Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

 

 

 

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.  

 

Maybe its bad comment from me: but didn't it also cost a "boatload" of cash to add the SL system to the Canon system?

[BerndReini]

Maybe its bad comment from me: but didn't it also cost a "boatload" of cash to add the SL system to the Canon system?

 

Depends on whether you already own the M and R lenses.

[ski542002]

Depends on whether you already own the M and R lenses.

 

Not a bad comment at all.  

 

Already had the M lenses, & 1 R lens, from my M9 & M240 days.   My Canon gear bodies & zooms, no L primes, are pushing 11 years old and I much prefer MF lenses, metal construction, depth-of-field scales and fast primes of the Leica.  Quality of imagery from my M's and now SL, are better than my Canon, taking their age into consideration of course.  Sold the M9 years ago, and traded the M240 in part purchase for the SL. Got 1/2 of what I paid for the M240 new; the new SL cost me 1/2 of it's retail price, and I already have compatible optics.  

 

So my explanation of how I funded the SL, brings me back to my original comment.  If I dump my Leica gear to partially fund a mid-range MF system that is only marginally better than the Leica in "the best of conditions", and is less flexible than the Leica for the vast majority of assignments I shoot, what's the point?

[tom0511]

makes sense.

one part for me to own the SL is that now I can exchange lenses between the M and the SL (replacement for a DSLR) and even use S lenses on the SL /use the SL as a backup for the S (more theoretic). I also think its good to have comparable menue structure between those cameras.

I still can see the temtation of the x1d to have MF-smooth-IQ in a compact size, so I understand people who get into this system.

[ramarren]

...

So my explanation of how I funded the SL, brings me back to my original comment.  If I dump my Leica gear to partially fund a mid-range MF system that is only marginally better than the Leica in "the best of conditions", and is less flexible than the Leica for the vast majority of assignments I shoot, what's the point?

If it is only "marginally better", there isn't any point. I do, however, expect the X1D to excel beyond the SL in certain areas of endeavor, so what remains to be determined is exactly what those areas of endeavor might be and see whether the X1D is a good fit to your needs.

 

I have a niche use that I'd like it to fulfill, but I'd like it to offer a bit more than that as well. I suspect it will, but the lens I'd like for the niche use as yet needs to surface.

[meerec]

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

 

 

 

I kind of prefer SL too. Why? 

The Hasselblad seems "clinical" to me. Whereas the SL seems artistic / creative.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I kind of prefer SL too. Why? 

The Hasselblad seems "clinical" to me. Whereas the SL seems artistic / creative.

You're above my level here!

I prefer the SL because it has great lenses (far far more of them in reality than the X1D), an easy to use interface, class leading viewfinder....and it works - quietly and quickly.

Otherwise I have yet to see a photo for which the quality (as an image, not technical IQ) has been determined by being taken by the X1D or SL, rather than by the ability of the photographer.

[IkarusJohn]

I've umm'd and ahh'd, haven't held the X1D (daren't), but my New Year's resolution is to reduce gear and try to improve my use of what I have.  SL is my main colour digital camera, and I can see no circumstances in which my photographic aspirations exceed its capabilities.

[meerec]

I've umm'd and ahh'd, haven't held the X1D (daren't), but my New Year's resolution is to reduce gear and try to improve my use of what I have.  SL is my main colour digital camera, and I can see no circumstances in which my photographic aspirations exceed its capabilities.

+1 abt SL

I dared touch X1D but resisted, maybe because have uninhibited access to friend's H5D 50C

[meerec]

You're above my level here!

I prefer the SL because it has great lenses (far far more of them in reality than the X1D), an easy to use interface, class leading viewfinder....and it works - quietly and quickly.

Otherwise I have yet to see a photo for which the quality (as an image, not technical IQ) has been determined by being taken by the X1D or SL, rather than by the ability of the photographer.

I fondled the X1D for an hour and it wasn't enough for me to fall in love with.

I shoot with H5D 50C occasionally and I can tell it's a camera that doesn't make me very creative. The images are too perfect, too detailed, too studio-like even if made outside studio with available light and hand-held. In my mind the H5D is all that ... great for reproduction of artefacts and documentary. SL, perhaps through the variety of glass I shoot with, gives more room to be creative and spontaneous.

[relms]

I truly believe that in the end, it will be shown that Leica gets it.  It's not so much about the megapixel race, as it is about engineering equipment with emphasis on the quality and character of the images produced by the optimum combination of sensor and lens, and the shooting experience of the photographer with that equipment in hand.  For 100 years Leica have produced innovative, beautiful, functional cameras and lenses that stand the test of time.  It seems that Leica do not feel the need to get caught up in the frantic escalating megapixel race; they appear to be perfectly content to follow their own course, in their own time, and bring to market truly innovative products.  

 

In my brief history with Leica, I have owned the M9, M(240), MM(246), Q, S, and SL, and while some will disagree all, with the possible exception of the Q, were innovative products at the time Leica introduced them.  In the midst of all this chatter about the X1D and GFX, the question is being asked, "Where is Leica?"  My guess is, they're busy working on the next camera I will buy.

 

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others, but the creator is the man who disagrees." (Ayn Rand)

Edited February 3, 2017 by relms

[LocalHero1953]

I'm going to say something that may not be very popular with some.

 

That there are a lot of people out there who seriously respect Hasselblad and place it on the same pedestal as Leica, a maker of some of the finest cameras we have ever seen. Leica lost its way a bit, not least financially, but has reestablished itself as a great camera maker for the C21. Hasselblad also lost its way both financially and in design. Many, including myself, who have never owned a Hasselblad, would like to see it get back to where it was.

 

But if this camera had a Chinese name on it instead of Hasselblad, what would have been our response? "Great form factor, love the size, but........... Where are the lenses? No shutter? You mean I can't adapt other lenses? Seriously, no joystick? Hmm, firmware needs a bit of work. A bit slow. I think I'll wait for Fuji's - now they know how to make cameras and lenses, even if they ought to team with Ikea for the design."

Edited February 3, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Peter H]

 

.........  If I dump my Leica gear to partially fund a mid-range MF system that is only marginally better than the Leica in "the best of conditions", and is less flexible than the Leica for the vast majority of assignments I shoot, what's the point?

 

 

 

Just to address this particular question:

 

The nature of the image obtainable from different sized sensors (and different sensors of the same size) can vary a lot. In my testing of the X1D I concluded very quickly that there was not just a marginal difference compared with Leica full-frame sensors that I'm familiar with, which is mainly the M line but I do have some limited experience with the SL too, but a very substantial difference.  How we each evaluate that difference is up to each of us. I can see the difference plainly, even before reaching the print stage. It doesn't mean one is better than the other: it depends what you're looking for. 

 

But I suggest that until you have tried it for yourself and thought carefully about how they relate to the process of making photographs that motivates you in the first place, it would be quite wrong to assume that the the difference is "only marginally better than the Leica in "the best of conditions".

 

 

Bearing in mind the amount of money people pay for specific lenses that certainly yield only marginal differences over far less expensive equivalents, I think it's a mistake to conclude that cameras like the X1D or GFX don't offer much real benefit or value. They're not for everyone, but they offer distinct qualities that some will be right to value highly.

 

As always, the best way to find out which camera suits you best is to try them out. None of them are definitively better but they're all different, just like us.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Peter H

[wattsy]

But if this camera had a Chinese name on it instead of Hasselblad, what would have been our response? "Great form factor, love the size, but........... Where are the lenses? No shutter? You mean I can't adapt other lenses? .....

 

 

Yes, interesting question but doesn't the same apply to Leica too? If the Leica SL had been introduced by another company exactly as is, the same quality and with the same lenses, but branded as "Lucky SL" or "Magic Camera" and made in China, would all the current enthusiasts be quite so enthusiastic?

Edited February 3, 2017 by wattsy

[jrp]

Well I think that we can say a bit more than "they are all different".  It is clear that the mini MF cameras will produce objectively better images than full frame ones.  But there are trade-offs, mainly in terms of bulk / handling, available lenses, accessories, professional support, and price.  The extent to which these matter will depend on what you intend to do with the images (print v facebook, etc), whether you have to carry the gear or are working in a studio, what you are shooting (sports, portraits, landscape, street, events, etc).  Horses for courses.   

[Alo Ako]

Yes, interesting question but doesn't the same apply to Leica too?

 

I don't think so. Because Leica has been serious for many decades. Hasselblad had some strange changes the past years.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Alo Ako

[jrp]

Yes, interesting question but doesn't the same apply to Leica too? If the Leica SL had been introduced by another company exactly as is, the same quality and with the same lenses, but branded as "Lucky SL" or "Magic Camera" and made in China, would all the current enthusiasts be quite so enthusiastic?

A significant part of the attraction of the SL is that it takes M lenses well.  If the magic camera had done that, and there was a significant price benefit, I would have thought that you would have got a good degree of enthusiasm.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, interesting question but doesn't the same apply to Leica too? If the Leica SL had been introduced exactly as is, the same quality and with the same lenses, but branded as "Lucky SL" or "Magic Camera" and Made in China, would all the current enthusiasts be quite so enthusiastic?

Possibly, but not to the same degree, In my case, my attitude towards Leica and Hasselblad has been very similar - prejudiced equally in their favour from all that I know of them and their position in the photography pantheon, but approaching them with as dispassionate and analytical a mind as I can muster. So, starting from a level playing field, the more I heard about the SL from specs and reviews, the more keen I was to see it and possibly buy it. The more I hear about the X1D, the less interested I am in even trying it in the flesh. It looks like an excellent concept design for a fast, light, portable medium format camera that hasn't carried through the necessary features that would implement that concept.

 

I agree with Peter H's comment about having to see the image quality to understand the difference; I just doubt that the standard of my photos, in the broadest sense, would be greatly improved by better technical IQ.

Whereas the moment I picked up a Leica M9 I knew that I was holding a camera that was far more capable than I was; it challenged & helped me become a better photographer. And with the SL, I have a far greater proportion of keepers in those scenarios where it can shine than I could achieve with the M240.

 

Edit. For clarity, the two design choices Hasselblad made for the X1D that effectively ended my interest were:

1. the absence of a focal plane or electronic shutter = limited lens range.

2. no joystick/direction dial: neither two dials nor touchscreen are credible (IMO) for the fast, portable usage implied by the body design.

Edited February 3, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Peter H]

Well I think that we can say a bit more than "they are all different".  It is clear that the mini MF cameras will produce objectively better images than full frame ones.  But there are trade-offs, mainly in terms of bulk / handling, available lenses, accessories, professional support, and price.  The extent to which these matter will depend on what you intend to do with the images (print v facebook, etc), whether you have to carry the gear or are working in a studio, what you are shooting (sports, portraits, landscape, street, events, etc).  Horses for courses.   

 

 

Yes, exactly.

 

They are all different.

 

Ideally, I would have an M10 (I've just ordered one) and an X1D but I can't justify to myself spending that much money in one go. The SL is an interesting camera, but it's not for me. 

 

I'll wait for the X1D to mature, get its bugs ironed out, see what lenses materialise (though though be honest the 45 and 90 would be fine for me), see how the GFX50s stacks up but I think it will be for different uses than mine, and pair it with my M10.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Peter H

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Guest]

That sounds like a good plan Peter.