Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[Alo Ako]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There is a rumour going aroound that: "Fujifilm said that some lenses can resolve over 100MP. To me, this means that it is “future proof” for when the Fujifilm GFX 100S will hit the market, the 100MP successor to the current 50S version.". Source Fujirumors.com

Edited January 23, 2017 by Alo Ako

[ramarren]

Saying "our lenses will support the next generation sensors" simply means either that they already have the next generation sensor in development and far along, so know its characteristics well enough that they can test the lenses to tune it and them, or it's a lot of hot air hoping to get buyers locked into a large lens investment. 

 

Hasselblad already has their 100 Mpixel MF camera well along in development (it's been formally announced) so they can test against that sensor easily. Fuji hasn't yet announced a 100 Mpixel MF camera at all, they've just said their lenses are ready for such a sensor.

 

I find all of this posturing so much nonsense and hot air, personally; it's marketing noise. If I needed or wanted a 100 Mpixel camera, I wouldn't be interested in either the X1D or GFX ... I'd be waiting for the 100 Mpixel camera announcements. Why bother spending all that money on a 50Mpixel body when you already KNOW the 100 Mpixel bodies are waiting in the wings? 

[Peter H]

Saying "our lenses will support the next generation sensors" simply means either that they already have the next generation sensor in development and far along, so know its characteristics well enough that they can test the lenses to tune it and them, or it's a lot of hot air hoping to get buyers locked into a large lens investment. 

 

Hasselblad already has their 100 Mpixel MF camera well along in development (it's been formally announced) so they can test against that sensor easily. Fuji hasn't yet announced a 100 Mpixel MF camera at all, they've just said their lenses are ready for such a sensor.

 

I find all of this posturing so much nonsense and hot air, personally; it's marketing noise. If I needed or wanted a 100 Mpixel camera, I wouldn't be interested in either the X1D or GFX ... I'd be waiting for the 100 Mpixel camera announcements. Why bother spending all that money on a 50Mpixel body when you already KNOW the 100 Mpixel bodies are waiting in the wings? 

 

 

 

I don't suppose anyone's doing what you're suggesting Godfrey, and buying a 50mp camera in the hopes of getting a 100mp one to replace it. 

 

This is mostly idle forum chat while use our current cameras quite happily and pass time speculating about the new ones that are coming.

[steppenw0lf]

some lenses can resolve over 100MP

 

You have not understood the problem/question. This is not about resolution - if a lens can resolve 100 MP is not the question.

This is about the size of the mount (how big is the hole ?) and the image radius of the lenses. Both cannot be changed from one generation to the next. And both are obviously too small for the (next generation) Sony sensor in the Hasselblad H6D-100c. (54x40mm)

So the H6D can support much bigger sensors than the 33x44 of the 50c model. But the X1D can't.

What is the conclusion regarding the upgrade path of GFX and X1D ?

Will 33x44 be a new standard "mini midrange" that will replace the common 6x6 midrange standard ? Or will there be many different midrange systems each with their private standard that coexist parallel to each other ? (60x60, 56x56, 54x40, 44x33, etc.)

Edited January 23, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[mmradman]

The way I read figures 44 x 33 is current medium format APS-C of sorts (24 x 16mm).

So by that analogy full frame medium format for the masses would be scaled up to become currently exclusive 54 x 40mm. Providing future technology can offer mass production of large sensor chips at reasonable cost point and demand is there everything is possible, history of photography of the recent decades iscresonable guide.

[Keith (M)]

Hasselblad announces change of management structure

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hasselblad announces change of management structure

Looks reassuringly sensible. Not the sort of bloke who might bankrupt the company by the end of the year.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[helged]

or the upcoming Fuji GFX with a 50Lux-M     - link (and the image below for those shy of entering fb...).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 31, 2017 by helged

[mmradman]

or the upcoming Fuji GFX with a 50Lux-M     - link (and the image below for those shy of entering fb...).

Thanks for that, there will be much more of this in time ahead.

I have recently postulated on R thread that adaptors for R lenses willl be possible as 44*33 sensor have 55mm diagonal while lot of full frame Leica optics project larger image circle while having longer registry than Fuji.

[helged]

Actually, what I really like with the SL is that you can mount pretty much any glass on the body with, in general, shining results. In this respect the GFX is the MF counterpart to the SL, and possibly X1D is the MF counterpart to the M.

 

Interesting times, indeed. And for sure, Leica needs to step up with at least one body/system with higher MP counts, whether Leica - or many of the Leica aficionados - like it or not. 

[Joshua Lowe]

Wow, how would that even work?  Is there a sensor crop happening like when you mount TL lenses to an SL?

[helged]

You crop in pp, apparently...

[mmradman]

Wow, how would that even work?  Is there a sensor crop happening like when you mount TL lenses to an SL?

No need to crop. Providing lens can project wide enough image circle you can utilise all of the sensor or most of it.

 

For instance full frame lens projects as a minimum 43mm diameter image circle which is equivalent to 30 by 30mm square. Some Lica lenses can do better than that, providing circle reaches 54mm diameter all of the Fuji GFX sensor can be utilised. Of course there may be incidence angle issues but again R lenses ( or any other full frame SLR lenses) that were designed for SLR with a mirror between flange and film plane fit the bill perfectly - no one reported poor corner performance with R lens on M camera (please correct me if wrong).

[BerndReini]

All of this is giving me a headache. I just want to take pictures again. I love the digital M-system, and for the few times I like to shoot portraits on a bigger "sensor", I'll load a roll of Portra in my Contax 645 for that beautiful 645 rendering only a 20k plus medium format back from Phase One can offer me.

 

If I want something more portable? Oh, right. Let me just load a roll in my Fuji GF670, bigger negative, too. Or maybe 4x5, bigger yet, and with full perspective controls.

 

And for the amount of depreciation, I can get all of this processed and scanned professionally.

[steppenw0lf]

Funny but weird. 

Seeing that image I feel clearly, this is not my world. And I "know" suddenly, in a few years this will be completely over.

Even if today a (small) midrange sensor is producing slightly "better" raw files than a 24MP SL or a 50 MP 5Ds, this is not worth the trouble. And for me it is a capital "IF", I doubt that there is a big jump in IQ.

And in a few years technical progress will produce sensors far more capable (resolution, DR) inside just "ordinary" well-usable cameras. And software will add other benefits - and sw is definitely not a strong point of X1D (GFX probably as well ?)

I see clearly that I am not the "daring" type to get one of those 44x33 cameras. I am simply waiting (a few years) to get a "better" sensor with the "classic" lenses, that I regard as best. (SL, R and M)

So today I have maybe "inferior" quality, But this will "automatically" improve over the years, and I am not left with oversized and unattractive equipment. (As I was once before with the Rollei 6000). 

 

Having the very best raw file quality is becoming of very low priority for me. The general level is already high (higher than ever in the "film" era). Clearly, improving other things like topic selection, being in the right place at the right time, reacting quickly to unexpected scenes/happenings would improve my images much more. (I hope)

How absurd it is becomes often very clear, when following discussions about the "best" 50mm lens. Is the Apo50 better or the Nocti (and which version). At the same time the images shown could easily be improved by selecting a different angle (or topic) or simply choosing a longer lens for portrait. Similarly absurd are for me discussions about which camera produces the best raw files. (When differences cannot be seen in online publications, but only when people get the "original" file and use the same operations in the exact same software version on a highres computer screen.)  As said, software is much more important.

 

This gets also very clear whenever a new camera comes out, and at first the software is not ready and nobody knows what to think of the quality of the new sensor. The colors are created (invented) in software, they do not come from reality. I wonder what a dog or cat or alien would think about the "beautiful colors" in our images.

 

Please buy the gear you like and enjoy it. But after thinking about it my priorities lie now in a different direction. (This forum helps me to find a direction for the next steps - which is more than just gear selection).

 

 

P.S: of course there are different frequencies of light ("colors") in reality, but we cannot see them (only a few of them). And we miss a lot (in IR and UV) which is visible when flowers/blossoms are shown in a wider spectrum. So even a "simple" insect sees more than we do. And it also gets many more "frames per second" - so it also has a much higher resolution regarding time.

Edited February 1, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[ski542002]

Funny but weird. 

Seeing that image I feel clearly, this is not my world. And I "know" suddenly, in a few years this will be completely over.

Even if today a (small) midrange sensor is producing slightly "better" raw files than a 24MP SL or a 50 MP 5Ds, this is not worth the trouble. And for me it is a capital "IF", I doubt that there is a big jump in IQ.

And in a few years technical progress will produce sensors far more capable (resolution, DR) inside just "ordinary" well-usable cameras. And software will add other benefits - and sw is definitely not a strong point of X1D (GFX probably as well ?)

I see clearly that I am not the "daring" type to get one of those 44x33 cameras. I am simply waiting (a few years) to get a "better" sensor with the "classic" lenses, that I regard as best. (SL, R and M)

So today I have maybe "inferior" quality, But this will "automatically" improve over the years, and I am not left with oversized and unattractive equipment. (As I was once before with the Rollei 6000). 

 

Having the very best raw file quality is becoming of very low priority for me. The general level is already high (higher than ever in the "film" era). Clearly, improving other things like topic selection, being in the right place at the right time, reacting quickly to unexpected scenes/happenings would improve my images much more. (I hope)

How absurd it is becomes often very clear, when following discussions about the "best" 50mm lens. Is the Apo50 better or the Nocti (and which version). At the same time the images shown could easily be improved by selecting a different angle (or topic) or simply choosing a longer lens for portrait. Similarly absurd are for me discussions about which camera produces the best raw files. (When differences cannot be seen in online publications, but only when people get the "original" file and use the same operations in the exact same software version on a highres computer screen.)  As said, software is much more important.

 

This gets also very clear whenever a new camera comes out, and at first the software is not ready and nobody knows what to think of the quality of the new sensor. The colors are created (invented) in software, they do not come from reality. I wonder what a dog or cat or alien would think about the "beautiful colors" in our images.

 

Please buy the gear you like and enjoy it. But after thinking about it my priorities lie now in a different direction. (This forum helps me to find a direction for the next steps - which is more than just gear selection).

 

 

P.S: of course there are different frequencies of light ("colors") in reality, but we cannot see them (only a few of them). And we miss a lot (in IR and UV) which is visible when flowers/blossoms are shown in a wider spectrum. So even a "simple" insect sees more than we do. And it also gets many more "frames per second" - so it also has a much higher resolution regarding time.

 

 

Funny but weird. 

Seeing that image I feel clearly, this is not my world. And I "know" suddenly, in a few years this will be completely over.

Even if today a (small) midrange sensor is producing slightly "better" raw files than a 24MP SL or a 50 MP 5Ds, this is not worth the trouble. And for me it is a capital "IF", I doubt that there is a big jump in IQ.

And in a few years technical progress will produce sensors far more capable (resolution, DR) inside just "ordinary" well-usable cameras. And software will add other benefits - and sw is definitely not a strong point of X1D (GFX probably as well ?)

I see clearly that I am not the "daring" type to get one of those 44x33 cameras. I am simply waiting (a few years) to get a "better" sensor with the "classic" lenses, that I regard as best. (SL, R and M)

So today I have maybe "inferior" quality, But this will "automatically" improve over the years, and I am not left with oversized and unattractive equipment. (As I was once before with the Rollei 6000). 

 

Having the very best raw file quality is becoming of very low priority for me. The general level is already high (higher than ever in the "film" era). Clearly, improving other things like topic selection, being in the right place at the right time, reacting quickly to unexpected scenes/happenings would improve my images much more. (I hope)

How absurd it is becomes often very clear, when following discussions about the "best" 50mm lens. Is the Apo50 better or the Nocti (and which version). At the same time the images shown could easily be improved by selecting a different angle (or topic) or simply choosing a longer lens for portrait. Similarly absurd are for me discussions about which camera produces the best raw files. (When differences cannot be seen in online publications, but only when people get the "original" file and use the same operations in the exact same software version on a highres computer screen.)  As said, software is much more important.

 

This gets also very clear whenever a new camera comes out, and at first the software is not ready and nobody knows what to think of the quality of the new sensor. The colors are created (invented) in software, they do not come from reality. I wonder what a dog or cat or alien would think about the "beautiful colors" in our images.

 

Please buy the gear you like and enjoy it. But after thinking about it my priorities lie now in a different direction. (This forum helps me to find a direction for the next steps - which is more than just gear selection).

 

 

P.S: of course there are different frequencies of light ("colors") in reality, but we cannot see them (only a few of them). And we miss a lot (in IR and UV) which is visible when flowers/blossoms are shown in a wider spectrum. So even a "simple" insect sees more than we do. And it also gets many more "frames per second" - so it also has a much higher resolution regarding time.

 

 

 

SteppenwOlf, I'm feeling the same way.  

 

So I shoot some Canon (a lot less than I used to), and about 90% SL.  It takes a boatload of cash to add another system to a workflow. So if I find the funds for the Fuji or 'Blad for what,  $15,000 to $20,000  for a 3-lens kit, and eventually buy into more optics to support this MF system.  What do I do with the SL & associated (M & R) lenses, worth about $22,000?   It takes a huge financial commitment to pump that kind of money into another system and let the Leica gear sit on the shelf for "X-number of jobs per year".  It also take a huge financial commitment to carry 2 or 3 systems that are less than fully compatible with each other.  

 

IF I had the client base and types of assignments to support the Phase 100mp system and a host of optics, I'd also have the $$ to keep the SL for the flexibility that format gives.  I'd jump at that opportunity but in my reality, it's a pipe dream.  As time moves on and the industry keeps dangling more fruit in front of me, I could still dump Canon or Leica and stick to one system again, like I did in the not too distant past. Life would be a lot simpler and less expensive!

 

IF the IQ & DR of these mid-range MF systems is only marginally better than the SL, they're not worth the financial commitment, IMO.  

[meerec]

I (still) shoot with SL and really nice lenses.

Got hold of a H5D 50C from a friend of mine. Yes, it's not the X1D but the very similar family.

Must confess the images from the Hassy are so incredibly good.

Yes, I can make nice artistic looking images from my SL but the Hassy makes them 3D right out of the camera.

I'm just sayin' ... am still heavily invested into SL.

 

Here is an example from today taken with the loaner H5D 50C and the HC 80mm lens.

 

hand held

ISO 3200

f/2.8

1/60sec

80mm

 

 

 

B8450924.jpg by Mirek, on Flickr

Edited February 2, 2017 by meerec

[DezFoto]

I (still) shoot with SL and really nice lenses.

Got hold of a H5D 50C from a friend of mine. Yes, it's not the X1D but the very similar family.

Must confess the images from the Hassy are so incredibly good.

Yes, I can make nice artistic looking images from my SL but the Hassy makes them 3D right out of the camera.

I'm just sayin' ... am still heavily invested into SL.

 

Here is an example from today taken with the loaner H5D 50C and 80mm lens.

 

 

B8450924.jpg by Mirek, on Flickr

 

 

Nothing says more than a photo! I think the glass for the X1D is expected to be better than the HC lenses, most of which were designed for film, not digital. 

[thighslapper]

mmmm .... I always presumed the '3d'effect' has more to do with the optics.... focal length, DOF etc etc.

 

unfortunately the 'law of diminishing returns' applies very much to camera gear.......

 

I'm sure I could produce marginally better photos by spending another boatload of cash .... and cram the safe with more rarely used 'old equipment', but even I have to draw the line somewhere. 

 

just like the M10 ..... the medium format itch is just not enough to get me scratching ...... yet, anyway ...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Joshua Lowe]

I (still) shoot with SL and really nice lenses.

Got hold of a H5D 50C from a friend of mine. Yes, it's not the X1D but the very similar family.

Must confess the images from the Hassy are so incredibly good.

Yes, I can make nice artistic looking images from my SL but the Hassy makes them 3D right out of the camera.

I'm just sayin' ... am still heavily invested into SL.

 

Here is an example from today taken with the loaner H5D 50C and the HC 80mm lens.

 

hand held

ISO 3200

f/2.8

1/60sec

80mm

 

 

 

 

B8450924.jpg by Mirek, on Flickr

 

Controversial opinion incoming: I prefer the SL to the above.