Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[kkonkkrete]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To those saying they don't see the point of comparing the SL and the X1D, from where I'm standing I totally disagree.  They look very similar in concept, size, price.  I think it is totally fair and appropriate to consider them as competing for the same niche.

 

As the X1D isn't released yet it's hard to make a decision at this stage, but it looks more appealing to me than the SL.  For me it comes down to responsiveness.  I know the EVF is not as good, but I have never seen any EVF I like.

 

I hope someone makes a compact mirrorless medium format with a hybrid viewfinder like the Fuji X100.  I want to view the world through glass, but see focus points indicated electronically.

[helged]

 

I hope someone makes a compact mirrorless medium format with a hybrid viewfinder like the Fuji X100.  I want to view the world through glass, but see focus points indicated electronically.

 

 

Perhaps Fuji itself?

[LD_50]

To those saying they don't see the point of comparing the SL and the X1D, from where I'm standing I totally disagree.  They look very similar in concept, size, price.  I think it is totally fair and appropriate to consider them as competing for the same niche.

 

As the X1D isn't released yet it's hard to make a decision at this stage, but it looks more appealing to me than the SL.  For me it comes down to responsiveness.  I know the EVF is not as good, but I have never seen any EVF I like.

 

I hope someone makes a compact mirrorless medium format with a hybrid viewfinder like the Fuji X100.  I want to view the world through glass, but see focus points indicated electronically.

 

SL has available two zooms covering 24-280mm. Native adapters are available for M, R, S lenses with Novoflex adapters available for just about anything else. 11 fps and AF speed (with quick point selection via joystick) are a priority and a major part of the concept of the camera. Small size is clearly not a priority as the camera is large and heavy with extensive weather sealing on both the body and the native lenses. Flash performance is poor and is clearly not a top priority (poor support from "native" flash system, no CS compatibility with S lenses). 

 

X1D is launching with a few small and slow primes. Adapter will only be available for newer H lenses due to lens firmware (according to Hasselblad themselves) and the body having no focal plane shutter. 2.5 fps, currently central point only CDAF on the demo units (and Hasselblad stated that when they enable variable-point AF, they do not intend to allow touch screen AF point selection with the camera to the eye.. Instead they expect you to choose an AF point on the screen, and then shoot). Camera and lens size is said to be a priority with no current plans for zoom lenses. Flash performance is a top priority with Nikon system compatibility and 1/2000 sync speed.

 

I just don't see how these are comparable other than the size of the camera body (ignoring lenses) and the price. Also it looks like Hasselblad copied the S and SL battery release system. The X1D would draw me away from an S system or possibly my M system. The SL competes with (and replaced) my Nikon system.

Edited June 29, 2016 by LD_50

[ramarren]

i read on another forum that lens rentals did intend to offer the new 'bad for rental, but may not have them for several months. Take that for what it's worth (unconfirmed third party internet here-say....).

 

Gordon

 

 

This makes perfect sense ... the X1D won't be available in stores for at least another month according to the announcement. 

 

I love the concept of the X1D, but don't see it as competitor to the SL. It's a complement—a similarly sized but slower, larger-format camera with less versatility for more specific uses. The SL is a broadly-purposed system camera, more like a 35mm SLR in concept (a replacement, if you will, for the Leica R system). 

Edited June 29, 2016 by ramarren

[rsmphoto]

I think the Hasselblad X1D is more likely to compete with the Leica S.

 

A mirrorless Leica S would be something. As it is the large mirror in Leica S and MF results in shake below 1/250 second.  

 

+1

 

No doubt, IMHO this is the path Leica must pursue to remain competitive. As a long time S user (along with an SL) I see this as the natural evolution for the S and would hope that the "008" would be along this type of design.....along with a larger sensor, which would then allow for a larger sensor for the next SL.

 

just my wishful thinking...

Richard

Edited June 29, 2016 by rsmphoto

[Joshua Lowe]

I see no point in comparing these.  Their only commonality is that they are mirrorless digital cameras.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Joshua Lowe

[Eastgreenlander]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a leica forum. How do you think the anwers was going to turn out?

[Peter H]

I see no point in comparing these.  Their only commonality is that they are mirrorless digital cameras.

 

 

If I'm going to buy a new digital mirrorless camera, I'm going to compare what's available. 

 

I don't want long lenses or ultra-wide lenses for my next camera. I'm happy with what I've got for those purposes.  

 

The D1X and the SL would compete head on for my most serious type of photography, so comparing them makes a lot of sense to me.

[tom0511]

If I'm going to buy a new digital mirrorless camera, I'm going to compare what's available. 

 

I don't want long lenses or ultra-wide lenses for my next camera. I'm happy with what I've got for those purposes.  

 

The D1X and the SL would compete head on for my most serious type of photography, so comparing them makes a lot of sense to me.

 

If the announced focal lengths work for you and if you are ok with the probably slower AF and less action oriented functions I bet the D1x will give you the better IQ. Its MF with a very good sensor and original post software from Hasselblad. But also dont forget you wont see any f1.4 type of lenses, so its not made for really low available light.

If I didnt have a Leica S system I would strongly consider the D1x.

[Steve Spencer]

If the announced focal lengths work for you and if you are ok with the probably slower AF and less action oriented functions I bet the D1x will give you the better IQ. Its MF with a very good sensor and original post software from Hasselblad. But also dont forget you wont see any f1.4 type of lenses, so its not made for really low available light.

If I didnt have a Leica S system I would strongly consider the D1x.

 

I am making the decision right now between the Leica SL and Hassy X1D. I want a mirrorless camera, and I want a bigger form factor than the Sony cameras. I am also willing to pay a fairly high price. In the current market that leaves the Leica SL and the Hassy X1D. The Hassy has the larger sensor and the announced lenses look very good. You can also use the HC lenses with a very simple adapter. This means you can use their HC 100 f/2.2 (which would be a FF 35mm equivalent of about an 80 f/1.7 (not an f/1.4 equivalent but not bad) and for low light the bigger sensor should have better high ISO performance. Just like the Leica S can do pretty well in low light with the S 100 f/2, the Hassy should do quite well in low light with their 100 f/2.2. So of I get the Hassy I will add these HC lenses, the 100 f/2.2, the 150 f/3.2, the 300 f/4.5, the 24 f/4.8, and the 120 f/4 Macro. I would also get the new 30 f/3.5, 45 f/3.5, and the 90 f/3.2. I think that is a pretty complete kit. A 24mm even on this "mini" MF sensor is still quite wide (equivalent to about a 19mm FF 35mm), and the long lens would be very nice for a lot of types of shooting even if it isn't that long on this system. There are drawbacks. I am sure the AF will suck compared to the SL. And there is a huge difference between 2.3 fps and 11 fps. The SL viewfinder is way better. The SL can adapt almost any lens effectively. And although the 100 f/2.2 won't be too bad for low light compared to an SL and a 50 Noctilux the SL will still have a big low light advantage.

 

So although comparing these cameras isn't really comparing apples to apples, if you are in the market for a high level mirrorless camera as I am then you are left with the choice between these cameras. That they are so different makes the choice easy and hard. You can't get everything. Choosing one will mean gain some advantage and losing others. The trick is to figure out which matter the most to you. I'm haven't quite done that yet.

[Jeff S]

 The SL viewfinder is way better.

 

[Excuse the excerpt]

 

I won't know if this is true without testing (closest dealer will have an X1D for preview this coming week).  For me, if the VF doesn't suit, nothing else matters....end of story.  It all starts with seeing (and focusing on) the subject; it's a necessary, but not sufficient, assessment criteria for me.  I love the S VF, but unfortunately the S system doesn't sufficiently meet other criteria.   The SL (barely) meets my VF test....still assessing that and other pros/cons.  Always tradeoffs.

 

Jeff

Edited July 3, 2016 by Jeff S

[ramarren]

...

I won't know if this is true without testing (closest dealer will have an X1D for preview this coming week).  For me, if the VF doesn't suit, nothing else matters....end of story.  It all starts with seeing (and focusing on) the subject; it's a necessary, but not sufficient, assessment criteria for me.  I love the S VF, but unfortunately the S system doesn't sufficiently meet other criteria.   The SL (barely) meets my VF test....still assessing that and other pros/cons.  Always tradeoffs.

 

 

 

I agree that we can't know how well Hasselblad has handled the viewfinder in the X1D until we see experience one in person. That's true with any camera, for me. 

 

But ... While the viewfinder quality is important, it is a viewfinder, not how I 'see' my subject. The quality of the viewfinder has to be such that it enables me to focus critically, when needed, and frame with reasonable accuracy. I 'see' the subject and frame it with my eyes and mind, not a viewfinder; I prefer not to spend too much time looking through the viewfinder. The viewfinder simply has to do the job it is intended for with satisfactory competence. If this were not the case, I could never use a Hasselblad SWC or a Leica M because neither enables the precision in framing or focusing that a ground glass or today's better EVFs provide. (The SWC viewfinder doesn't even provide a focusing view at all, just approximate framing ...)

 

I have reasonable confidence that Hasselblad has done a good job with the viewfinder, and await a moment to actually experience one when they start shipping. I'm happy with the SL viewfinder, and my Olympus E-M1 viewfinder as well. 

[BerndReini]

Does anyone else feel somewhat put off by the orange shutter button?

 

Hasselblad introduced it on the H6D. Looks like a consumer camera: "hey dummy, press the big orange button to take a snapshot".

 

 

I find the orange shutter button absolutely beautiful and the camera looks like a real winner. I believe this is the digital "Mamiya 7" people have been waiting for and I think it will do well in the rich consumer market.

[Jeff S]

 

 

But ... While the viewfinder quality is important, it is a viewfinder, not how I 'see' my subject. The quality of the viewfinder has to be such that it enables me to focus critically, when needed, and frame with reasonable accuracy. I 'see' the subject and frame it with my eyes and mind, not a viewfinder; I prefer not to spend too much time looking through the viewfinder. The viewfinder simply has to do the job it is intended for with satisfactory competence. If this were not the case, I could never use a Hasselblad SWC or a Leica M because neither enables the precision in framing or focusing that a ground glass or today's better EVFs provide. (The SWC viewfinder doesn't even provide a focusing view at all, just approximate framing ...)

 

 

 

I 'see' it totally differently (no pun intended).  I no longer subscribe to Sean Reid, but I do recall an article he wrote years ago on this topic.  I agree with his sentiments (with examples using different camera viewing systems), on the criticality of the VF in his ability to 'see' the subject.  For him, like me, this is paramount.  [The essay is called 'Seeing the Subject'.]

 

It's one of the reasons I like RF photography, and why I liked large format photography.  If it were all about 'accuracy', I never would have bonded with the M, which I've used for 4 decades in large part because it allows be to see my subject as if looking through a clear window.  View camera ground glass appeals for very different reasons.

 

And, for me, not only are different types of viewing systems important, so are the ways various manufacturers implement those systems.  Sure, I 'see' a subject with my own eyes, but the VF itself either makes my viewing experience enjoyable or not....facilitating that ability to see.  And, if not, I pass.  YMMV.

 

Jeff

Edited July 3, 2016 by Jeff S

[tom0511]

I am making the decision right now between the Leica SL and Hassy X1D. I want a mirrorless camera, and I want a bigger form factor than the Sony cameras. I am also willing to pay a fairly high price. In the current market that leaves the Leica SL and the Hassy X1D. The Hassy has the larger sensor and the announced lenses look very good. You can also use the HC lenses with a very simple adapter. This means you can use their HC 100 f/2.2 (which would be a FF 35mm equivalent of about an 80 f/1.7 (not an f/1.4 equivalent but not bad) and for low light the bigger sensor should have better high ISO performance. Just like the Leica S can do pretty well in low light with the S 100 f/2, the Hassy should do quite well in low light with their 100 f/2.2. So of I get the Hassy I will add these HC lenses, the 100 f/2.2, the 150 f/3.2, the 300 f/4.5, the 24 f/4.8, and the 120 f/4 Macro. I would also get the new 30 f/3.5, 45 f/3.5, and the 90 f/3.2. I think that is a pretty complete kit. A 24mm even on this "mini" MF sensor is still quite wide (equivalent to about a 19mm FF 35mm), and the long lens would be very nice for a lot of types of shooting even if it isn't that long on this system. There are drawbacks. I am sure the AF will suck compared to the SL. And there is a huge difference between 2.3 fps and 11 fps. The SL viewfinder is way better. The SL can adapt almost any lens effectively. And although the 100 f/2.2 won't be too bad for low light compared to an SL and a 50 Noctilux the SL will still have a big low light advantage.

 

So although comparing these cameras isn't really comparing apples to apples, if you are in the market for a high level mirrorless camera as I am then you are left with the choice between these cameras. That they are so different makes the choice easy and hard. You can't get everything. Choosing one will mean gain some advantage and losing others. The trick is to figure out which matter the most to you. I'm haven't quite done that yet.

 

 

I think  the SL shines with its  fast and flexible AF,  IS, the flexibility of Zooms, weather sealing and its nice that it takes all kind of lenses (for example I can use my 21mm Leica M lens or the 35/1.4 or 50/2.0 for lower light).

 

I except the Hassy shines with dynamic range, even better color (I assume), central shutter, more resolution.

 

Also its 2:3 vs 3:4.

 

I would clearly look through the viewfinder of a x1d to see myself if it is up to expectations. However I assume it will be, dont think Hasselblad is so silly to put a flawed EVF in this camera.

[Peter H]

I wonder whether any 35mm-equivalent detachable OVFs will give a reasonably accurate view from the hotshoe of the X1D, for use with the 45mm lens.

 

I've never had a problem using OVFs on top of my M cameras, or EVFs with Fujis or the like, so the combination could probably cover most eventualities for me, provided I'm able to get the hang of how the AF works.

 

Although in reality I'm sure the EVF will be fine for the vast majority of situations. I hope to try it out soon.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Peter H

[IkarusJohn]

If I'm going to buy a new digital mirrorless camera, I'm going to compare what's available. 

 

I don't want long lenses or ultra-wide lenses for my next camera. I'm happy with what I've got for those purposes.  

 

...

 

SL with the zooms, and M lenses, does pretty much everything for me. 

 

X1D with 45 & 90, compact AF primes does have appeal, with the possible addition of the 24/4.8 when the adapter becomes available (provided the AF works well) would be a great compact system. Very hard to justify, though - the M system is very good for that middle sector, and the SL with zooms hard to beat.

Edited July 3, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[honcho]

I wonder whether any 35mm-equivalent detachable OVFs will give a reasonably accurate view from the hotshoe of the X1D, for use with the 45mm lens.

You are conflicting 3:2 with 4:3, but given that most shoe-mounted ovf's are to varying degrees inaccurate, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to learn to compose reasonably well with one with the 45mm and 30mm lenses. But what would be the point when there is 100% accuracy with the evf and live view? Hasselblad have at last created a camera that ticks enough boxes for me and 'mf' options are getting really interesting with both Fuji and Sony waiting in the wings. Fuji have the best and most versatile evf development of all in the X100T and XPro2, so a comparison between the X1D and whatever Fuji come up with as their 'mf' offering will be a far more relevant prospect than X1D with Leica SL, which for my purposes is a non-starter. Leica will be more suited to comparison with Nikon and Canon within the next couple of years unless they come up with a mirrorless 'mf'.

 

Hasselblad vs Fuji? Well, I use a Fuji X100T for this and that and I really do like the camera. I used it this afternoon for a wedding preshoot and the files are always clean and good to work with, Fuji processing and flesh tones go together like a horse and carriage although the X100T is by no means a 'professional' camera.

 

My point is, translate the X100T/XPro2 processing and evf system to a large sensor mirrorless camera at a Fuji pricepoint and it really is going to be a tough call for Hasselblad. For the moment, Hasselblad have scored a blinder with the X1D, it really is a game-changer and the game is suddenly getting very interesting.

Edited July 3, 2016 by honcho

[Jeff S]

SL with the zooms, and M lenses, does pretty much everything for me. 

 

X1D with 45 & 90, compact AF primes does have appeal, with the possible addition of the 24/4.8 when the adapter becomes available (provided the AF works well) would be a great compact system. Very hard to justify, though - the M system is very good for that middle sector, and the SL with zooms hard to beat.

 

For me the M also covers 28-90 well.  But I'll be more interested once the SL and X1D rounds out their native primes, especially on the wider and longer ends.  The 30mm X1D lens (24ish equivalent) is due by Photokina.  Don't what the SL holds beyond the forthcoming 50.  The SL zooms are great IQ-wise, but not size/weight-wise for me (although the 24-90 might serve as a weather sealed travel alternative to the M and set of primes).  Tradeoffs.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jrp]

The 50mm looks like a bit of a monster, so I would not hold your breath for compact primes.

 

i must say that since you get an extra couple of stops with OIS, unless you really need narrow depths of field, you are covered.  The AF system is not quite good enough for action, so having fast lenses for sport, birding, etc, is a bit superfluous.