Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Checking Flickr for X1D I found a surprising result: I do not like the colors the X1D produces.

The majority of the pics are too sweet and the colors too artificial (for my taste). Maybe this is what gives such a great recoverability - the oversaturation of colors.

It must be possible to reduce that to a tasteful level - but hardly anybody does.

But of course tastes are different and Leica was probably always on the "quiet side" with colors that some would almost call muted.

 

So I prefer the SL results by far, suits much better the colors I encounter in real life. (in the northern hemisphere, maybe in the tropics the vivid colors are preferrable).

[otto.f]

Checking Flickr for X1D I found a surprising result: I do not like the colors the X1D produces.

The majority of the pics are too sweet and the colors too artificial (for my taste). Maybe this is what gives such a great recoverability - the oversaturation of colors.

It must be possible to reduce that to a tasteful level - but hardly anybody does.

But of course tastes are different and Leica was probably always on the "quiet side" with colors that some would almost call muted.

 

So I prefer the SL results by far, suits much better the colors I encounter in real life. (in the northern hemisphere, maybe in the tropics the vivid colors are preferrable).

I’m beginning to think that this is a CMOS problem. I find my M10 also too sweet, just as the M240 and the Sony A7Rii and iii. It’s possible that the SL is a bit more neutral to my taste, I’m still busy considering this. But more often than acceptable I cannot get my M10 as neutral as my M9 Edited January 2, 2018 by otto.f

[IkarusJohn]

The reality is one of pixel siza and real estate - for the same technology, the bigger sensor will always win. I have no doubts about the sensor in the X1D. For me, the SL is more resolved, more lenses, more complete.

 

An XnD will probably feature in my future, but not at this stage.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Checking Flickr for X1D I found a surprising result: I do not like the colors the X1D produces.

The majority of the pics are too sweet and the colors too artificial (for my taste). Maybe this is what gives such a great recoverability - the oversaturation of colors.

It must be possible to reduce that to a tasteful level - but hardly anybody does.

But of course tastes are different and Leica was probably always on the "quiet side" with colors that some would almost call muted.

 

So I prefer the SL results by far, suits much better the colors I encounter in real life. (in the northern hemisphere, maybe in the tropics the vivid colors are preferrable).

You make a good point here. I like the HB colours. You don't. It's a subjective measure but an important one often one overlooked in favour of others. The blad and Leicas have another quality I like. They hold their colour well at mid ISOs. I don't mind some noise. But I'm not a fan of poor colour retention in some cameras at 1600.

 

And before anyone jumps up and claims that you can make colours identical in post, differences in bit depth, colour profiles and CFA arrays say you can't. Not exactly. All the time.

 

Gordon

[LD_50]

The subjective assessment of color is important and worth looking into as a data point when selecting a system, though sensors change over time within a system. Looking at photos from the cameras is not sufficient as it really needs to be looked at with your post processing routine, or one you’re willing to move to.

 

What is not so useful to me is all the talk of “Fuji colors” or “Hasselblad colors” or “Leica colors” or even “CMOS/CCD color” and how amazing or unique they are when there is so much dependent on post processing (jpeg vs RAW, RAW converter used and associated color profiling) and especially the viewing medium (monitor or print, color calibrated, etc).

 

I usually see comments on forums about web jpegs in sRGB regarding how the photos match some fantastic color quality inherent to that forum’s subject brand. A blind test would make these color signatures likely unidentifiable and preference random or skewed toward oversaturation. It’s a very similar conversation to the one that ends up encompassing lens rendering.

[otto.f]

The subjective assessment of color is important and worth looking into as a data point when selecting a system, though sensors change over time within a system. Looking at photos from the cameras is not sufficient as it really needs to be looked at with your post processing routine, or one you’re willing to move to.

What is not so useful to me is all the talk of “Fuji colors” or “Hasselblad colors” or “Leica colors” or even “CMOS/CCD color” and how amazing or unique they are when there is so much dependent on post processing (jpeg vs RAW, RAW converter used and associated color profiling) and especially the viewing medium (monitor or print, color calibrated, etc).

I usually see comments on forums about web jpegs in sRGB regarding how the photos match some fantastic color quality inherent to that forum’s subject brand. A blind test would make these color signatures likely unidentifiable and preference random or skewed toward oversaturation. It’s a very similar conversation to the one that ends up encompassing lens rendering.

Still, subjective or not, some camera’s deliver files that are easier to mold to your liking than others.

And the comparison with lens rendering goes too far for me in reductionism. You suggest that a thing like character of a lens would not exist, that’s beyond reality.

Edited January 4, 2018 by otto.f

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still, subjective or not, some camera’s deliver files that are easier to mold to your liking than others.

And the comparison with lens rendering goes too far for me in reductionism. You suggest that a thing like character of a lens would not exist, that’s beyond reality.

I have not suggested that lens character would not or does not exist. I own and have previously owned lenses based upon my subjective assessment of their character.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The subjective assessment of color is important and worth looking into as a data point when selecting a system, though sensors change over time within a system. Looking at photos from the cameras is not sufficient as it really needs to be looked at with your post processing routine, or one you’re willing to move to.

What is not so useful to me is all the talk of “Fuji colors” or “Hasselblad colors” or “Leica colors” or even “CMOS/CCD color” and how amazing or unique they are when there is so much dependent on post processing (jpeg vs RAW, RAW converter used and associated color profiling) and especially the viewing medium (monitor or print, color calibrated, etc).

I usually see comments on forums about web jpegs in sRGB regarding how the photos match some fantastic color quality inherent to that forum’s subject brand. A blind test would make these color signatures likely unidentifiable and preference random or skewed toward oversaturation. It’s a very similar conversation to the one that ends up encompassing lens rendering.

I think they do. And in many cases I can identify them. I’m in the fortunate position that I can compare directly as I own most current systems. I’ve tried different profiles, including custom ones and home made and even different software and I can still see a difference. For me It’s Fuji followed by Leica for skin tones, although their radically different. HB, Olympus and Leica for landscapes. Never been a huge fan of Nikon colours and I despise Canon’s skin tones. However I would say I’m more picky than most and I know what I like. Thre’s definitely a hardware difference from the various CFA and lens combinations. It might be that someone with skills might be able to perfectly tone map one system to another but it’s beyond mere mortals like me. Usually I can get any one tone matched but that invariably throws out others. I have yet to see a perfect match across brands with any profile.

 

Gordon

[fsprow]

Image quality from the Hasselblad (colors, gradations, lens distortions etc) should only be judged when the images are processed in Hasselblad Phocus, not Lightroom etc. Does a terrific job and free too !!

[ramarren]

Color and such is always a matter of how the image is rendered, and only in very small ways does the individual sensor technology matter. If you are talking about JPEGs out of camera, then the results are what the camera manufacturer defined for the JPEG rendering engine. Color when it comes to raw files is up to the raw converter and the settings you input to it.

 

Personally, I hated the JPEGs that the M9 made and only used it to output raw files. The M-P 240 was a significant improvement on JPEGs, the SL goes well beyond that. But I almost never use anything but raw files anyway, and the M-D only produces raw files (and they're better than the M-P, on par with the SL).

 

I've only experimented with X1D raw files in Phocus. The larger sensor and higher pixel count makes a difference, but I don't find the difference is the "color" but rather the improvements in detail resolution and tonal gradation for some kinds of scenes ... and very large prints. I continue to be interested in the X1D.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Image quality from the Hasselblad (colors, gradations, lens distortions etc) should only be judged when the images are processed in Hasselblad Phocus, not Lightroom etc. Does a terrific job and free too !!

I don’t know about that. I need a camera to produce colours I like in the software I choose, and that’s Lightroom. I have Phocus but I’m unlikely to use it for 95% of my shooting. I’m not changing my processing workflow for a camera. It needs to fit in with me. It’s the reason I rarely use my Fuji cameras (not so much IQ but import and processing speed) and my main complaint about them.

 

Anyhow, I like the X1D colours in Lightroom and LR now hands X1D lens profiles.

 

Gordon

[fsprow]

Gordon --- a very good point, a lot of personal preference here.  I'm not a fan of Lightroom, and object to their current way of paying for its continued use, so easy for me as Phocus works so well on these files. 

[SrMi]

Hasselblad tunes their cameras to specific color response: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6181990374/take-a-look-inside-hasselblad-s-camera-factory-in-sweden?slide=19

 

Burtynski describes that Hasselblad bought a Dutch company Imacon and their color tables are being applied to Hasselblad’s firmwares. He explains that the colors are the reason he prefers Hasselblad to Phase One.

 

This means that quality of colors is also determined by the camera and not only by post processing tools.

[LD_50]

What are they tuning in the RAW files?

 

How would they tune the RAW files? Would this not mean they are doing some sort of processing like Sony, baking in adjustments and leaving the files as not truly RAW data?

 

I read the DPreview article and it could simply be JPEG tuning being done in the referenced link.

[SrMi]

What are they tuning in the RAW files?

 

How would they tune the RAW files? Would this not mean they are doing some sort of processing like Sony, baking in adjustments and leaving the files as not truly RAW data?

 

I read the DPreview article and it could simply be JPEG tuning being done in the referenced link.

 

My knowledge on this topic is limited, mostly based on excerpts from various discussions on forums, and articles on the Web.

All camera manufacturers add a specific 'look' to the RAW image. I would not call that processing, as in noise reduction (which some manufacturers do on the raw files, apparently). I am pretty sure Hasselblad is calibrating colors of RAW files so that they all have the same and specific look.

[leica1215]

who own the X1D, has it address the start up time and viewfinder black out issue? it seems not recommended by many others

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Start up is still 6-7 seconds. Apparently they intend to halve that but not as yet. Blackout seems a bit better than when I bought mine but it's still there. More than likely it'll always be there with the 1/3 second sensor readout speeds.

 

A sports camera it aint. But I'd much rather a slow start up time than mandatory LENR or crippled exposure times.

 

The camera has improved massively since I bought it. It is my favourite camera so far, despite it's flaws. I know the reviewers harp on about the X1D, in early firmware, but no one I've heard of who bought one wants to give it back if they shoot with it for a month or two.

 

Gordon

[gbealnz]

Start up is still 6-7 seconds. Apparently they intend to halve that but not as yet. Blackout seems a bit better than when I bought mine but it's still there. More than likely it'll always be there with the 1/3 second sensor readout speeds.

 

A sports camera it aint. But I'd much rather a slow start up time than mandatory LENR or crippled exposure times.

 

The camera has improved massively since I bought it. It is my favourite camera so far, despite it's flaws. I know the reviewers harp on about the X1D, in early firmware, but no one I've heard of who bought one wants to give it back if they shoot with it for a month or two.

 

Gordon

And that is THE key to me, I'd love on as well, it could easily be my only camera. It's just the price of admission stopping me at present.

Gary

[Photon42]

Recently looking at BH, pricing is effectively at M10 levels. I tried it almost a year back and found overall operations too slow. I switch on my cameras far more often than I do really long exposures (almost never). But maybe I should try one again.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

And that is THE key to me, I'd love on as well, it could easily be my only camera. It's just the price of admission stopping me at present.

Gary

 Ditto - it's the buying into a complete new system with no cross compatibility that puts me off.

 

At least with the SL I can use almost any lens and get good results. 

 

More pixels and DR would be nice, but flexibility and usability without irritations counts for more .....