Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[Guest satrycon]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

interesting what he says about the EVF in the comments > http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/06/22/first-impressions-hasselblad-x1d/

 

 

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

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

Only a hands-on test will suffice for me.  Preferences....and descriptions....vary.  My closest dealer will have one to preview Thursday, but don't know if my schedule will permit.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

I see there's not much new info about the X1D to talk about. 

[dgktkr]

...

 

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

 

...

 

 

Why might you expect better dynamic range and better color?

 

dgktkr

[Steve Spencer]

Why might you expect better dynamic range and better color?

 

dgktkr

 

Larger sensors generally have better dynamic range and colour than smaller sensor because they have a larger surface area to gather light. This means that at the same light intensity they have more signal (i.e., light) to convert into digital information. This generally allows the larger sensor to have better dynamic range and colour.

[Jeff S]

 

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.

 

 

 

To follow up on comparisons...

 

The 45mm f3.5 lens for the X1D (according to B&H listing) will be just over 1 lb. (475g) with 67mm thread, while the Leica S 45 (CS) f2.8 weighs 2.44 lb (1110g) with 82mm thread.   And roughly $7800 versus $2300.

 

From pics alone (no specs that I've seen), I think the SL 50 Summilux will be closer to the S lens in these respects....not terribly unexpected given speed.  It will be interesting to see if future SL primes will be as fast, or if others will be more moderate.   S primes vary from f2 to f3.5 (excluding the f5.6 120 T/S).

 

Hasselblad CEO also clarifies that zooms are indeed coming for the X1D...  http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/everything-you-need-to-know-about-hasselblads-new-x1d

 

Jeff

[dgktkr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Larger sensors generally have better dynamic range and colour than smaller sensor because they have a larger surface area to gather light. This means that at the same light intensity they have more signal (i.e., light) to convert into digital information. This generally allows the larger sensor to have better dynamic range and colour.

 

 

Isn't it the pixel size that matters, not the overall sensor size?

 

dgktkr

[Peter H]

I see there's not much new info about the X1D to talk about. 

 

 

 

One possible advantage of the X1D may be in relation to square photos.

 

When you crop a  4:3 50mp sensor/image down to its largest square, you lose 1/4 of the total,12.5 mp,  leaving you with a 37.5 mp surface  to play with.

 

When you crop a 24mp 3:2 sensor as in the SL  down to its largest square you lose 1/3 of 24 = 8mp,  leaving you with 16mp. So for squares, you'll be getting more than double (37.5  against 16)  the total mps with the X1D against the SL. The actual effective sensor size will also be correspondingly larger too, of course.

 

Now, whether that makes a visible and valuable difference will be another matter for both objective observation when we get to see some photos, and subjective judgement too.

 

Apologies if this is either wrong in some way that i've overlooked, or on the other hand too obvious to be worth stating. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Peter H

[ramarren]

One possible advantage of the X1D may be in relation to square photos.

 

When you crop a  4:3 50mp sensor/image down to its largest square, you lose 1/4 of the total,12.5 mp,  leaving you with a 37.5 mp surface  to play with.

 

When you crop a 24mp 3:2 sensor as in the SL  down to its largest square you lose 1/3 of 24 = 8mp,  leaving you with 16mp. So for squares, you'll be getting more than double (37.5  against 16)  the total mps with the X1D against the SL. The actual effective sensor size will also be correspondingly larger too, of course.

 

Now, whether that makes a visible and valuable difference will be another matter for both objective observation when we get to see some photos, and subjective judgement too.

 

Apologies if this is either wrong in some way that i've overlooked, or on the other hand too obvious to be worth stating. 

 

I alluded to this in some post here way long ago. Ultra-wide square format is an obsession of mine, and how I use the SL quite a bit at present with both Super-Elmar-R 15mm and Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21mm (set to 16mm).

 

An X1D with a similar high-quality 20-22mm lens would net a similar field of view with a 6200x6200 pixel image, more than double the size of the SL's output. For me it would be the digital SWC I've hoped for since 2002. The additional resolution would make it even closer to the SWC than the SL with my lenses, which is already a delight. When that 20-22mm-ish lens appears, it will be very hard to keep myself from punching the buy button. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by ramarren

[IkarusJohn]

Don't know if this is wishful thinking, or a bit of mischief, but Fuji may be about to release a mirrorless based on the same sensor:

 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/fuji-will-launch-hasselblad-x1d-competition-soon/

[Peter H]

Don't know if this is wishful thinking, or a bit of mischief, but Fuji may be about to release a mirrorless based on the same sensor:

 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/fuji-will-launch-hasselblad-x1d-competition-soon/

It's all getting very interesting isn't it?

 

I can't see any sense in spending big money before September!

[Steve Spencer]

Isn't it the pixel size that matters, not the overall sensor size?

 

dgktkr

 

Pixel size does matter, but sensor size is generally more important. For dynamic range and colour the size of the sensor (with bigger size meaning more light hits the sensor) and the efficiency of the sensor are the most important factors. Large sensors gather more light and efficient sensor do a better job converting the light to a digital signal. On a per pixel basis large pixels are generally better than small pixels at converting light, but small pixels when downsized to the same resolution as big pixels do pretty well and for dynamic range and colour there is even some advantage to downsampling that can help small pixels at least keep up with large pixels when downsampled. Image two pixels next to each other that are half the size of a big pixel. The big pixel will generally do better than each small pixel, but at some intense light levels the big pixel with go to all white. If the light on the small pixels, however, only makes one of the small pixels go to full white, then when these pixel are combined with downsampling the area they represent won't be blown out when it would have been with the big pixel. So downsized to the same resolution small pixels do quite well. If you look at each image blown up to 100%, however, which is really blowing up the small pixel image much larger, then the small pixel image will look better.

 

Another way to think about it is if you keep the same resolution (i.e., the same number of pixels) are larger sensor will have bigger pixels. In this situation it is more obvious why the bigger sensor with the bigger pixels will convert light better. On a per pixel and for the sensor as a whole the large sensor will do better. That of course assumes that they have roughly the same efficiency. 

 

By the way you can come close to comparing the SL with the X1D in measurements of dynamic range at this site: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

 

They don't have the X1D yet, of course, but they do have measurements of the Pentax 645Z which uses a very similar sensor to the X1D and they have measured the SL. At every ISO (and especially at base ISO) the Pentax has a lot more dynamic range than the SL. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Why might you expect better dynamic range and better color?

 

dgktkr

 

The sensor in the X1D is already used in several other cameras, so it's a known quantity. It does have more DR than the SL. Colour is subjective and heavily influenced by how the camera manufacturer decides to work with the sensor, among other things. But I can say that I know what Pentax has done with this sensor and it's pretty fantastic.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the SL or the SL's sensor. It's still my primary working camera. Max DR isn't always required, or even helpful and I like the colour from the SL (although I really don't like Adobes profiles for it). The SL is a fine camera.

 

Gordon

[Steve Spencer]

One possible advantage of the X1D may be in relation to square photos.

 

When you crop a  4:3 50mp sensor/image down to its largest square, you lose 1/4 of the total,12.5 mp,  leaving you with a 37.5 mp surface  to play with.

 

When you crop a 24mp 3:2 sensor as in the SL  down to its largest square you lose 1/3 of 24 = 8mp,  leaving you with 16mp. So for squares, you'll be getting more than double (37.5  against 16)  the total mps with the X1D against the SL. The actual effective sensor size will also be correspondingly larger too, of course.

 

Now, whether that makes a visible and valuable difference will be another matter for both objective observation when we get to see some photos, and subjective judgement too.

 

Apologies if this is either wrong in some way that i've overlooked, or on the other hand too obvious to be worth stating. 

 

Hi Peter,

 

I get the same calculations for the SL (16mp in square mode), I actually get 38.3 when I calculate the X1D resolution and Hasselblad suggest 39mp, but all that is very close whichever number we use. Because resolution is squared you would need 64mp to double the resolution, but there is still a healthy increase in resolution here if you shoot in square mode.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

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.

 

Isn't this an S with a sensor upgrade? Or the Hasselblad in three or four years, when some lenses appear? Even the next SL might get to 40+MP.

 

Personally I like the S just as it is. It would be nice for the CS lenses to work to 1/4000 and an EVF but that aint gonna happen. I like the ratio of 3:2 because I can mix and match images between the S and SL. I'll soon be able to share lenses as well.

 

I like your wish list. It suits a camera I'd like to have. But what'll happen is a thirty page thread on it about how the EVF isn't good enough, or that EVF's suck, it doesn't shoot sports or BIF. Why is there no ISO 6 million? Or 50? It'll be too big. Too small. Too many buttons or not enough.

 

Personally, I no longer want a camera that does it all. Instead of a Swiss army knife, I prefer a selection of scalpels. I'm happy to have multiple systems in place that each suits a need I have (for work and play). I pent years chasing a single system that does it all and it's just frustration for me.

 

As far as Fuji getting it, I think we need to keep in mind that Fujifilm's camera division isn't profitable and Leica's is. I like my XPro2, a lot, but I think Leica "get it" when it comes to working within their market niche. Sony are just throwing poo at a wall and waiting to see what sticks. Some incredible stuff but with no real direction yet.

 

Of course, others have different needs/wants than my own.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Hi Peter,

 

I get the same calculations for the SL (16mp in square mode), I actually get 38.3 when I calculate the X1D resolution and Hasselblad suggest 39mp, but all that is very close whichever number we use. Because resolution is squared you would need 64mp to double the resolution, but there is still a healthy increase in resolution here if you shoot in square mode.

 

 

Huge pet peeve of mine. If you double the resolution you double the resolution. You can't square the resolution and end up with double the resolution (unless the resolution is 2). I know what you mean but that's not what you wrote.

 

If you want to double the *linear* resolution (i.e.: in one direction) you need square of the original. You could say " to double the dimensions, you need to square the resolution". Or even, "if you want to double the linear resolution....." If you want double the total resolution you need twice the number of pixels. And no it's not the accepted terminology. It used to be "if you want to double the print dimensions, you need to quadruple the film size". It's been poorly adapted to comparing sensor resolution.

 

Strictly speaking doubling the resolution, without a qualifier, is ambiguous. It could just as well mean total resolution (i.e.: the number of pixels in total). I think we should be adding the words *linear* or *surface area*, to make sure we are clear and concise.

 

And yes, I know it's pedantic. Yes I know some think I'm just being annoying. And yes I also feel the same way when someone describes depth of field as bokeh. But it's the unclear use of terminology that starts 50 page threads on stuff like perspective, DOF and sensor size.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. Stitching two vertical shots from the SL is *very* similar to a single frame from the mini 645 sensor use in the 'blad. Only a couple of mm difference in linear dimensions and very close in resolution and pixel pitch. 

[ramarren]

To continue in this pedantic thema, the difficulty with 'resolution' hangs on a peg of definition: the metric or dimension you are doubling, in this case. 

 

The most succinct and accurate thing to say in this instance is that the X1D will more than double the pixels in a maximum square crop compared to the Leica SL. It will enable making 20x20 inch prints at 300 ppi ...

Edited July 5, 2016 by ramarren

[Steve Spencer]

Huge pet peeve of mine. If you double the resolution you double the resolution. You can't square the resolution and end up with double the resolution (unless the resolution is 2). I know what you mean but that's not what you wrote.

 

If you want to double the *linear* resolution (i.e.: in one direction) you need square of the original. You could say " to double the dimensions, you need to square the resolution". Or even, "if you want to double the linear resolution....." If you want double the total resolution you need twice the number of pixels. And no it's not the accepted terminology. It used to be "if you want to double the print dimensions, you need to quadruple the film size". It's been poorly adapted to comparing sensor resolution.

 

Strictly speaking doubling the resolution, without a qualifier, is ambiguous. It could just as well mean total resolution (i.e.: the number of pixels in total). I think we should be adding the words *linear* or *surface area*, to make sure we are clear and concise.

 

And yes, I know it's pedantic. Yes I know some think I'm just being annoying. And yes I also feel the same way when someone describes depth of field as bokeh. But it's the unclear use of terminology that starts 50 page threads on stuff like perspective, DOF and sensor size.

 

Gordon

 

p.s. Stitching two vertical shots from the SL is *very* similar to a single frame from the mini 645 sensor use in the 'blad. Only a couple of mm difference in linear dimensions and very close in resolution and pixel pitch. 

 

Thanks Gordon. It may be pedantic but it is always good to use precise language and I didn't. Your explanation did make all the right distinction clear. Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Steve Spencer]

Don't know if this is wishful thinking, or a bit of mischief, but Fuji may be about to release a mirrorless based on the same sensor:

 

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/fuji-will-launch-hasselblad-x1d-competition-soon/

 

I have seen this general rumour several times, but nothing this specific. I guess we will have to wait until September to know for sure if the camera will come out and if it does exactly what it will be. I am skeptical that Fuji will not at least change the sensor in some quite meaningful ways. For example, will it have a Bayer filter array or X-trans? I think a good guess for the lenses would be a 35 f/3.5, a 70 f/2.8, and a 120 f/3.5 Macro.

 

I expect Fuji to take a different approach than Hassy with the X1D or Leica with the SL, but we will see. For Hassy I think the X1D represents a portable version of their MF cameras with the traditional MF emphasis on landscapes and portraits. For Leica the SL represents a fast camera that can perform well in a lot of situations--a sort of jack or all trades--and in that way complements the M system and S system. If Fuji makes a "mini" MF camera I expect it to be an upgrade path for their enthusiasts who are using their APS-C cameras. 

[Jeff S]

The Fuji rumor has been around for over a year.  With the Hasselblad release, I wouldn't be surprised to see this finally come to fruition....along with who knows what else from other manufacturers by Photokina and into next year.  It will be interesting to see if Canon/Nikon keep trucking along their basic path or also move in new directions.  Interesting times.....and great for consumers...and GAS sufferers.

 

Jeff

Edited July 5, 2016 by Jeff S