Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If Leica announced a 50mp mirrorless S camera I don't think the reaction would be anywhere near the same the as the current reaction to the Hasselblad and Fuji cameras. The "game changing" aspect of these cameras is the price.

 

The size is certainly appealing as well but a similarly sized Leica costing $15000-20000 for the body along with the high prices of the S lenses probably wouldn't sell anywhere near these two competitors.

 

Just look at the SL. It's competitive in size to the Sony A series. It's competitive in specifications to the Nikon and Canon systems (using adapted lenses to make up for the small number of SL lenses), and has the best EVF on the market. Build quality is top notch. Interest is severely limited by the cost.

 

Leica is doing fairly well. They've announced a great new camera with the Q, a great new system with the SL, and a brand new M camera that takes care of a lot the concerns people had with the 240 series.

 

I don't see Leica ever competing on price and would prefer they stay focused on just a few high quality lines of cameras. Q (fixed lens compacts), SL, S, and M. Improve customer service and make this a real differentiator for the brand. Open up the communication about the plans for the various lines. Develop a professional service that would include a feedback loop on future system development. Leverage the retail stores to bring more people into printing. This would alleviate a lot of the concerns about sensor resolution.

 

They don't need to chase resolution, or switch to Sony sensors, or match specifications or price. Just try to be the best overall photography company. That means great ergonomics, well designed systems that meet real photographer's needs (not spec sheet focused forum dwellers), clear roadmaps, and a great photographer-centric service model.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

No, I think it's 0.83 ... I can't remember why. I think it is because the 90mm equates to 75?

 

Actually, the aspect ratio is different, so that will just be an approximation. Originally, I thought the 45 equated to 35 and the 90 to 75 ... What would the most useful comparison be? Area? Or diagonal.

See my link.

 

Folks comparing 95 to 75, or 45 to 35, are likely just sticking to common FLs that help people relate.

 

Some people also round the crop to .8x, but again that's a convenience....still think it's .79x.

 

Jeff

Edited March 3, 2017 by Jeff S

[ramarren]

...Like Godfrey, the thought of a 22mm down the track is seriously tempting. A 22-30-45 set (18.33 - 25 - 37.5 equivalent) would be compelling.

 

I think the crop factor is .79x... http://shuttermuse.com/hasselblad-x-system-crop-factor-xcd-lens-full-frame-equivalent-focal-lengths/

 

....if so, 22/30/45 = 17.4 / 23.7 / 35.6

 

 

Using an FoV calculator and setting the format to the square crop for both FF format (24x24) vs square crop for the X1D (33x33), the direct equivalence between X1D prime lenses and theoretical focal lengths on the SL comes out like this: 

 

SL.f - H/V - D - X1D.f

16 - 73.74° - 93.4° - 22

22 - 57.2° - 75.3° - 30

33 - 39.9° - 54.4° - 45

 

where SL.f is focal length on SL, H/V is angle of view in degrees for horizontal and vertical, and X1D.f is focal length on X1D. So the crop factor considering square crop of 35mm-FF as the reference is 0.73x, that is, the SL will image a field of view about 73% of the X1D with the same focal length lens. 

 

For reference, a Hasselblad SWC with Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens on 6x6 format nets H/V = 72.8° and D = 92.4°. 

[Jeff S]

Using an FoV calculator and setting the format to the square crop for both FF format (24x24) vs square crop for the X1D (33x33), the direct equivalence between X1D prime lenses and theoretical focal lengths on the SL comes out like this:

 

 

SL.f - H/V - D - X1D.f

16 - 73.74° - 93.4° - 22

22 - 57.2° - 75.3° - 30

33 - 39.9° - 54.4° - 45

where SL.f is focal length on SL, H/V is angle of view in degrees for horizontal and vertical, and X1D.f is focal length on X1D. So the crop factor considering square crop of 35mm-FF as the reference is 0.73x, that is, the SL will image a field of view about 73% of the X1D with the same focal length lens.

 

For reference, a Hasselblad SWC with Biogon 38mm f/4.5 T* lens on 6x6 format nets H/V = 72.8° and D = 92.4°.

My number .79x is not considering square format; it's the direct translation from 35mm sensor size to X1D sensor size, as calculated in the link I provided. And it's consistent with what I've seen from Hasselblad.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

My number .79x is not considering square format; it's the direct translation from 35mm sensor size to X1D sensor size, as calculated in the link I provided. And it's consistent with what I've seen from Hasselblad.

 

Jeff

 

 

I figured that, but since I was talking about a fabled "digital SWC" and values relating to my Hasselblad 500CM and its lens options, I'm much more interested in square format translations.

Edited March 3, 2017 by ramarren

[Jeff S]

I figured that, but since I was talking about a fabled "digital SWC" and values relating to my Hasselblad 500CM and its lens options, I'm much more interested in square format translations.

I figured that, too.... just didn't want John's head to explode.

 

Jeff

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I figured that, too.... just didn't want John's head to explode.

Jeff

Well, for me anyway, the problem with doing equivalences based on the full frame format diagonal is that the SL (or 35mm FF) is 2:3 proportion where the X1D is 3:4 proportion. Even if the diagonal AoV is equivalent, the resulting images have a different feel and dynamic even with appropriately 'equivalent' focal lengths in place. Just like a 21mm on SL native format and a 24mm on 9:16 have a different feel entirely, even though the diagonal AoV is about the same.

 

For this reason, I find considering equivalents on like format proportions to be much more sensible and informative. I love ultrawide on large format squares because they give a totally different look compared to ultrawide on oblong proportions ... the additional vertical dimension lends a specific feel to the images and expresses emotional space very differently.

[Jeff S]

Of course, that's partly why I've used 35mm, 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 and 8x10... and more.

 

In this case I was merely countering John's math...apart from other considerations.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

I figured that, too.... just didn't want John's head to explode.

Jeff

Nice.

 

The question you don't answer is how this deals with the different aspect ratios. My calculations were simply based on some misleading information I read somewhere. I didn't go to your link for fear of "other considerations". Besides, I prefer to read things here.

 

The calculations are, in any event, useful only to a point - the X1D sensor is 43.8mm x 32.8mm - close enough to 4:3, compared to 3:2 in 35mm format. I guess the X1D images are best viewed on their own merits ...

[Jeff S]

Nice.

 

The question you don't answer is how this deals with the different aspect ratios. My calculations were simply based on some misleading information I read somewhere. I didn't go to your link for fear of "other considerations". Besides, I prefer to read things here.

 

The calculations are, in any event, useful only to a point - the X1D sensor is 43.8mm x 32.8mm - close enough to 4:3, compared to 3:2 in 35mm format. I guess the X1D images are best viewed on their own merits ...

You liked the link I provided on the RRS TQC-14 tripod. Sometimes it pays to learn...and silly to write a whole post refuting something you didn't bother to read. And even sillier when you're the one who disputed the math.

 

Jeff

Edited March 4, 2017 by Jeff S

[Belle123]

Well, my X1d arrived. Now getting to the task of really getting familiar with it. I won't be dumping my M, and if I had an SL I would hang onto it. Totally different! But if I could only keep one camera, for now, this might do. I don't rely on speed in my work. But the look that 35mm gives is enough different, having both medium format and FF is a nice choice to have. Plus I love Leica glass so can never part with the lenses I have accumulated over past 25 years! But I am very pleased so far with the new X1d. The only thing not impressed with is Hasselblad post processing software, Phocus. Think will stick with LR except when I need tethering. Other things to note, the battery....I only got one and no extras available yet....took 4 hours for first charge. But once charged it lasts quite awhile, enough for me but maybe not enough for others. I would load up on batteries and pre order with the camera. So, I will leave this topic now as doesn't apply to the SL.

[ramarren]

Well, my X1d arrived. Now getting to the task of really getting familiar with it. I won't be dumping my M, and if I had an SL I would hang onto it. Totally different! But if I could only keep one camera, for now, this might do. I don't rely on speed in my work. But the look that 35mm gives is enough different, having both medium format and FF is a nice choice to have. Plus I love Leica glass so can never part with the lenses I have accumulated over past 25 years! But I am very pleased so far with the new X1d. The only thing not impressed with is Hasselblad post processing software, Phocus. Think will stick with LR except when I need tethering. Other things to note, the battery....I only got one and no extras available yet....took 4 hours for first charge. But once charged it lasts quite awhile, enough for me but maybe not enough for others. I would load up on batteries and pre order with the camera. So, I will leave this topic now as doesn't apply to the SL.

 

 

Bravo! I look forward to hearing your impressions using and and seeing your photos!

[Jeff S]

Well, my X1d arrived. Now getting to the task of really getting familiar with it. I won't be dumping my M, and if I had an SL I would hang onto it. Totally different! But if I could only keep one camera, for now, this might do. I don't rely on speed in my work. But the look that 35mm gives is enough different, having both medium format and FF is a nice choice to have. Plus I love Leica glass so can never part with the lenses I have accumulated over past 25 years! But I am very pleased so far with the new X1d. The only thing not impressed with is Hasselblad post processing software, Phocus. Think will stick with LR except when I need tethering. Other things to note, the battery....I only got one and no extras available yet....took 4 hours for first charge. But once charged it lasts quite awhile, enough for me but maybe not enough for others. I would load up on batteries and pre order with the camera. So, I will leave this topic now as doesn't apply to the SL.

What's your opinion on the shutter action/sound? This was critiqued in the prototypes; I'm curious about the final version, which I haven't yet handled.

 

Jeff

[leica1215]

I have got chance to test it briefly in the dealers place, from build quality aspect , the SL is far more superior and better build than X1D, plus just few lens available to the X1D I personally won't consider at all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Belle123]

What's your opinion on the shutter action/sound? This was critiqued in the prototypes; I'm curious about the final version, which I haven't yet handled.

Jeff

It is comparable to a SLR as far as noise. Maybe tad noisier. I let go of all my SLRs so can't truly compare but is my recollection. I certainly wouldn't make that a deal breaker on camera choices unless you need silence. With every camera there are trade offs. This camera is also slow. But, it's medium format. A large sensor to deal with.

[Jeff S]

It is comparable to a SLR as far as noise. Maybe tad noisier. I let go of all my SLRs so can't truly compare but is my recollection. I certainly wouldn't make that a deal breaker on camera choices unless you need silence. With every camera there are trade offs. This camera is also slow. But, it's medium format. A large sensor to deal with.

Thanks... I demo-ed it last June and am familiar with medium format (a funny term compared to film medium formats I used), as well as large format. The multiple clicks (clanks) I experienced, and that Kevin Raber videoed on LuLa, were unlike any camera he or I used. I'll play with it again when my closest dealer (a 90 minute drive one way) gets one.

 

There are many factors that go into my...or anyone's...decision process. This is just one for me, and asked only because it was so unusual, especially compared to other Hasselblads I've used.

 

Jeff

Edited March 4, 2017 by Jeff S

[Belle123]

Thanks... I demo-ed it last June and am familiar with medium format (a funny term compared to film medium formats I used), as well as large format. The multiple clicks (clanks) I experienced, and that Kevin Raber videoed on LuLa, were unlike any camera he or I used. I'll play with it again when my closest dealer (a 90 minute drive one way) gets one.

There are many factors that go into my...or anyone's...decision process. This is just one for me, and asked only because it was so unusual, especially compared to other Hasselblads I've used.

Jeff

Has been a super long time since I shot with a film Hasselblad but my recollection it was a tad quieter. And have never shot with the other Hasselblad digitals. If the sound is more noticeable, suspect the shutter built into the lens is why. Not much noise insulation? Just a guess. It isnt enough to bother me in exchange for the output. But, I wouldn't take it to church or a classical music concert. Maybe a rock concert. Nor would I expect to be stealth with it. It will definitely be heard.

[ramarren]

Has been a super long time since I shot with a film Hasselblad but my recollection it was a tad quieter. And have never shot with the other Hasselblad digitals. If the sound is more noticeable, suspect the shutter built into the lens is why. Not much noise insulation? Just a guess. It isnt enough to bother me in exchange for the output. But, I wouldn't take it to church or a classical music concert. Maybe a rock concert. Nor would I expect to be stealth with it. It will definitely be heard.

 

 

I dunno. The X1D prototype demo last June didn't impress me one way or the other on noise. It certainly didn't give me the steam engine "chug and clunk" of my 500CM, but it wasn't the Syncro-Compur "snick" of my SWC. It just sounded like a camera to me ... I've been shooting with mirrorless cameras a long time, they all make similar noises modulo the sound of an in-lens leaf shutter vs a focal plane shutter; snick to close, chug to expose, snick to open. I hardly noticed the X1D sound as anything unusual. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

It wasn't just the sound, it was the multiple clanks (at least 3) that made it difficult to distinguish when the picture was being taken. If you don't experience that, then maybe changes have been made.....because it was disturbing enough that Kevin called it the worst sounding shutter he's ever heard, and he reviews systems (including those with lens shutters) as part of his job.

 

I hope this has been addressed.

 

Edit....I'd link to the LuLa video for a clear demonstration of what I mean, but it's a paid site ((only 11bucks a year).

 

Jeff

Edited March 4, 2017 by Jeff S

[Peter H]

The X1D I used most recently clicked twice. Two distinct, sharp but fairly subdued clicks a fraction of a second apart. I wish I'd recorded it: there most definitely were not three or more clicks.

 

I only used it outside so it's hard to gauge how loud it was, but it felt "normal" to me, whatever that might mean. It's not as quiet as an M, not as loud as a 6x6 SLR I'd say.

 

PS, I wonder whether it's possible that different lenses produce different shutter sounds.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Peter H