use; you look through it and all you notice is the scene you are photographing.

 

 

Hi Peter,

 

Can you elaborate?

 

Cheers

John

 

 

 

 

First impressions first, and they are completely subjective. I was not thinking of doing a balanced review,  just trying to find out whether I like the camera for my own purposes:

 

It is a beautiful camera to hold and it handles like a dream. It doesn't feel much different from an M with one of the larger M lenses, and weighs barely any more. I think an M user could use it all day quite happily.  In terms of construction and solidity it feels like an M or an SL, and the controls and UI are delightfully simple. Not everyone will like using the touch screen, but I think every control can be replicated with the buttons and the two dials, and I found myself doing the simple things like changing exposure settings, iso focussing and so on in the same instinctive way that I do with the M.  

 

The transition from MF to AF is easy and you can happily employ back-button focussing if you wish. In overall handling, it was the easiest “good” camera I can remember using, and possibly the most comfortable. But it doesn't have the toggle on the back, unlike the SL, so that may be a negative for some.

 

As I said to Jeff, the viewfinder, whilst not as large as the SL's is more than adequate and I almost  immediately forgot it was an EVF, it just didn't get in the way and was nice to look through, and apart from the lack of multi-focussing points, still to come, it did its job well. The 100% magnification is clear and makes MF a breeze, just like the SL.

 

The start up is very slow, about 6 seconds, but I was advised not to turn it off except overnight because the drain when asleep (the camera, not me)  is absolutely negligible and it wakes from sleep mode more or less instantaneously, which I confirmed in practice,  so apart from at the very start of the day or after changing the battery (good for around 300 shots they say), the start-up time isn't an issue. But 300 shots: I'd have liked more from the battery but it does have a lot of work to do.

 

The AF isn't as rapid as a top-notch DSLR but it is quick enough (not for all applications, but again, coming from an M background, and with such good manual focus ability (again, the camera, not me) it's not a problem that I'd worry about. In use, it seems to be completely accurate but i'd have to do some specific tests to discover how large the focussing point is, but getting the eye in focus was the easiest thing in the world.  I didn't find it hunting,  indoors or out, and again  it was very easy to forget about because it just worked.

 

I like having a leaf shutter. Now that the maximum shutter speed is 1/2000, it is a very nice feature indeed and in my opinion essential in any camera with medium format aspirations. It's something Fuji will have to address with new lenses, but I'm sure they will.

 

It's a shame I can't show example files but I was asked not to share them and I won't break my word, obviously. I took about 60 shots and processed them all in LR and in Phocus 3.1 which I downloaded for the purpose. I see no real advantage in Phocus over LR at the moment, but it's too early yet for me to tell.

 

With two exceptions, the photos were stunning. Clarity and sharpness and detail and vast dynamic range are to be expected from this sensor, and the lenses (I used the 45 and the 90) seem to be all you could hope for and they seem to exploit the qualities of the sensor to the full, but again I wasn't doing a lens test, just taking photos as I normally would.The colours are glorious too. Things like WB (I stuck to auto WB) seem fine and very natural and overall the photos are realistic and natural-looking with far fewer digital manifestations that I'm used to, though much of that is simply the result of increased DR.  I made some shots with my M240 with a 35 FLE Summilux and a 75mm ASPH APO Summicron at equivalent apertures to make direct comparisons with the XC lenses and the differences are visible and largely in the X1D's favour, as you would hope and expect, but the Leica images are still beautiful of course, and the M lenses are so much faster, so I'm not saying the X1D is a superior camera, but in the circumstances that suit its abilities, which will be very many given its portability and other qualities, it will be able to produce spectacular results in a way no other camera can. At the moment.

 

I have a reservation that needs to be resolved though, as there were some odd artefacts (a species of banding in the shadows, not replicated in any other photos) in two shots, but only two. Hasselblad are investigating now. Until they get back to me, I can't say whether it's an issue to be concerned about or not, but it is not to be overlooked. It is not an issue with the sensor when used in other cameras so I'm optimistic it's a resolvable thing.

 

That aside, and the need for a final fully-featured version to appear for review before shipping starts, I'd say this is the most exciting new camera I have used for a very long time. The fact that it is genuinely capable of stupendous results both in a studio (I'm not a studio photographer but use one occasionally) and out and about in normal life and work, in a body that, with your eyes shut you might believe was an M with a superior grip, and is as easy as an M to carry and operate, and with AF, means that it may well get a mention in my next letter to Santa Claus.

 

But none of this in any way diminishes the unique qualities of the M. I much prefer the feel of the X1D to the SL, but again, that has different features and qualities too, so this is more a matter of my preferences, and not an attempt to say which is better, which is a futile exercise at the best of times.

[BlackDoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

[...]

But none of this in any way diminishes the unique qualities of the M. I much prefer the feel of the X1D to the SL, but again, that has different features and qualities too, so this is more a matter of my preferences, and not an attempt to say which is better, which is a futile exercise at the best of times.

 

This is one of the most important sentences in this thread.

Thanks for your report !!!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

No. Still just a single centre point. You can use the rear screen to tap a point to magnify to 100% to help with manual focussing, or use AF on the central point. This is probably just as it was when you saw it. They say there have been so many FW updates that they save them rather than load them during a demo tour to prevent anything going wrong, so the camera(s) I used were not quite the latest version.

Overall, I found the EVF very nice to use. In fact I genuinely didn't think to spend time examining it too closely because it was so natural, clear and responsive that I sort of forgot that it was an EVF at all, and concentrated on using the camera to take photos, which is either a sign that I am easy to please or that it really is a very good EVF. I know how important the viewfinder is to you, so I still recommend scrutinising it for yourself, as I know you will. It was fine for me. It is not as large as the SL's but I found the differences insignificant in use; you look through it and all you notice is the scene you are photographing.

 

 

 

 

 

First impressions first, and they are completely subjective. I was not thinking of doing a balanced review, just trying to find out whether I like the camera for my own purposes:

It is a beautiful camera to hold and it handles like a dream. It doesn't feel much different from an M with one of the larger M lenses, and weighs barely any more. I think an M user could use it all day quite happily. In terms of construction and solidity it feels like an M or an SL, and the controls and UI are delightfully simple. Not everyone will like using the touch screen, but I think every control can be replicated with the buttons and the two dials, and I found myself doing the simple things like changing exposure settings, iso focussing and so on in the same instinctive way that I do with the M.

The transition from MF to AF is easy and you can happily employ back-button focussing if you wish. In overall handling, it was the easiest “good” camera I can remember using, and possibly the most comfortable. But it doesn't have the toggle on the back, unlike the SL, so that may be a negative for some.

As I said to Jeff, the viewfinder, whilst not as large as the SL's is more than adequate and I almost immediately forgot it was an EVF, it just didn't get in the way and was nice to look through, and apart from the lack of multi-focussing points, still to come, it did its job well. The 100% magnification is clear and makes MF a breeze, just like the SL.

The start up is very slow, about 6 seconds, but I was advised not to turn it off except overnight because the drain when asleep (the camera, not me) is absolutely negligible and it wakes from sleep mode more or less instantaneously, which I confirmed in practice, so apart from at the very start of the day or after changing the battery (good for around 300 shots they say), the start-up time isn't an issue. But 300 shots: I'd have liked more from the battery but it does have a lot of work to do.

The AF isn't as rapid as a top-notch DSLR but it is quick enough (not for all applications, but again, coming from an M background, and with such good manual focus ability (again, the camera, not me) it's not a problem that I'd worry about. In use, it seems to be completely accurate but i'd have to do some specific tests to discover how large the focussing point is, but getting the eye in focus was the easiest thing in the world. I didn't find it hunting, indoors or out, and again it was very easy to forget about because it just worked.

I like having a leaf shutter. Now that the maximum shutter speed is 1/2000, it is a very nice feature indeed and in my opinion essential in any camera with medium format aspirations. It's something Fuji will have to address with new lenses, but I'm sure they will.

It's a shame I can't show example files but I was asked not to share them and I won't break my word, obviously. I took about 60 shots and processed them all in LR and in Phocus 3.1 which I downloaded for the purpose. I see no real advantage in Phocus over LR at the moment, but it's too early yet for me to tell.

With two exceptions, the photos were stunning. Clarity and sharpness and detail and vast dynamic range are to be expected from this sensor, and the lenses (I used the 45 and the 90) seem to be all you could hope for and they seem to exploit the qualities of the sensor to the full, but again I wasn't doing a lens test, just taking photos as I normally would.The colours are glorious too. Things like WB (I stuck to auto WB) seem fine and very natural and overall the photos are realistic and natural-looking with far fewer digital manifestations that I'm used to, though much of that is simply the result of increased DR. I made some shots with my M240 with a 35 FLE Summilux and a 75mm ASPH APO Summicron at equivalent apertures to make direct comparisons with the XC lenses and the differences are visible and largely in the X1D's favour, as you would hope and expect, but the Leica images are still beautiful of course, and the M lenses are so much faster, so I'm not saying the X1D is a superior camera, but in the circumstances that suit its abilities, which will be very many given its portability and other qualities, it will be able to produce spectacular results in a way no other camera can. At the moment.

I have a reservation that needs to be resolved though, as there were some odd artefacts (a species of banding in the shadows, not replicated in any other photos) in two shots, but only two. Hasselblad are investigating now. Until they get back to me, I can't say whether it's an issue to be concerned about or not, but it is not to be overlooked. It is not an issue with the sensor when used in other cameras so I'm optimistic it's a resolvable thing.

That aside, and the need for a final fully-featured version to appear for review before shipping starts, I'd say this is the most exciting new camera I have used for a very long time. The fact that it is genuinely capable of stupendous results both in a studio (I'm not a studio photographer but use one occasionally) and out and about in normal life and work, in a body that, with your eyes shut you might believe was an M with a superior grip, and is as easy as an M to carry and operate, and with AF, means that it may well get a mention in my next letter to Santa Claus.

But none of this in any way diminishes the unique qualities of the M. I much prefer the feel of the X1D to the SL, but again, that has different features and qualities too, so this is more a matter of my preferences, and not an attempt to say which is better, which is a futile exercise at the best of times.

Fantastic right up Peter....... I wish I could do shit like that.

After my escapades lugging all this MF gear around the back streets of Pakistan you've got my juices flowing

[steppenw0lf]

About the EVF: You write 100% magnification. Is this a tipo ?  Is it 100% equal to 2x or is it 10x or anything in between ?

 

Added later: For Neil D: Forget about the tipo. The question is simply: What is the enlargement ?   

Edited October 21, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

About the EVF: You write 100% magnification. Is this a tipo ? Is it 100% equal to 2x or is it 10x or anything in between ?

Hay back off...... i'm the one with the typeos....... peters Scottish is just fine.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

[emoji3][emoji3][emoji3][emoji23][emoji23][emoji3][emoji3]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter H]

About the EVF: You write 100% magnification. Is this a tipo ?  Is it 100% equal to 2x or is it 10x or anything in between ?

 

Added later: For Neil D: Forget about the tipo. The question is simply: What is the enlargement ?   

 

 

I can't answer that because I don't know what the original view is, except it is much smaller. But as it was explained to me, the magnification shows the selected point as a selection of the file at its full size (100%), filling the viewfinder. And if I remember correctly, you can change the magnification by turning the dial.

 

It's big and clear!

Edited October 21, 2016 by Peter H

[gpwhite]

Peter, such useful comments from your test run. Thanks,!

 

You mention how the M lenses are so much faster, and I take that to mean effective exposure setting M+75 vs X1+90, for example. This is a critical point for non-tripod shooting, of course. Hoping that the leaf shutter saves a stop (as it does on Mamiya 7), would you estimate 2 stops loss to get similar DOF and sharpness (I.e., M = 1/250 @ f/2.8 vs X = 1/250 @ f/5.6)? Or does the X1 need even a bit more? I know the larger image circle required for the XC lenses creates a bigger challenge in all this too.

 

My question then hits on whether the MF sensor at 2 (or more) stops *higher* ISO still gives nice results vs M FF images? This has always been my dilemma with MF-- as tripod cameras they are great, but for what I call urban photography, do you have a feeling now whether the X1D leverages sensor DR with a leaf shutter to get close to M-like applied flexibility?

 

Following on then to your observation about banding, which would suggest X1 may struggle in my comparison above. Is it in the blue channel? Sean Reid's marvelous analyses taught me about understanding shadows, the blue channel and how to thoughtfully integrate DR and ISO in expectations for what a sensor can deliver.

 

Please share your comments. After all, you are one of us and not a Hasselblad Ambassador,

[Peter H]

Peter, such useful comments from your test run. Thanks,!

 

You mention how the M lenses are so much faster, and I take that to mean effective exposure setting M+75 vs X1+90, for example. This is a critical point for non-tripod shooting, of course. Hoping that the leaf shutter saves a stop (as it does on Mamiya 7), would you estimate 2 stops loss to get similar DOF and sharpness (I.e., M = 1/250 @ f/2.8 vs X = 1/250 @ f/5.6)? Or does the X1 need even a bit more? I know the larger image circle required for the XC lenses creates a bigger challenge in all this too.

 

My question then hits on whether the MF sensor at 2 (or more) stops *higher* ISO still gives nice results vs M FF images? This has always been my dilemma with MF-- as tripod cameras they are great, but for what I call urban photography, do you have a feeling now whether the X1D leverages sensor DR with a leaf shutter to get close to M-like applied flexibility?

 

Following on then to your observation about banding, which would suggest X1 may struggle in my comparison above. Is it in the blue channel? Sean Reid's marvelous analyses taught me about understanding shadows, the blue channel and how to thoughtfully integrate DR and ISO in expectations for what a sensor can deliver.

 

Please share your comments. After all, you are one of us and not a Hasselblad Ambassador,

 

 

Interesting questions. I’m happy to share my thoughts, but I’m no expert, as must be obvious!

 

Yes, I meant Leica lenses are faster in terms of maximum aperture. Perhaps negligently I assumed they would let in roughly the same amount of light as the equivalent M lenses at the same f-stops, and as far as I can tell, they do, but the physicists can explain why I'm wrong. The differences are in the missing stops.

 

As far as depth of field goes, I’m guessing that the usual laws apply. The longer lenses which are needed for the same subject coverage resulted in visibly narrower dof in the image, in just the way I expected. The sensor being 1.7x the size of FF does make a noticeable difference of course. Sharpness is a different matter and I don’t think it’s a function of dof. The HCD lenses didn’t seem to me to require stopping down to achieve wonderful sharpness, so I’d be happy using them wide open on the evidence of the photos I managed to make. For a truly critical appraisal more rigorous testing would be needed.

 

The AF seems to be very accurate too, which helps.

 

So, if you’re thinking about whether you can use an X1D in a situation where you’d be using a Leica with a Summilux at maximum aperture, I’d say no, not quite; nothing replaces a great super-fast lens when it comes to shooting without a tripod in poor light. A 3.8 Hasselblad lens is virtually three stops slower than a Summilux wide open. And with narrower dof in an equivalent shooting situation we might require yet another stop or so to cover for any focussing inaccuracies, though I wouldn’t be worrying about that when gathering light is the priority. So yes, you’re at a relative disadvantage when it comes to genuine low-light hand-held photography, certainly.   I was able to use iso 3200 quite comfortably, which goes some way to mitigating this disadvantage. Sensor development is an incredible thing.

 

The leaf shutter may also confer an advantage (I always believed it did with my Rolleis), but again I can’t confirm it, but I think you may still be right to assume something like a two-stop difference in practice, and with practice, and a following wind. The wide dynamic range could be another advantage along with file flexibility, so I expect it to be quite useable in some poorer light situations. But I don’t want to sound like a Hasselblad Ambassador!

 

I’m assuming the banding will not be a problem in the production models, but I’m talking to Hasselblad about it because I want to understand what’s going on. As I mentioned, it only appeared in a couple of photos, both at iso 400, and not in any others at higher and lower iso, even in deep shadow areas.

 

Anyway, I wouldn’t consider the X1D to be an outstanding low-light camera, except by normal MF standards where it probably will be.  But judging by what I was able to achieve in my afternoon, I think I’d be quite happy using one without a tripod in most daylight situations and many decently-lit indoor ones. I wouldn't underestimate how easy it is to handle compared with other larger-sensor cameras either.  Going back to the SL comparison though, the XCD lenses have no image stabilisation, so that may be another factor for some people.

 

This camera (and its Fuji counterpart, which promises to be different in some interesting ways) is a fascinating proposition. I could use it for hand-held photography far more easily than I could any other larger-than-FF camera I’m familiar with, but it isn’t a Leica M, obviously. But a Leica M isn’t a Hasselblad either, if you see what I mean. Many of my own favourite photos were made at f4 or smaller, and I very rarely use a tripod, so I don’t feel inhibited by the slower lenses, but it would be daft to ignore the difference. How to make the most of the differences between formats has always been an interesting creative challenge for photographers, and I’m finding the challenge hard to resist.

 

Thanks for asking the questions though. They help me to think carefully about the decision, and as always happens, you come across the most interesting questions after you've given the camera back and can't test them out!

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Peter I have a few questions of my own.

Are the 3200 ISO files really usable. What I mean is could you print them without too much grief.

Does the X1D have the true focus option ?

I think you mentioned that BBF is possible........ is it easily accessible??

One last question. I've always loved the color of my mates H4D pictures, they kind of have that Leica/Hasselblad look........ did you see that in the shots you took?

Battery life........ could you do a full day shooting on two battleships?

[Jeff S]

....... could you do a full day shooting on two battleships?

 

It's supposed to be weather proof, not bullet proof.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

Peter I have a few questions of my own.

Are the 3200 ISO files really usable. What I mean is could you print them without too much grief.

 

With a bit of PP maybe, yes. They looked good to me. Subject to all the usual variables like how large, subject matter etc etc....But  I have a relaxed attitude to noise as long as it's not obtrusive, (colour noise is the worst and I'm not finding any) and I expect the good DR will help to keep things looking natural.

 

Does the X1D have the true focus option ?

 

No.

 

I think you mentioned that BBF is possible........ is it easily accessible??

 

Yes. Put the camera in MF by pressing the AF/MF button on the top. Then use the AF button on the back.

 

One last question. I've always loved the color of my mates H4D pictures, they kind of have that Leica/Hasselblad look........ did you see that in the shots you took?

 

Yes. That's the first thing that really struck me about the photos when I first looked at them, along with the fine detail. I've printed a few shots from LR straight out of the camera, no sharpening at all, no adjustments of any type at all. Beautiful, in my opinion. Very Leica-like, in fact, rich, deep and realistic.

 

Battery life........ could you do a full day shooting on two battleships?

 

Hmmm...They say around 300 shots per battery so it depends on your shooting style. I'd feel nervous with just two. Certainly if I was shooting for someone else I'd need more, but you'd really start to rack up the memory consumption and upload time given the size of the files if you shoot  many hundreds of photos per day.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Peter H

[jrp]

At this point, unless you are printing billboards, and even then, the only reason to go for Medium Format mirrorless is the look.

 

Since the SL Zooms give a pseudo medium format look I can't see the advantage of these medium format light offers. Perhaps the sensor has higher dynamic range than the SL (or Nikon D810 or Canon 5Dr or ...). That can help considerably in landscape shots.

 

I like playing with new toys as much as the next guy, but I am not yet sure to what problem these new mirrorless medium format bodies are the solution.

Edited October 23, 2016 by jrp

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

At this point, unless you are printing billboards, and even then, the only reason to go for Medium Format mirrorless is the look.

 

Since the SL Zooms give a pseudo medium format look I can't see the advantage of these medium format light offers. Perhaps the sensor has higher dynamic range than the SL (or Nikon D810 or Canon 5Dr or ...). That can help considerably in landscape shots.

 

I like playing with new toys as much as the next guy, but I am not yet sure to what problem these new mirrorless medium format bodies are the solution.

 

 

Size and weight for example; they can be important considerations.   If I can get the same, or even slightly better, quality in a smaller and lighter package than an SL with a zoom, then it's worth considering at least. And if there are differences between the systems, then they will appeal to different photographers for equally legitimate reasons. 

 

The new Hasselblad and Fuji cameras are worth taking seriously even if your preference is the SL. It's a nice choice to have. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

At this point, unless you are printing billboards, and even then, the only reason to go for Medium Format mirrorless is the look.

 

Since the SL Zooms give a pseudo medium format look I can't see the advantage of these medium format light offers.

 

No it doesn't. The SL files are lovely but they are still 35mm files and they don't *look* like MF files (which is probably only obvious in 5% of images). SHooting ultra fast lenses on 35mm doesn't really replicate what happens with a larger sensor.

 

Then again the miniMF sensor doesn't have the MF look either. I have the S and Pentax systems and they don't quite get to what a full 645 sensor does.

 

 Transitions from in and out of focus areas is different. Then you add the extra bit depth (16 stops for the S system and the new HB) and the difference is subtle but noticeable. That happens again as you move to 645.

 

And I'm sure you already know this but billboards require very low resolution compared to a magazine print.

 

Gordon