Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I handled the X1D too, recently, and while it had considerable attractions, it did not feel like a finished system -- too many glitches in even just a short session.  It may mature into an excellent system, but by that time the SL system may also mature further (more native lenses, new sensor).

 

The M lenses (their size and performance) make the SL system for me.  The X1D lenses are large, like the DSLR system that I used in the past (and like the AF SL lenses).  So the SL will always remain a preferable option for me, despite the superb results that seem to be coming from the X1D sensor.

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS]

Timing is often key. While the SL seems off to a good start (I remain interested), I think it would have gained a better following and reputation if it had launched with 3 smallish Summicron primes. Leica is still much about the lenses. And personally, I might have preferred a mini-S body shape.

But choices are good....and only Leica knows how many SL cameras/lenses it needs to sell to be a success.

Jeff

According to Sven. If you buy one that will put them over the top............ go on buy one, you know you want to.

You can even print with one

[Jeff S]

According to Sven. If you buy one that will put them over the top............ go on buy one, you know you want to.

You can even print with one

Last I checked it lacked a paper feed. But you're the workflow guru.

 

Jeff

[jrp]

Medium format not worth the price of admission? http://www.dearsusan.net/2017/03/14/putting-pin-medium-format-photography-ambitions/

[IkarusJohn]

Right off the top, I will state I have been a dedicated Leicaphile and gear junkie for nigh on 35 years. I am embarrassed to think about the amount of money I've lost on Leica gear (selling to upgrade) but that's another story as I'll continue along this losing path. I desperately want the SL to succeed as it is another Leica that interests me after the M and S lines that I currently fool around with as a rank amateur. However, I just cannot fathom how the SL can possibly compete with the Hasselblad X1D or even the Fuji, at least with a new crop of customers who are not constrained by owning an inventory of Leica lenses. I handled the X1D recently and while the shutter lag is very annoying, it has the build quality of an SL, a name that is just as venerable, far lighter, higher resolution and easier to carry around as well. With the H lenses soon to be AF compatible (they say a firmware change is inevitable to accommodate this) I just cannot justify the SL given the cost of the system is pretty much equivalent. My reason to get an SL would be for the AF so the M lenses are out. In fact, I see no future for the SL given the competitive offerings. Its a tough world out there and Leica will need to speed up their rate of innovation methinks.

 

 

Hi Sunil,

 

What is missing, for me, from your analysis is what, exactly, are you looking for?

 

If I understand you correctly, you are an M and S user, so you have M and S lenses in reasonable supply.  Why add an SL?  and how would this need be met by an X1D?  I'm genuinely curious.

 

I don't have an S, and could never justify the cost.  Besides, despite its relatively compact size, it's just too big for what I do.  I have M lenses (6 of them) in the ranges and of the speeds I want.  The SL offers me the electronic capabilities and universal mount I want in 35mm format.  I can use my M lenses, and the two AF zooms when I want AF or the additional reach the 90-280 zoom provides.  AF is a useful addition, with image stabilisation, in the longer focal lengths.  For the core prime focal lengths, 21-75 that I use, AF is less important to me.  So, as a universal platform, the SL is perfect for me.  I wouldn't change a thing (though there are firmware improvements I would like).

 

The X1D isn't an universal platform; it would be a new system for me.  There is an X1D and the 45 & 90 lenses sitting at the dealers with my name on it, but I've pretty much decided I won't be taking it (anyone wanting it, pm me).  Why was I interested?  As a former 500 series owner, the idea of medium format (even in this truncated size) is appealing.  At the moment, 50MP seems to be a sweet spot for medium format digital, and the X1D is very compact and relatively cheap.  It also comes with what seem to be good primes. BUT, is seems to be incomplete.  My primary concerns are the EVF, blackout and generally slow performance.

 

Both are well conceived, but I don't see them as competing in the same market at all.  The X1D is all about the 50c sensor, in a compact body, great user interface and compact primes.  The SL is also well conceived, but the implementation is far better - it hit the market as a mature product with very few glitches, and unlike the M(240) and X1D, everything is pretty well specified.

 

As to price, the X1D is $1,500 more for the camera body, but the lenses are cheaper - but then the lenses aren't really comparable.  Actually, nothing about these two cameras are comparable.  If I was to reconsider the X1D, the camera system that is would displace would be the M.  Both systems use primes, both compact - but the M is faster, and I'm not convinced I would gain much, other than larger files and the pleasure of returning to the Hasselblad name (against the loss of two wonderful M cameras and 6 fantastic lenses).

 

So, I think the SL has a great future - a universal camera for 35mm lenses.  Well conceived, well made, with the best EVF on the market.

Edited March 16, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[EoinC]

Medium format not worth the price of admission? http://www.dearsusan.net/2017/03/14/putting-pin-medium-format-photography-ambitions/

Depends upon one's requirements, and available rubles.

[phovsho]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

JRP

I enjoyed that read. I certainly don't feel the camera is the limiting factor in my photography.

 

The comments about not investing in a system camera also rings true. My wardrobe is full of discarded lens systems because the mount is no longer supported. It's the most compelling argument for Leica M and M compatible bodies (sl).

 

Unfortunately the reciprocity doesn't cut the other way - SL lens don't fit nor would they be feasible on m bodies.

 

And there's the rub for me. Whilst I love the SL body for uwa, fast and long M lenses, I'm reluctant to buy the SL-50 because it's an expensive lens and it's value/functionality is dependent on the ongoing development and relevance of the SL body. I want the SL system to thrive and like the look of the SL - 50 but why buy it when I could buy the M 50 APO and know that in 10 years I will still be using that lens.

[jrp]

The M lenses, having no electronics, are certainly less dependent on future development of existing bodies.

[IkarusJohn]

And there's the rub for me. Whilst I love the SL body for uwa, fast and long M lenses, I'm reluctant to buy the SL-50 because it's an expensive lens and it's value/functionality is dependent on the ongoing development and relevance of the SL body. I want the SL system to thrive and like the look of the SL - 50 but why buy it when I could buy the M 50 APO and know that in 10 years I will still be using that lens.

 

 

Hi Murray,

 

Having the 50 Summilux-M, Noctilux & 50 Summitar, I'm not sure what the 50 Summilux-SL would add.  I don't really need AF in 50mm, and the Noctilux is a perfect size for the SL.  I seem to recall you also have 50mm in M mount.

 

If I was starting with he SL from scratch, it might be a different story (though I still might favour the M mount 50s over the SL mount).

 

Cheers

John

[phovsho]

Hey John

Yes I have a bunch of M 50s including the nocti, lux, and rigid! But if I could convince myself that the SL will have an enduring life, similar to M system (1950s - ?), then I would pull the trigger on the SL-50. Still considering it despite that.

 

I have been wondering, since I only recently bought the SL, whether I should have looked at the blad or Fuji medium formats before jumping. However, reading how they perform I'm increasingly certain I made the right choice.

 

I'm beginning to think though that the SL is an alternative body for my M glass, rather than an entirely new/independent system which also happens to support m lenses.

[IkarusJohn]

I don't buy the idea that the SL may be short lived.

 

Leica made the LTM for years, and those lenses are compatible with the M mount (with a small adapter); they made the R mount for, what 30 years (lots of fantastic lenses, all able to be used on both M and SL cameras with adapters); and, of course, the M system with 60 years of lenses.  I don't think Leica is about to abandon the L mount for a minute - they have two cameras and APS-C and full frame lenses and an adapter for S lenses.  This mount, and the lenses that go with it are here to stay, in my view.

 

The X1D is still a future option for me, but the attraction is the larger sensor.  The size and user interface is very similar to the approach taken by Leica, and once they get it right (i.e., up to SL standards) it will be very attractive.  But the only reason to get it will be if I want the 50c sensor.  Buying that camera would mean buying into a whole new system of lenses which would be hard to justify.  Like Godfrey, a single lens like the XCD 22mm effectively making a digital SWC could be very interesting.  But the 38mm fixed lens on the SWC is a very hard act to follow ...

 

In 35mm format, the SL is the ideal choice, I think, if you have any Leica lenses.  And Leica lenses are good, right?

Edited March 16, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[LocalHero1953]

If you're worried about lens mounts still being around in 10 years time, then I suspect the Leica L mount has a better chance than the new Hasselblad mount, based purely on the fact that Leica is in stable ownership and, apparently, profitable, while Hasselblad........... The X1D may put Hasselblad in the same position but it has a long way to go. The X1D effectively is Hasselblad's M8!

[phovsho]

I agree the x1d is hasselblad's m8.

 

All this talk about medium format digital has me pulling out my Mamiya 6 and Rollei TLRs! Might have a play over the weekend.

 

John, re whether SL is short lived. I think you are probably right that it's got a long life. If Leica is committed to FF AF then L mount is here to stay. I think you just shifted my perception of SL obsolescence risk down.

 

Best

 

M

[sunil]

Hi Sunil,

 

What is missing, for me, from your analysis is what, exactly, are you looking for?

 

If I understand you correctly, you are an M and S user, so you have M and S lenses in reasonable supply.  Why add an SL?  and how would this need be met by an X1D?  I'm genuinely curious.

 

I don't have an S, and could never justify the cost.  Besides, despite its relatively compact size, it's just too big for what I do.  I have M lenses (6 of them) in the ranges and of the speeds I want.  The SL offers me the electronic capabilities and universal mount I want in 35mm format.  I can use my M lenses, and the two AF zooms when I want AF or the additional reach the 90-280 zoom provides.  AF is a useful addition, with image stabilisation, in the longer focal lengths.  For the core prime focal lengths, 21-75 that I use, AF is less important to me.  So, as a universal platform, the SL is perfect for me.  I wouldn't change a thing (though there are firmware improvements I would like).

 

The X1D isn't an universal platform; it would be a new system for me.  There is an X1D and the 45 & 90 lenses sitting at the dealers with my name on it, but I've pretty much decided I won't be taking it (anyone wanting it, pm me).  Why was I interested?  As a former 500 series owner, the idea of medium format (even in this truncated size) is appealing.  At the moment, 50MP seems to be a sweet spot for medium format digital, and the X1D is very compact and relatively cheap.  It also comes with what seem to be good primes. BUT, is seems to be incomplete.  My primary concerns are the EVF, blackout and generally slow performance.

 

Both are well conceived, but I don't see them as competing in the same market at all.  The X1D is all about the 50c sensor, in a compact body, great user interface and compact primes.  The SL is also well conceived, but the implementation is far better - it hit the market as a mature product with very few glitches, and unlike the M(240) and X1D, everything is pretty well specified.

 

As to price, the X1D is $1,500 more for the camera body, but the lenses are cheaper - but then the lenses aren't really comparable.  Actually, nothing about these two cameras are comparable.  If I was to reconsider the X1D, the camera system that is would displace would be the M.  Both systems use primes, both compact - but the M is faster, and I'm not convinced I would gain much, other than larger files and the pleasure of returning to the Hasselblad name (against the loss of two wonderful M cameras and 6 fantastic lenses).

 

So, I think the SL has a great future - a universal camera for 35mm lenses.  Well conceived, well made, with the best EVF on the market.

 

 

Thats a darn good question. I am working on selling the S, which I rarely use, and replacing it. Hence my comment about constantly losing money on my deals but I do that consciously so not complaining. A couple of years ago I took the S with the 70mm lens to Barcelona - spent a week there and while I got some great images, lugging that beast around was a real pain for this 60 year old, 5'6" and all of 150 lbs guy. Loved the AF which is why I took it in the first place. Have never carried two cameras as photography is incidental to me. I thought the SL would be nice as a trip to Africa is planned later this year and the 90-280 sounded ideal. But again, there is no way I will be able to deal with the weight. So here comes the X1D in a far more compact package with the promise that the H lenses will eventually provide AF usage. I may not be able to use the 300mm H but cropping from a 51 MP sensor will do better than a 24 MP one, I suspect, for the lesser focal lengths. Not sure I'll spring for it but it sounds very attractive.

 

My point about the SL was that if I were a newcomer to the Leica world, unburdened by an inventory of lenses and interested mainly in AF, what would make me choose the SL over the Hasselblad? For me the scale would tip heavily in favor of the H'Blad although I have a particular bias for Leica. That leaves the market for SL focused on those that have lenses they can use with the SL, which is not a huge market. I really looked forward to a Leica with AF and hence bought the S thinking I'd get to love it but that has not been the case. So perhaps what I'm looking for is really an SL in a smaller package and higher resolution but that, I'm afraid, will happen when my iPhone becomes too cumbersome to carry around, let alone a camera.

[ramarren]

...My point about the SL was that if I were a newcomer to the Leica world, unburdened by an inventory of lenses and interested mainly in AF, what would make me choose the SL over the Hasselblad? For me the scale would tip heavily in favor of the H'Blad although I have a particular bias for Leica. That leaves the market for SL focused on those that have lenses they can use with the SL, which is not a huge market. I really looked forward to a Leica with AF and hence bought the S thinking I'd get to love it but that has not been the case. So perhaps what I'm looking for is really an SL in a smaller package and higher resolution but that, I'm afraid, will happen when my iPhone becomes too cumbersome to carry around, let alone a camera.

 

 

I think what I wrote in February bears repeating: 

 

"...The X1D is much more like the M than the SL in terms of what it can do, while it is much more like the SL in its size and weight. At some point I will decide whether its capabilities beyond what the M does are compelling enough for me to add it to the kit for yet a third complement to the other two. It can't replace either, but it can complement them very nicely. ..."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/261949-leica-sl-or-hasselblad-x1d/?p=3222471

 

If you have a problem with the SL90-280 in terms of size and weight, how on earth will you handle the Hasselblad 300mm lens? It's fatter, two inches shorter, and half a pound heavier. By the time you crop an X1D image down to the same AoV that the SL + 90-280 enable, you've eliminated any pixel advantage the larger X1D sensor might have, and you don't by any means have the SL's responsiveness, depth of field, and shooting speed to work with. 

 

The SL and X1D are very different cameras. They just look superficially similar. Buy the SL for performance and speed, for lens flexibility. Buy the X1D for its bigger sensor with all that that means, and accept that it is slower, a bit more cumbersome in use, etc. 

[Jeff S]

Don't underesimate the benefits of image stabilization on the native SL lenses, especially compared to longish non-stabilized lenses on a larger high MP sensor where handheld technique becomes even more critical. A sharp but smaller file beats a large fuzzy file.

 

I also recommend using a new system....rent, demo or borrow.... before committing. Helps prevent those expensive mistakes...

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

...

 

My point about the SL was that if I were a newcomer to the Leica world, unburdened by an inventory of lenses and interested mainly in AF, what would make me choose the SL over the Hasselblad? For me the scale would tip heavily in favor of the H'Blad although I have a particular bias for Leica. That leaves the market for SL focused on those that have lenses they can use with the SL, which is not a huge market. I really looked forward to a Leica with AF and hence bought the S thinking I'd get to love it but that has not been the case. So perhaps what I'm looking for is really an SL in a smaller package and higher resolution but that, I'm afraid, will happen when my iPhone becomes too cumbersome to carry around, let alone a camera.

 

 

That's a good question.

 

The SL has been released with two zooms, the 50 Summilux (now released) and a roadmap of three more primes and a further zoom to come.  The X1D has been released with 2 primes (the third, the 30mm now released) and a roadmap of four more primes and a zoom to come.  I wouldn't say that either the X1D or the SL has the advantage in native lenses - there is one more XCD lens in the roadmap than the SL, but as the SL is 35mm format, it covers a far wider range.

 

More critically, the SL is a more mature product; but the X1D has more resolution, as you say.

 

If I had no Leica or Hasselblad lenses (i.e., starting from scratch, as you say), it would be a hard choice.  The Leica is probably more stable, better functionally and has more lens choices and the flexibility of 35mm format.  But the X1D is smaller, thinner, lighter and has the appeal of medium format, albeit a digital version.  I still think the Leica lenses would tip it for me; but then for a one lens kit (30mm), I might just get the X1D and kid myself that I wouldn't add the 120 macro, the 90mm and the 22mm ...

 

PS - that would be a walk around kit, I guess (which as Godfrey says is more M territory, and the M does this very well).  Aside from trips in NZ, I am off to Israel next month, and a trip back to Africa is on the cards for next year.  While the X1D might have worked for Israel, I will want the longer reach of the SL and two zooms (with an M and a couple of lenses as an alternative).  Even the long zoom is compact compared to the same reach in medium format ...

Edited March 17, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[caissa]

The SL had a slow start - with a single zoom - and is not really up to speed, yet, compared to the X1D that has already 3 primes and soon 4 more lenses (even a macro and a zoom).

But the SL has the big advantage that it is much more flexible than a medium format camera will ever be (not to speak of a system hampered by the shutterless body).

So the SL can be used with very old lenses (50 years and more), of all sizes - small M and bigger R and many more of any size - even S lenses with AF.

And it can use the most modern lenses with OIS like the two SL zooms and at least AF with the SL 50. 

But with the AF adapters there are very interesting other lenses - some AF EOS like the EF 11-24. And lately some Sigma lenses of extremely high quality and sexy AF - e.g. the Art 1.4/85 or the Art 2.0/24-35 that in quality probably can replace 3 Summicrons (that Leica still has to deliver).

 

If the SL should ever disappear - I cannot believe it, since the camera will continue working for at least 10 years, as long as batteries can be rebuilt. If it should ever disappear, then these Sigma EOS lenses can still be used on Canon cameras.

And at the same time these outstanding lenses can today be used on the SL or on the Canon 5DsR that currently plays the role of a SL twin or helper with higher sensor resolution. (Others would maybe prefer a alpha 7R II as a "helper camera" for the SL. Not my taste but a valid option, these lenses can be used there as well.)

 

Do I care if the lenses are still working in 20 or 30 years ? Not really - I do not know what the future brings - how my life or health will be in 20 to 30 years is completely unknown. It is very nice that the old Leica gear of yore is still perfectly working, but I think these 50 years of usage are unique and will not be repeatable in the future.

In 30 years I expect several steps of miniaturization and integration (into clothes and/or body) and so todays external gear will be completely replaced by new inventions.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

Where does the idea that the SL had a slow start come from?

 

It was available pretty much straight after launch. The X1D was supposed to be available last June. Sure, it had one zoom on launch; covering a range from 24-90 and adapters for all M and R lenses. The X1D came late with two primes, no adapters and no compatibility (yet).

 

I'm not knocking the X1D and I'm no apologist for Leica, but facts are good.

[sunil]

That's a good question.

 

The SL has been released with two zooms, the 50 Summilux (now released) and a roadmap of three more primes and a further zoom to come.  The X1D has been released with 2 primes (the third, the 30mm now released) and a roadmap of four more primes and a zoom to come.  I wouldn't say that either the X1D or the SL has the advantage in native lenses - there is one more XCD lens in the roadmap than the SL, but as the SL is 35mm format, it covers a far wider range.

 

More critically, the SL is a more mature product; but the X1D has more resolution, as you say.

 

If I had no Leica or Hasselblad lenses (i.e., starting from scratch, as you say), it would be a hard choice.  The Leica is probably more stable, better functionally and has more lens choices and the flexibility of 35mm format.  But the X1D is smaller, thinner, lighter and has the appeal of medium format, albeit a digital version.  I still think the Leica lenses would tip it for me; but then for a one lens kit (30mm), I might just get the X1D and kid myself that I wouldn't add the 120 macro, the 90mm and the 22mm ...

 

PS - that would be a walk around kit, I guess (which as Godfrey says is more M territory, and the M does this very well).  Aside from trips in NZ, I am off to Israel next month, and a trip back to Africa is on the cards for next year.  While the X1D might have worked for Israel, I will want the longer reach of the SL and two zooms (with an M and a couple of lenses as an alternative).  Even the long zoom is compact compared to the same reach in medium format ...

 

Yes, good points. I agree the SL is a far more stable platform and more tried and tested clearly than the X1D. Well, so much to get confused about. I'm always struggling with what I "need" versus what I want. Seems like want always win out after which I create the need. Go figure.