Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm sure it could be for many people and certainly a TTL view is very helpful for precise framing and focussing for applications like architectural and macro photography but I know I find something a bit disorienting about switching between what I am looking at to looking through an SLR. I've tried hard to like SLRs because they are generally significantly cheaper to buy, more flexible in terms of system and easier to find stuff to borrow from friends and colleagues, but I always gravitate back to rangefinders. Part of the problem is that my experience of TTL views is using traditional SLRs whereby the view is effectively at F1.4 – I have little to no experience with an EVF which I may suit me more in allowing me to view the scene stopped down more?

 

For anybody coming from a generation used to optical viewfinders, EVFs are really interesting. They still - despite what people claim on the Q and SL forums - suck in very bright sunlight, but in most other situations they offer real benefits over OVFs.

 

They're wonderful for determining and fine-tuning exposure, whether crudely via the brightness of the image itself or by using a live histogram overlay. They're very very good for manual focusing, if that's your thing. I also really like being able to move between the viewfinder and the image on the back monitor.

[EoinC]

Interesting digression. I find that I like the waistlevel finder on my 503, but also like the ingenious viewfinder on my SWC, yet still like my rangefinders, OVF on my SLR's and DSLR's, and even the EVF on my A7R. Each offers a different experience, working well in some areas and less so in others. I guess I'm just difficult to unplease.

[ramarren]

Interesting digression. I find that I like the waistlevel finder on my 503, but also like the ingenious viewfinder on my SWC, yet still like my rangefinders, OVF on my SLR's and DSLR's, and even the EVF on my A7R. Each offers a different experience, working well in some areas and less so in others. I guess I'm just difficult to unplease.

 

 

I agree: A poor viewfinder, for whatever reason, has always annoyed me. But a good viewfinder rises to the point of transparency and then I forget about it—I just use it. Of whatever type ... I don't really dwell on it. It's obviously easier to do some things with a TTL viewfinder, whether critical focusing or framing with a very long lens, than with a field finder; it's easier to follow action with a pentaprism finder than with a waist level finder, etc etc. 

 

The kind of "poor" that annoys me are, given a particular type of viewfinder, poor optics, unclear frame lines, clumsy operation, too small a peep hole, cluttered view, misaligned view from what the lens is seeing, etc etc. For example, I remember the viewfinder in my Panasonic FZ10, an EVF with a refresh rate so slow I couldn't see small birds flying at all. Or the optical distortion in an inexpensive SLR that literally gave me a headache because of how badly it distorted the focusing screen, like it was a fun house mirror. Or the rangefinder in some 1950s folder that required me to squint hard just to see through it, and the rangefinder patch was almost literally invisible until I gave my eye a full minute to accommodate how dim it was. These are "poor" quality viewfinders, and those cameras left my hands rather quickly. 

[IkarusJohn]

I can't agree with that, John. I find it much easier and quicker to crop something (which is obviously what we do when we frame a scene) when I can see what I am cutting away as well as what is left behind.

Perhaps, if the framelines were accurate.

 

PS - don't get me wrong, I do like the viewfinder on my M cameras. I just think we need to be honest about its limitations. Those limitations have become more critical with digital and particularly the benefits and options which these new sensors bring. The EVF in the SL makes it a better option for a digital Leica, I think.

 

I won't be selling my monochrom though ...

Edited April 4, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[almoore]

Perhaps, if the framelines were accurate.

PS - don't get me wrong, I do like the viewfinder on my M cameras. I just think we need to be honest about its limitations. Those limitations have become more critical with digital and particularly the benefits and options which these new sensors bring. The EVF in the SL makes it a better option for a digital Leica, I think ...

Why are the 'limitations' of the M 'more critical with digital'? The frame lines are accurate enough. Plus, you rapidly get a feel for how to compensate for the slight inaccuracy there is. If you do need to crop, the current sensors provide enough resolution to allow for that.

 

If you like the form factor and rangefinder of an M I've no idea what attraction the SL would have. The fact that so many M users here have gravitated to the SL makes me wonder why they used Ms in the first place.

[LD_50]

Why are the 'limitations' of the M 'more critical with digital'? The frame lines are accurate enough. Plus, you rapidly get a feel for how to compensate for the slight inaccuracy there is. If you do need to crop, the current sensors provide enough resolution to allow for that.

 

If you like the form factor and rangefinder of an M I've no idea what attraction the SL would have. The fact that so many M users here have gravitated to the SL makes me wonder why they used Ms in the first place.

I like the form factor of the M and the rangefinder. I also like the SL. I shoot with both.

 

You really can't see the attraction of the SL for an M shooter? Think about it. Think about the alternatives prior to the SL announcement. Prior to mirrorless cameras there was no other option for M lenses and really no small FF system. I can shoot my M lenses and the native lenses on the SL. The SL provides an easy and accurate focusing experience for M lenses while the M provides all the features of a RF. This is all obvious enough.

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You really can't see the attraction of the SL for an M shooter? Think about it. Think about the alternatives prior to the SL announcement. Prior to mirrorless cameras there was no other option for M lenses and really no small FF system. I can shoot my M lenses and the native lenses on the SL. The SL provides an easy and accurate focusing experience for M lenses while the M provides all the features of a RF. This is all obvious enough.

I can see a possible slim attraction of the SL as an addition to rather than a replacement for the M. Unless your primary aim is using a Noctilux at full aperture all the time, the rangefinder of the M already provides that 'easy and accurate focusing experience' that you cite.

 

Prior to the SL, there was near universal derision here for the Sony A7 series, yet as soon as Leica announced a similar camera everybody could apparently see the benefits of EVF cameras. I think an awful lot of people are driven more by brand loyalty than rationality.

[LD_50]

I can see a possible slim attraction of the SL as an addition to rather than a replacement for the M. Unless your primary aim is using a Noctilux at full aperture all the time, the rangefinder of the M already provides that 'easy and accurate focusing experience' that you cite.

 

Prior to the SL, there was near universal derision here for the Sony A7 series, yet as soon as Leica announced a similar camera everybody could apparently see the benefits of EVF cameras. I think an awful lot of people are driven more by brand loyalty than rationality.

 

How did this become a question of brand when you were comparing the SL and M?

 

Shooting at large aperture with a RF (or an AF system, or an SLR) is bound to introduce focus errors. It's even worse with only one central focusing patch available. Focus and recompose is only so reliable. Rangefinders and lenses require calibration that mirrorless will not. Mirrorless offers magnification to achieve critical focus more accurately and reliably.

 

The "derision" for the A7 series often has more to do with ergonomics, UI, and handling than the EVF or the brand. That said, the SL EVF is significantly better.

 

I own and shoot a Sony RX1 that has terrible ergonomics and a mediocre EVF but offers great IQ, silent leaf shutter operation, and a very small size. Those three outweigh the drawbacks for me.

 

I don't own an A7 because I don't enjoy shooting them and they don't offer enough to overcome this. The SL I do enjoy shooting. It has nothing to do with brand.

 

The benefits of an EVF are pretty obvious, hence the availability for the M cameras and the explosion of the mirrorless market as EVF technology has improved. An OVF can offer its own benefits as well. This pretty well explains why someone might want to shoot both the M and SL. This makes pretty obvious why someone would want to shoot the M and SL, and again it's not a brand thing. To the original topic, I could see the X1D as an M replacement for me, but it doesn't look like it would replace the SL.

Edited April 5, 2017 by LD_50

[IkarusJohn]

How did this become a question of brand when you were comparing the SL and M?

 

Shooting at large aperture with a RF (or an AF system, or an SLR) is bound to introduce focus errors. It's even worse with only one central focusing patch available. Focus and recompose is only so reliable. Rangefinders and lenses require calibration that mirrorless will not. Mirrorless offers magnification to achieve critical focus more accurately and reliably.

 

The "derision" for the A7 series often has more to do with ergonomics, UI, and handling than the EVF or the brand. That said, the SL EVF is significantly better.

 

I own and shoot a Sony RX1 that has terrible ergonomics and a mediocre EVF but offers great IQ, silent leaf shutter operation, and a very small size. Those three outweigh the drawbacks for me.

 

I don't own an A7 because I don't enjoy shooting them and they don't offer enough to overcome this. The SL I do enjoy shooting. It has nothing to do with brand.

 

The benefits of an EVF are pretty obvious, hence the availability for the M cameras and the explosion of the mirrorless market as EVF technology has improved. An OVF can offer its own benefits as well. This pretty well explains why someone might want to shoot both the M and SL. This makes pretty obvious why someone would want to shoot the M and SL, and again it's not a brand thing. To the original topic, I could see the X1D as an M replacement for me, but it doesn't look like it would replace the SL.

 

 

What he said.

 

In the digital era, the M lenses have had to improve in resolution and overall performance.  Might not be a good thing, but a digital sensor with "only" 24MP can pick up more in lens performance than in the film era (if I can be forgiven for giving it the past tense).

 

The rangefinder is only mechanically coupled to the lens - to work well, they need to be accurately calibrated and stay that way, and the lens should not suffer from serious focus shift.  Due to the thickness of film emulsion, film as a medium is far more forgiving of focussing variations than a digital sensor.

 

So, in the digital era, we have a less forgiving recording medium and a lens which may or may not be accurately in focus, depending on a mechanical coupling.  We also have a fixed focus patch, which means you can only be roughly sure if the centre of your photo is in focus, and we have approximate frame lines.

 

I don't mind the M camera and its coupled rangefinder when I'm using the system's sweet spot of 28-90mm.  I'm not going to add an EVF to compensate for the limitations of the rangefinder system; that seems to me to be just plain silly.  "Look, we have a view finder, but if you want focusing or framing accuracy, you have to buy this clip on EVF."  That doesn't work for me.  I would buy the M10 (if I didn't already have two M cameras and an SL), but I wouldn't add the EVF.

 

The A7 never played nice with my M lenses and I found it horrible to hold and use even with its own lenses.  I sold it, not because it wasn't an M, but because it was frustrating to use and didn't work with the lenses I had.

 

The SL has a great EVF and works well with all M lenses.  What's not to like?

Edited April 5, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[almoore]

In the digital era, the M lenses have had to improve in resolution and overall performance.  Might not be a good thing, but a digital sensor with "only" 24MP can pick up more in lens performance than in the film era...The rangefinder is only mechanically coupled to the lens - to work well, they need to be accurately calibrated and stay that way, and the lens should not suffer from serious focus shift.  Due to the thickness of film emulsion, film as a medium is far more forgiving of focussing variations than a digital sensor...in the digital era, we have a less forgiving recording medium and a lens which may or may not be accurately in focus, depending on a mechanical coupling.  We also have a fixed focus patch, which means you can only be roughly sure if the centre of your photo is in focus, and we have approximate frame lines

 

The lenses didn't have to improve in resolution to adapt to the digital era. A 1980s Summicron resolves more detail on an M10 than it does on an M9, and it will resolve more detail still if the M11 comes with a 50MP sensor. I accept that digital is a different recording medium that can exacerbate issues of lens calibration, but I don't accept that the M rangefinder generally falls short when it comes to accurate focus. The approximate nature of the frame lines is no more of an issue in the digital era than than in the film, and arguably less of an issue because of the additional resolution you can call on if you need to slightly crop. The fixed focus patch is as much and as little an issue today as it was fifty years ago.

 

I don't know what the focus of your photography is, but if the characteristics and quirks of the M are problematical for your work today then they'd almost certainly have been equally problematical in the film era.

 

The A7 never played nice with my M lenses and I found it horrible to hold and use even with its own lenses.  I sold it, not because it wasn't an M, but because it was frustrating to use and didn't work with the lenses I had.

The SL has a great EVF and works well with all M lenses.  What's not to like?

 

What's not to like about the SL? For me, the uncomfortably shaped grip and the insanely large native lenses. The A7 series definitely has its quirks and frustrations, but it makes a a lot more sense to me as an EVF option than the SL, not least because of the compact native lens options in the 28 to 50mm range that matters to me.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The lenses didn't have to improve in resolution to adapt to the digital era. A 1980s Summicron resolves more detail on an M10 than it does on an M9, and it will resolve more detail still if the M11 comes with a 50MP sensor. I accept that digital is a different recording medium that can exacerbate issues of lens calibration, but I don't accept that the M rangefinder generally falls short when it comes to accurate focus. The approximate nature of the frame lines is no more of an issue in the digital era than than in the film, and arguably less of an issue because of the additional resolution you can call on if you need to slightly crop. The fixed focus patch is as much and as little an issue today as it was fifty years ago.

 

I don't know what the focus of your photography is, but if the characteristics and quirks of the M are problematical for your work today then they'd almost certainly have been equally problematical in the film era.

 

 

What's not to like about the SL? For me, the uncomfortably shaped grip and the insanely large native lenses. The A7 series definitely has its quirks and frustrations, but it makes a a lot more sense to me as an EVF option than the SL, not least because of the compact native lens options in the 28 to 50mm range that matters to me.

 

Very few would dispute that accurate focusing is more critical with digital than film. You have both increases in resolution and less depth of recording medium. Both make accurate focus more important.

 

The lenses for the Sony that are directly comparable to the SL lenses are about the same size. Certainly there are smaller lenses for the Sony but they are slower or of lower performance. Extra large lenses are becoming the norm. And the Sony system is older and so more options are available. In a few years we will see if Leica makes some smaller lens options.

 

And I know some don't like the SL grip. I like it and find it comfortable for my hands. I much prefer it to the cramped grip and buttons on my Sony.

 

Gordon

[almoore]

Very few would dispute that accurate focusing is more critical with digital than film. You have both increases in resolution and less depth of recording medium. Both make accurate focus more important...there are smaller lenses for the Sony but they are slower or of lower performance...

I guess I'm one of those few. Focus has always been critical, the difference in a digital age is that any mis-calibration or mis-alignment of a lens will be more apparent.

 

The smaller Sony lenses are fast enough and high enough performing for me.

[Peter H]

I still feel that Leica has been very late into the big camera game with the SL and, viewfinder apart,it doesn't offer enough to compensate for its shortcomings which are size and bulk (you really must take its lenses into account), and price of course, though that's always an interesting issue with Leicas.

 

Good for Leica for swimming against the tide which is washing big cameras away, but each new camera announcement makes the SL relatively less attractive. I am not optimistic about the long-term appeal of the SL line. Its saving grace is that it's a Leica, and that will be enough to ensure its existence for quite some time, but I have little doubt that if it had a Nikon or Pentax badge on it, very few of us would even be thinking of spending the money on such a large piece of 35mm photography gear.

[helged]

I still feel that Leica has been very late into the big camera game with the SL and, viewfinder apart,it doesn't offer enough to compensate for its shortcomings which are size and bulk (you really must take its lenses into account), and price of course, though that's always an interesting issue with Leicas.

 

Good for Leica for swimming against the tide which is washing big cameras away, but each new camera announcement makes the SL relatively less attractive. I am not optimistic about the long-term appeal of the SL line. Its saving grace is that it's a Leica, and that will be enough to ensure its existence for quite some time, but I have little doubt that if it had a Nikon or Pentax badge on it, very few of us would even be thinking of spending the money on such a large piece of 35mm photography gear.

 

 

Well, compared to Nikon's flagship FF body D810 (that I have some experience with), I prefer SL for most of my type of photography. What I particularly like with the SL is that you can quickly and effortlessly nail exposure and focus. Essentially all the time. I have never experienced higher hit-score with other systems, the Leica M-line included. And, importantly, I like the files (colour, tonality, grain structure, etc.). And let's not forget that you can use an almost endless number of lenses on the SL, with brilliant results.

 

I also like, actually enjoy, the size and handling of the SL for all medium to larger size lenses. This likely depends on the size of the hand/fingers. All I can say is that the SL fits me very well. Up to 11 fps - in bursts - is also very useful (for my type of shooting).

 

Few knows what the next iteration of the SL will bring. But let's imagine that Leica launches two versions: One speedy, lower-res version with good high-ISO/DR performance. One higher-res version with slower throughput. If so, or 'only' with a higer-res version of the SL, Leica offers a system that many will find interesting, also compared to the biggies in the industry.

 

Leica is not known for leading the MP-race, although the M- and SL-systems have technical features that are hardly found/matched elsewhere. That being said, I have no problems with a 1-2 generation (i.e., 3-5+ years) lag for certain upgrades, MP-count included, compared to what Nikon, Canon, Sony,... may offer.

 

We are all different and have different views and preferences. Thats good, and thats life. And no, I have no shares in Leica... (beyond playing with the M- and SL-systems).

[mmradman]

Why are the 'limitations' of the M 'more critical with digital'? The frame lines are accurate enough. Plus, you rapidly get a feel for how to compensate for the slight inaccuracy there is. If you do need to crop, the current sensors provide enough resolution to allow for that.

 

If you like the form factor and rangefinder of an M I've no idea what attraction the SL would have. The fact that so many M users here have gravitated to the SL makes me wonder why they used Ms in the first place.

I fully agree with you with respect to accuracy of framing and cropping capability of M cameras, it never limited me even with 21mm wide and external OVF.

 

Form factor of M is one issue, imaging capabilities of SL is different issue, for me at least.  In the context of this thread imaging capabilities of X1D would be key criteria if i ever wanted to get one - btw X1D body is similar in size to SL 601 body.

 

Recently i acquired SL (sell M240 but keep M246), main reason is ability to use M and R lenses as well as any other legacy lenses, no desire to acquire AF lens unless suddenly i start spending most of my time in photographic environment that would benefit from such optics, it is not likely to happen.  

 

Old Nikon and AF lenses did a good job when AF was required but lenses were sold some time ago. I still keep D700 which i bought back in 2008, it is still the same camera as it was on day one but limited to one AF lens 18-35 AFD and several manual focus primes. 

Edited April 5, 2017 by mmradman

[LocalHero1953]

I have just spent the morning using the SL to shoot a couple of 1 & 3 year olds (not mine). I used both zooms, the 24-90 for the 15 seconds or so they were willing to sit together for a posed shot and the 90-280 for sniping from a distance while they played. All indoors in natural light, though there was bright light coming through the windows.

 

Weight was not an issue in these conditions (sitting and lying on the floor). I was concerned that the size of the camera and lenses would be inhibiting to the kids, but although they had been exposed to phone cameras they had never seen anyone using a "real" camera before and hadn't a clue what I was up to.

 

If Hasselblad, Pentax and Fuji can produce a camera that is as quiet, has as clear and responsive an EVF, and has as fast and accurate stabilised AF as the SL under such conditions, then yes, I would consider them as alternatives to the SL because of their larger sensors. From all I have heard so far, none of them meet all those criteria (though it is early days). We all have to assess cameras against our own needs and practices, so others will come to a different conclusion.

Edited April 5, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[EoinC]

Something I find strange about this, and other similar comparison discussions, is that each combo is treated as an either / or tennis match. I use different cameras for different things, and I don't have a camera that I don't like. I also don't have a camera that I couldn't live with as being my only camera. The current stable is:

Leica Monochrom

Leica M6

Canon 1DX

Canon 5D

Canon F1New (2x) [One of which at one stage was my only camera, and I pawned in order to pay rent]

Hasselblad 503

Hasselblad SWC

Sony A7R

 

I sometimes use the A7R as a normal carry around, but mostly it is used for its excellent remote handling via iPad with MP-65 and TS-E lenses.

 

Is there any particular reason why we need to question what someone else finds important or enriching?

[almoore]

Is there any particular reason why we need to question what someone else finds important or enriching?

 

No, but this is a discussion forum where people are inevitably going to offer differing opinions.

 

From the perspective of somebody who likes Ms but has little interest in the SL, I think it's important to challenge the apparently growing notion that rangefinders are ill-equipped for the supposed demands of digital sensors. If sales drop significantly, then the continuing development of the M could be shelved.

Edited April 5, 2017 by almoore

[EoinC]

No, but this is a discussion forum where people are inevitably going to offer differing opinions.

 

From the perspective of somebody who likes Ms but has little interest in the SL, I think it's important to challenge the apparently growing notion that rangefinders are ill-equipped for the supposed demands of digital sensors. If sales drop significantly, then the continuing development of the M could be shelved.

So the purpose of the challenge is to generate sales for Leica?

 

I'm being unnecessarily contrary, so don't take this comment seriously

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Cliff S]

How did this become a question of brand when you were comparing the SL and M?

 

Shooting at large aperture with a RF (or an AF system, or an SLR) is bound to introduce focus errors. It's even worse with only one central focusing patch available. Focus and recompose is only so reliable. Rangefinders and lenses require calibration that mirrorless will not. Mirrorless offers magnification to achieve critical focus more accurately and reliably.

 

The "derision" for the A7 series often has more to do with ergonomics, UI, and handling than the EVF or the brand. That said, the SL EVF is significantly better.

 

I own and shoot a Sony RX1 that has terrible ergonomics and a mediocre EVF but offers great IQ, silent leaf shutter operation, and a very small size. Those three outweigh the drawbacks for me.

 

I don't own an A7 because I don't enjoy shooting them and they don't offer enough to overcome this. The SL I do enjoy shooting. It has nothing to do with brand.

 

The benefits of an EVF are pretty obvious, hence the availability for the M cameras and the explosion of the mirrorless market as EVF technology has improved. An OVF can offer its own benefits as well. This pretty well explains why someone might want to shoot both the M and SL. This makes pretty obvious why someone would want to shoot the M and SL, and again it's not a brand thing. To the original topic, I could see the X1D as an M replacement for me, but it doesn't look like it would replace the SL.

Funny because I'm thinking of trading in the SL for the X1D because of the total size of the SL. I love using the M10 because of the size and simplicity. The SL is not so simple and I tend to not use it because of the size with lens and I need 5 minutes to re-acquaint myself with what the buttons do. The M10 I grab and go.

 

I'll be testing an X1D soon to see if the size and ease make it a go-to camera which, after 18 months, sadly the SL is not.