Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[FlashGordonPhotography]

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.

 

 

I compare systems. not cameras. The X1D and SL aren't remotely comparable to me, except for price. One has a range of zooms, the other primes. One will adapt other lenses easily, the other not. It's kind of like comparing Nikon and Canon if I need a 17mm TS lens. I really only have one choice when I look at what I need from the system.

 

Gordon

[Peter H]

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.

That's fair enough from your persoective.

 

I'm not keen on zooms, size and particularly weight matter to me because of the way I use my cameras, so the two big SL zooms, whilst truly excellent lenses, don't appeal to me at all. But a stellar 35mm lens will always be my favourite of all lenses so you can probably see why from my point of view the Hasselblad looks so attractive, on paper at least. I also like the 4:3 format, but that's a relatively small consideration.

 

I anticipate it being a partner to my M, but I still need to test it out thoroughly to see if there's any real benefit, and ideally I'd like to compare it with the next M of course!

 

It's all very personal thing.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Peter H

[Advertisement]

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

[IkarusJohn]

That's fair enough from your persoective.

 

I'm not keen on zooms, size and particularly weight matter to me because of the way I use my cameras, so the two big SL zooms, whilst truly excellent lenses, don't appeal to me at all. But a stellar 35mm lens will always be my favourite of all lenses so you can probably see why from my point of view the Hasselblad looks so attractive, on paper at least. I also like the 4:3 format, but that's a relatively small consideration.

 

I anticipate it being a partner to my M, but I still need to test it out thoroughly to see if there's any real benefit, and ideally I'd like to compare it with the next M of course!

 

It's all very personal thing.

 

I agree entirely, and I'm certainly not extolling the virtues of the SL to you.

 

Size is the real issue here for me as well.  While I do use the SL with M lenses (I'm currently carrying a Noct-28 Summilux-21 Summilux combination preference to the zoom), for me that system is all about the zooms (which are huge, it has to be said - no smaller than Canikon dSLR equivalents, but that is not the point).  With the size of the L mount, and Leica's apparent expectations of what they wish to achieve, I don't expect any SL lenses to be as compact as the M lenses.  The M lenses are so fine, I also have little to no desire to duplicate the focal lengths I already have in M mount in the SL system.  So, I'm expecting the two zooms to be it for me.

 

The X1D has a similar balancing act.

 

With a larger sensor, you get better ISO performance and shallower depth of field, which will mean that the "slower" lenses on offer weren't actually a huge compromise.  Looking at the HCD lenses, they are also a similar speeds.  However, if you start going for fast primes and zooms, this system will make the SL look compact.  My V lenses were marvellous Zeiss lenses of phenomenal performance (from recollection), but they were neither small nor fast.

 

I could live with the 24-45-90 combination I referred to above (or maybe the slightly faster 4/28), perhaps with the highly rated 3.2/150, but nothing like the range I have with the SL.  I know you're not into zooms, but the equivalent HC zoom (35-90mm) is a stop slower (4-5.6) and weighs almost 1.5kg!  So, for me, the X1D is really only interesting with the slightly slower mid to wide focal lengths - the rest just becomes unwieldy (been there already).

 

Cheers

John

Edited July 4, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[Jeff S]

We have no idea about the next primes for either the SL (beyond the 50 Summilux) or for the X1D (beyond the forthcoming 30mm....equivalent 24).  For me the jury is still out.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

We have no idea about the next primes for either the SL (beyond the 50 Summilux) or for the X1D (beyond the forthcoming 30mm....equivalent 24).  For me the jury is still out.

 

Jeff

 

To a point.  We do know:

• mount size
• image circle
• they'll be AF(?)

You may feel it's a step too far, but I expect the SL lenses to be considerably bigger than their M mount counterparts, and the XCD lenses to be a factor bigger again.  Just going by the apparent size of the 50 Summilux-SL and the HCD lenses.

 

For the intended use (Perry saying it is primarily a compact camera for landscape and portraiture) - I'd also say it is a reasonable proposition as a "street" camera (whatever that means) and as it's weather sealed good for travel - I still think a combination of 30-45-90 (35mm equivalent 23-35-70) is very useful, provided they're all as compact.

 

We also know that making lenses faster makes them bigger - these are variables which we cannot really change.

[Steve Spencer]

To a point.  We do know:

• mount size
• image circle
• they'll be AF(?)

You may feel it's a step too far, but I expect the SL lenses to be considerably bigger than their M mount counterparts, and the XCD lenses to be a factor bigger again.  Just going by the apparent size of the 50 Summilux-SL and the HCD lenses.

 

For the intended use (Perry saying it is primarily a compact camera for landscape and portraiture) - I'd also say it is a reasonable proposition as a "street" camera (whatever that means) and as it's weather sealed good for travel - I still think a combination of 30-45-90 (35mm equivalent 23-35-70) is very useful, provided they're all as compact.

 

We also know that making lenses faster makes them bigger - these are variables which we cannot really change.

 

 

I am not sure the XCD lenses will be bigger than the Leica SL lenses. I think the XCD lenses will be substantially slower, so that will more than make up for the larger image circle that needs to be covered. For telephotos is isn't nearly as hard to cover the image circle either. For example, I expect Leica to make a 35 Lux for the SL before too long. I will be quite surprised if that lens isn't quite a bit bigger than the 45 f/3.5 XCD that has been announced. The XCD is only 475g and although it has a big diameter (77mm) it is pretty short at 75mm. So not a huge lens at all. My guess is that a 35 Lux for the SL mount would be at least 50% bigger--as it should be even taking the sensor size into account it can create 2 stops shallower depth of field. 

 

For portrait lenses I am less sure, but again I don't think the Hassy lenses will not necessarily be bigger. If you compare the HCD 100 f/2.2 to the Leica R 80 lux there is not a lot of difference in size. The Hassy weighs 770g and is about 81mm in diameter and 87mm long. The 80 lux weighs 700g is 75mm in diameter and 69mm long, which isn't that much smaller especially when you consider the Hassy lens has a AF motor and a central shutter that the 80 lux does not. If they make an 85 lux for the SL mount, which I suspect they will, then I expect it to be quite a bit bigger than the Hassy 100 f/2.2 and likely a lot bigger than any XCD portrait lens Hassy is likely to build.

 

This assessment isn't a knock against the SL. I just think it is built with different criteria in mind than the Hassy X1D. The SL is built for speed both in AF and in the lenses. That means you shouldn't expect small size, IMO. Afterall, Leica has the M system for small size. On the other hand small size seems to be an important criteria for the X1D system.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Steve Spencer

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Steve,

 

That was the variability I was alluding to, but obviously explained poorly.  Making fast glass seems to have an exponential impact on size.

 

For the XCD lenses, I'm not expecting them to be that big, provided they're not made fast.  However, for a given speed and focal length, I would expect the XCD lenses to be the largest, the SL next, and then M lenses smallest by a considerable margin.

 

As I understand it, Leica has decided that its SL lenses are to provide good performance without size compromise (much like Zeiss with its Otus lenses) - the 50 Summilux-SL is likely to be huge by M standards (much like the two zoom, though obviously smaller than those).  Conversely, Hasselblad look like they will compromise the XCD lenses, primarily by making them a couple of stops slower.

 

I'm certainly not saying the XCD lenses will be compromised in image quality, but if you give up three stops and have a bigger register distance than an M lens, you can maintain quality while keeping size and cost under control.

[Vieri]

Just a note about lens size. Here's the measurements of the 24-90mm, which everyone considers huge, compared to the competition:

 

- Leica Vario-Elmarit 24-90mm f/2.8-4 : 88 x 138mm, 1.140 gr, 82mm filter size;

- Nikon AF-s 24-70mm f/2.8 VR: 88 x 154mm, 1.070 gr, 82mm filter size;

- Canon 24-70mm EF II USM: 88 x 113mm, 805 gr, 82mm filter size;

- Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM: 87.6 x 136mm 886 gr, 82m filter size;

- Pentax 24-70mm f/2.8 SDM WR: 88.5 x 109.5mm, 787 gr, 82mm filter size.

 

Now, considering that the 24-90mm has 20mm more reach than the competition and that it has image stabilisation, I think it is actually not very big or heavy at all. All lenses in this group are 88mm wide, all lenses take 82mm filters. The Nikkor is actually even longer, while Sony, Canon and Pentax are a little shorter; the Leica is heavier than everything else, but not by much if you compare to the Nikkor which is the only other lens with image stabilisation (which of course adds a bit of weight).

 

While the 24-90mm is huge compared to M lenses, of course, to me it is pretty much in line with the competition when it comes to size and weight. More so if you consider that it has better specs in terms of reach and it has image stabilisation. True, with the Sony and Pentax you do not need it (it's in the body), but then again:

 

- Pentax K1, 136 x 110 x 85.5 mm, 1.010 gr with battery

- Sony A7 ii, 127 x 95.7 x 59.7 mm, ~ 600 gr with battery

- Leica SL, 147 x 104 x 39 mm, 847 gr with battery

 

Which equalises things a bit for the Pentax. The truly lighter body - lens combination offering at least image stabilisation (but less reach) is the Sony, which is lighter but not smaller overall on the three axis.

 

People thinks that the 24-90mm should have been smaller since the system is mirrorless, but what makes a real difference in lens size (or, to put it better, system size) is not "mirror / no mirror", is sensor size (and even then, micro 4/3 is smaller to a degree).

 

Best,

 

Vieri

Edited July 4, 2016 by Vieri

[IkarusJohn]

No, I don't think that's the point, Vieri.

 

Comparatively, the 24-90 isn't bigger than the competition, but in absolute terms, when you come from the M lenses, it's huge!

[tom0511]

As a M and SL user I would like to mention:

The SL 24-90 is big yes.

But then it covers a range where you would need 3-5 M lenses.

So when being outside or when shooting faster things its really fine for me to carry the SL, I am much faster and dont have to swap lenses all the time.

The only area where I find the size somewhat disturbing is inside or when being on private events where I dont want to point a monster lens on small kids for example.

But thats maybe more in my head.

For that reason I quite often use the Leica T for such occasions.

[Paul J]

any camera is comparable for your needs and uses.

[lct]

Been using my 5D1 with pleasure when it was my only digital back for R lenses but when i had the choice i always preferred smaller bodies. Reason why i've kept my R4s vs R8 or R9 and my Sony A7s mod vs the SL besides ergonomic issues. I would be interested by the X1D vs the S for the same reason but i dont like fly-by-wire lenses and i suspect that AF will be slow with this body so i remain dubious for now. X1D vs SL? Please put an MF sensor in the latter Mr Leica and awake me .

[honcho]

....X1D vs SL? Please put an MF sensor in the latter Mr Leica and awake me .

 

 

I have a much better idea for Leica to consider: Create a large 4:3 50mp sensor mirrorless camera that is weather sealed and smaller than a Nikon D810, records true 16-bit colour, exposure range from 1 hour to 1/2000th sec with a sensible range of leaf-shutter lenses that synch at all speeds, built for professional use, a sensible lens road map, ergonomically excellent, brilliant UI, tilt and swivel monitor, battery life that exceeds switching the camera on and taking 300 images, good af response...... It isn't much to ask.

Fuji gets it and when Sony realise that exposures counted in minutes are a requirement and smallest isn't always best, they'll get it too. As for Phase, well, some people seem to think the X1D has a few things in common with the Mamiya M7ii so, who knows, there might be reality somewhere down that pipeline.

 

Hasselblad are suddenly 9/10ths of the way there with the X1D and the SL is looking limited if you really must make a comparison.

 

Time for Leica and a few others to wake up and smell the coffee.

[steppenw0lf]

Honcho.

Your comment is a blend of marketing statements. Additionally it makes little sense and seems extremely far off from reality.

It sounds like coming from a teenager, not from a professional photographer. Sorry, I cannot take it seriously.

I would not dare to predict the future of photo equipment, as I am no engineer. But you as "professional photographer" have no problem to show others where they are completely wrong and how things really have to be constructed...   amazing.

 

I am quite glad that reality is not like what the "experts" tell. According to experts I should never have bought an SL, and I should now be completely frustrated because of the bad deal.                

Edited July 4, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[honcho]

Honcho.

Your comment is a blend of marketing statements. Additionally it makes little sense and seems extremely far off from reality.

It sounds like coming from a teenager, not from a professional photographer. Sorry, I cannot take it seriously.

I would not dare to predict the future of photo equipment, as I am no engineer. But you as "professional photographer" have no problem to show others where they are completely wrong and how things really have to be constructed...   amazing.

Ah, I take it you are an SL user!

 

Marketing statements? No, I'm afraid your indignation is clouding your mind, but then you are someone who, a couple of weeks ago, would have said the X1D is 'far from reality'.

 

Coffee?

Edited July 4, 2016 by honcho

[tom0511]

I have a much better idea for Leica to consider: Create a large 4:3 50mp sensor mirrorless camera that is weather sealed and smaller than a Nikon D810, records true 16-bit colour, exposure range from 1 hour to 1/2000th sec with a sensible range of leaf-shutter lenses that synch at all speeds, built for professional use, a sensible lens road map, ergonomically excellent, brilliant UI, tilt and swivel monitor, battery life that exceeds switching the camera on and taking 300 images, good af response...... It isn't much to ask.

Fuji gets it and when Sony realise that exposures counted in minutes are a requirement and smallest isn't always best, they'll get it too. As for Phase, well, some people seem to think the X1D has a few things in common with the Mamiya M7ii so, who knows, there might be reality somewhere down that pipeline.

 

Hasselblad are suddenly 9/10ths of the way there with the X1D and the SL is looking limited if you really must make a comparison.

 

Time for Leica and a few others to wake up and smell the coffee.

 

In wich way the SL looks limited? Resolution? One is an (announced) medium format slow pace high resolution camera (x1d) with 2 primes, the other is a fast pace full frame mid resolution camera with 2 native Zooms and many other options in regards of lenses.

[Jeff S]

To a point.  We do know:

• mount size
• image circle
• they'll be AF(?)

You may feel it's a step too far, but I expect the SL lenses to be considerably bigger than their M mount counterparts, and the XCD lenses to be a factor bigger again.  Just going by the apparent size of the 50 Summilux-SL and the HCD lenses.

 

For the intended use (Perry saying it is primarily a compact camera for landscape and portraiture) - I'd also say it is a reasonable proposition as a "street" camera (whatever that means) and as it's weather sealed good for travel - I still think a combination of 30-45-90 (35mm equivalent 23-35-70) is very useful, provided they're all as compact.

 

We also know that making lenses faster makes them bigger - these are variables which we cannot really change.

 

I'm not sure about your size comparisons given the already discussed speed differences.  That aside, I'm not looking to replicate an M experience....that's already a treat.  Instead, I want to extend my focal length range, wider and longer, for landscape and other applications (not with the M).  It would only take a few primes to serve my purpose (or a couple of smaller zooms).  I don't need a beast like the 90-280, and I'd be unlikely to travel much with it.  Instead, I'd be fine with a lens or two in the 100-200 range to go along with a wide.  Don't know if/when the SL or X1D might go in that direction.

 

The comparison I consider, which you haven't mentioned, is the S system.  I recently tested the 006 and It was fantastic in terms of VF and IQ, but rather big and slow for other than daylight/tripod work, and the primes (ranging from 24 to 180) are quite costly (and some problematic reliability-wise).  The faster 007 is  also still very pricey.  The X1D, however, with a bigger sensor like the S, comes in a much smaller package....body for sure, and maybe the lenses, too....and the announced primes are roughly half the cost of S lenses.  If the EVF suits (big deal for me), then it will be worth considering as the lens line rounds out, along with the SL and its potential lenses.

 

Jeff

Edited July 4, 2016 by Jeff S

[mgrayson3]

If you don't need the aperture of the Leica S primes, there are Contax primes that work well on the S, and which are much cheaper than the X1D lenses. That's how I started and I'm accumulating S glass when I can find it "cheap". Having said that, they (SL, S, X1D) seem to be very different systems with different strengths and purposes. Get what you like and that suits your needs!

 

--Matt

[Steve Spencer]

 

 

Hi Steve,

 

That was the variability I was alluding to, but obviously explained poorly.  Making fast glass seems to have an exponential impact on size.

 

For the XCD lenses, I'm not expecting them to be that big, provided they're not made fast.  However, for a given speed and focal length, I would expect the XCD lenses to be the largest, the SL next, and then M lenses smallest by a considerable margin.

 

As I understand it, Leica has decided that its SL lenses are to provide good performance without size compromise (much like Zeiss with its Otus lenses) - the 50 Summilux-SL is likely to be huge by M standards (much like the two zoom, though obviously smaller than those).  Conversely, Hasselblad look like they will compromise the XCD lenses, primarily by making them a couple of stops slower.

 

I'm certainly not saying the XCD lenses will be compromised in image quality, but if you give up three stops and have a bigger register distance than an M lens, you can maintain quality while keeping size and cost under control.

 

Hi John,

 

I think we are in total agreement. I expect a roadmap of XCD lenses to look something like:

 

2016 - 45 f/3.5; 90 f/3.5; 30 f/3.5

2017 - 125 f/2.8; 75 f/3.5 Macro (with 1:2 magnification)

2018 - 65 f/2.8; 175 f/3.5

2019 - 35 f/3.5; 24 f/5

2020 - 250 f/5 ; 30-90 f/5.6 zoom

 

That all seems doable to me and would make a pretty nice set of options for the X1D and the sizes. I think these lenses could all be pretty small. The 30 f/3.5 and 24 f/5 could be between 400 and 500g.  The 75 Macro and the 65 f/2.8 could be between 500 and 600 grams. The 125 f/2.8 could be between 700 and 800 grams. And the 175 f/3.5 and the 250 f/5 could be less than 1000 grams. I think only the zoom would be over a thousand grams and it could probably come in under 1200 grams.

 

The X1D could still be supplemented with lenses from the HC series but those lenses need to be different (and bigger) because they need to cover the whole 645 MF image circle.

 

Personally I think that would make a very nice set of lenses and although I am just guessing so I am likely wrong in a number of ways. I expect that Hassy will provide a nice set of lenses. But I also think that it is very different from what the Leica SL will have for native lenses. It already has 2 fast big zooms, and I expect mostly big fast primes. So, I think the systems will look more and more different over time.

Edited July 4, 2016 by Steve Spencer

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

If you don't need the aperture of the Leica S primes, there are Contax primes that work well on the S, and which are much cheaper than the X1D lenses. 

 

Wouldn't work for me.....full weather sealing on camera and lenses is a key consideration.

 

Jeff