Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good points, Peter.  I think the initial response to the X1D was very enthusiastic, but sentiment swayed for some when delays took place, bugs emerged, etc.  In other words, similar to the Leica crowd.

 

 

 

 

Your point correlates with my experience .... I pre-ordered the camera the day it was announced ... cancelled the order and reordered it only to bail on it this past week ... once

I had a chance to demo one at a local dealer.

 

Beautiful construction ... gorgeous feel to the manual focus but from there on a bit of a disappointment.

 

I do think it will serve those who want a light MF platform well ... but that intangible romance that a camera in my view should impart is missing.

 

No glowing window on life ... nothing that elevates the perspective or view of the one looking through the EVF ... or on the rather better LCD.

 

When I spend this kind of money I expect a tactile emotive bond with the object ... like classical music on the bedside stereo and mints on the pillow 

when I return to the room after a long day of travel. 

 

Great sensor but the glass is sharp and ... did I say it was sharp?

 

The shutter sound out of Mq is awful ... like realizing you stutter every time you are in the presence of a beautiful woman.

 

SO ... my fallback is a M246 couple of gorgeous M lenses ... 

 

I did pick up a GH5 for video as a consolation .... EVF close to that of the SL and an unbelievable set of video abilities. And

it will take my M lenses .... in addition to the Leica spec'd Pana lenses.

 

IF I tire of the GH5 a SL or hopefully a S 010 is in the future.

 

Guess I prefer less than perfect visual representation from lenses ... rather have a bit of character, drama, mojo, romance.

 

Not to diminish the effort and result of the X1D ... just not my cuppa ...'

 

Bob

[IkarusJohn]

I can understand that though I don't share the feeling myself.

 

And I'm not at all sure that you'd have to use a tripod when you don't want to. I maintain that f4 is not too slow for very effective hand-held photography.

 

When I first tested the X1D I was with a small bunch of about 6 pros, mostly Hasselblad users, and the thing that they liked most about the new camera was that it was so easy to use hand-held. So yes, it might require a different approach from Summilux photography, but perhaps not as different as you fear.

 

 

Perhaps.  Actually, I used my 503cx handheld a lot; but not quite in the same way as my FM2.

 

I guess my point is more a philosophical one (stick with me).  APS-C sensors are smaller, and inherently have a greater depth of field for a given aperture (I hope I have that right) - so, even though the lenses are smaller and the sensor stores less data, that greater depth of field gives options, with faster lenses and greater handheld potential.  35mm format brings the benefits of greater acreage and shallower depth of field for a given aperture, and greater creative benefit for faster lenses.  So, while APS-C or even micro 4/3s are more flexible for handheld photography, 35mm has (to my mind) greater creative options and more available lenses.

 

Moving up to 6x6, those large negatives gave even greater creative opportunities than 35mm, and the Zeiss CF lenses we're fantastic (I had the Distagon 50/4 FLE, Planar 80/2 and Sonnar 150/4).  Because of the greater depth of field, the lenses didn't need to be so fast, but photography was more measured - metering, framing and focusing all took time; you then removed the blackout slide, and exposed your one careful image.  Perhaps you bracketed, or if you were taking images handheld (like some 1960s fashion photographer), you'd wind and retake - hardly spontaneous, but pleasurable, nonetheless.

 

Those 500 series Hasselblads weren't really that effective at longer focal lengths - I have no idea how Victor Hasselblad took so many wonderful birdlife photos.  I never went longer than 150mm because the lenses were so big, expensive and slow.  Meanwhile a Nikkor 180/2.8 was compact and fast - in V Series, the same field of view would be the Sonnar-Superachromat 250/5.6 or the Tele-Tessar 350/5.6.  Things are all getting a bit  ... huge.

 

Back to the X1D, the lenses are remarkably compact, but I wonder about what you're losing for what you gain.  The sensor has far greater resolution, without the issue of pixels being crammed into a smaller 36x24 format, but the lenses are larger and slower.  I just wonder if 35mm really is a bit of a sweet spot.

Edited April 2, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

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

[caissa]

The thread title (SL or X1D) is entertaining, but not clever. After all the cameras have different formats and different followers. (The have nothing in common).

The question is: Fuji GFX 50S or Hasselblad X1D, because they have both the same sensor. (and the same user group)

It looks like many have switched to Fuji after an initial flirt with the X1D.

"Hasselblad created an entire new class of cameras with the X1D-50c ($8,995, body only), the first mirrorless shooter with a medium format sensor. But it didn't have its own space in the spotlight for long, as Fujifilm followed with its own take on the concept just a few months later with the GFX 50S ($6,499 body only). And unfortunately for Hasselblad, Fuji's camera undercuts it on price and, in our very early testing, handles better. The X1D itself delivers incredible images and feels great in the hand, but slower performance, an underwhelming EVF, and disappointing battery life hold it back."  (pcmag.com)

[SrMi]

 

I was lucky to 'nab' an X1D at Camera West, Walnut Creek (which I think will replace Keeble & Shuchat as my Bay Area dealer).

 

The images with X1D are great, quirks are charming ;-) and it's a pleasure to use .. so far. And yes, it looks gorgeous.

 

I like the minimalistic approach, not really missing any features, still have to work more with it before I can sing its praises sincerely.

 

The thread's question is Leica SL or X1D? IMO, Leica SL with OIS, faster focusing, native zooms is a more flexible and more mature system. On the other hand X1D system is lighter, smaller and adds the 'medium-format' feel to images. I think the two systems complement each other nicely. If I'd have to pick only one today, I'd choose SL with native zooms. If choosing between SL with M lenses and X1D, I may pick X1D instead.

[meerec]

The thread title (SL or X1D) is entertaining, but not clever. After all the cameras have different formats and different followers. (The have nothing in common).

 

really? I thought they have a lot in common, they take images to start 

   

[caissa]

"Thanks, DPR, for killing my hopes and dreams / saving me money."

Not to be read by the faint-hearted enthusiast. (Only an "opinion".)

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first

Edited April 3, 2017 by caissa

[Belle123]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was lucky to 'nab' an X1D at Camera West, Walnut Creek (which I think will replace Keeble & Shuchat as my Bay Area dealer).

 

The images with X1D are great, quirks are charming ;-) and it's a pleasure to use .. so far. And yes, it looks gorgeous.

 

I like the minimalistic approach, not really missing any features, still have to work more with it before I can sing its praises sincerely.

 

The thread's question is Leica SL or X1D? IMO, Leica SL with OIS, faster focusing, native zooms is a more flexible and more mature system. On the other hand X1D system is lighter, smaller and adds the 'medium-format' feel to images. I think the two systems complement each other nicely. If I'd have to pick only one today, I'd choose SL with native zooms. If choosing between SL with M lenses and X1D, I may pick X1D instead.

I agree. And Welcome to the growing club of X1d owners, and true assessments. There is a Hasselblad forum, a bit less opinionated you will find, and helpful. Have had mine for nearly two months and still discovering, with a smile on my face. No regrets. To shoot medium format again in such a compact design is pretty nice! Whatever minor shortcomings it has is made up for in the images.

[ramarren]

"Thanks, DPR, for killing my hopes and dreams / saving me money."

Not to be read by the faint-hearted enthusiast. (Only an "opinion".)

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first

 

 

DPR didn't kill any of my hopes and dreams because I never had any particular fantasy expectations. I've been working with FourThirds to FF format digital cameras for long enough that I know already what I can get out of these three formats—and it's really quite good. What I'd like the X1D for is its particular imaging qualities that I know I cannot get out of these formats. 

 

Which camera I choose will not make me a better photographer in any case; only I can do that. Thankfully.

[SrMi]

"Thanks, DPR, for killing my hopes and dreams / saving me money."

Not to be read by the faint-hearted enthusiast. (Only an "opinion".)

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first

 

I'll always remember DPR's image of Leica SL in hands of a 'model' so that it looks almost twice the size of a Leica S :-) : https://goo.gl/edlwAI

[jaapv]

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. 

Does that mean that you are waving the camera up and down to take quick peeks at your subject when shooting? Most of us tend to watch the scene through the viewfinder (and their left eye if the VF configuration allows it)

[ramarren]

Does that mean that you are waving the camera up and down to take quick peeks at your subject when shooting? Most of us tend to watch the scene through the viewfinder (and their left eye if the VF configuration allows it)

 

 

I rarely hold a camera to my face for longer than is necessary to focus, frame, and release the shutter and I don't "wave it up and down" taking quick peeks. I don't "watch the scene" through a viewfinder; I watch a developing scene with my eyes, visualizing what I want against what I see. At the appropriate moment, I lift the camera, focus (if I have not already done so), frame, and release the shutter. 

[IkarusJohn]

I never use my left eye for the viewfinder.

[R3D-D0T]

" IMO, Leica SL with OIS, faster focusing, native zooms is a more flexible and more mature system."

 

Right, with its subpar zooms and then there are primes that aren't even out yet...

 

god mirrorless is too compromising :/ 

[wattsy]

 Most of us tend to watch the scene through the viewfinder (and their left eye if the VF configuration allows it)

I never use my left eye for the viewfinder.

 

 

I presume Jaap meant viewing the scene with the left eye whilst looking through the viewfinder with the right (though what he wrote seems to suggest otherwise). Personally I use the viewfinder very loosely and mainly for focus. Like our friend ramarren I tend to know what photograph I want to take before lifting the camera to my eye. I certainly don't watch the scene through the viewfinder.

Edited April 4, 2017 by wattsy

[Peter H]

I presume Jaap meant viewing the scene with the left eye whilst looking through the viewfinder with the right (though what he wrote seems to suggest otherwise). Personally I use the viewfinder very loosely and mainly for focus. Like our friend ramarren I tend to know what photograph I want to take before lifting the camera to my eye. I certainly don't watch the scene through the viewfinder.

Agreed. But you have said how much you prefer a rangefinder arrangement to viewing through the taking lens, which suggests that whilst your viewing of a scene through the viewfinder may be brief it is very important to you and not just a matter of focussing. Is that correct?

[wattsy]

Agreed. But you have said how much you prefer a rangefinder arrangement to viewing through the taking lens, which suggests that whilst your viewing of a scene through the viewfinder may be brief it is very important to you and not just a matter of focussing. Is that correct?

 

 

Yes, very correct. The RF view, being just a glorified piece of clear glass (albeit usually at lower magnification than just using our eyes), is IMO the least intrusive means of focussing and framing the scene to get the photograph that is already in your head. With a TTL view – whether SLR or EVF – I find the change in view from what I see with my eyes to what the scene looks like through the lens a disruptive process.

[almoore]

With a TTL view – whether SLR or EVF – I find the change in view from what I see with my eyes to what the scene looks like through the lens a disruptive process.

 

Can't that sense of disruption be a positive as much as a negative?

[IkarusJohn]

I've never really bought into the idea of looking at the world through a viewfinder, or looking through the viewfindef with my right eye while looking at the world with my left (that just accentuates my double vision).

 

I think about the image I want, raise the camera, focus, frame and expose. The concept of seeing around the frame and tunnel vision with ttl has never really meant much to me. Don't get me wrong, I rather like the plain glass view through the vf. The virtues of seeing around the framelines, etc etc mean nothing to me. I think it's a justification looking for a problem.

 

Good dSLR viewfinders are fantastic (think Leica S), good evfs are okay (no way the SL evf is as good as the ovf on an S camera). The viewfinder on the M camera? Well, it's better than the SL's evf, but it's pretty obvious it has major limitations - it isn't linked to the lens, except by the mechanical coupling, it must be accurately calibrated to the lens, and the focusing patch occupies a larger percentage of the image for longer focal lengths (when focussing accuracy is important), and less of a wider lens (when it isn't); and the ptach is fixed.

 

Pretty crap, when you think about it, really.

Edited April 4, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[wattsy]

Can't that sense of disruption be a positive as much as a negative?

 

 

I'm sure it could be for many people and certainly a TTL view is very helpful for precise framing and focussing for applications like architectural and macro photography but I know I find something a bit disorienting about switching between what I am looking at to looking through an SLR. I've tried hard to like SLRs because they are generally significantly cheaper to buy, more flexible in terms of system and easier to find stuff to borrow from friends and colleagues, but I always gravitate back to rangefinders. Part of the problem is that my experience of TTL views is using traditional SLRs whereby the view is effectively at F1.4 – I have little to no experience with an EVF which may suit me more in allowing a more stopped down view?

Edited April 4, 2017 by wattsy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[wattsy]

The virtues of seeing around the framelines, etc etc mean nothing to me. I think it's a justification looking for a problem.

 

I can't agree with that, John. I find it much easier and quicker to crop something (which is obviously what we do when we frame a scene) when I can see what I am cutting away as well as what is left behind.