Leica SL or Hasselblad X1D

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funny because I'm thinking of trading in the SL for the X1D because of the total size of the SL. I love using the M10 because of the size and simplicity. The SL is not so simple and I tend to not use it because of the size with lens and I need 5 minutes to re-acquaint myself with what the buttons do. The M10 I grab and go.

 

I'll be testing an X1D soon to see if the size and ease make it a go-to camera which, after 18 months, sadly the SL is not.

 

 

In this case Leica can and should do a better job: Yes, the SL offers a lot of possibilities, but I hardly think about these anymore. Actually, I find the SL at least as quick to use as the M. This requires to have the SL set up with suitable presents.

 

Why doesn't Leica (or this forum) offer precise suggestions and short explanations/illustrations for how the SL can be used for, let's say, a few typical shooting situations using either manual lenses or native/adapted AF lenses? It should be possible to download example presets and load these onto any SL-body. In this way, people get a flying start and minor tweaks should ensure seamless operation of the body.

[Cliff S]

I have no problem using the SL. It's not hard at all. But when I switch from SL lenses to MF it becomes a very different camera. And when using SL lenses in AF and later in MF, it again becomes a different camera with the controls having different functions. For example the joystick. So I have to think before I shoot. I don't like to think. I had to think too much with my Nikon- which dial for aperture mode etc. I feel the SL makes me think about the camera more than I should. I want simple.

 

I admit it's great if I keep it consistent. M lenses no prob. Love it. SL lenses? Not so. Big and heavy. Focus point moving around by accident all the time. Too much thinking. SL in MF? Focus ring is not intuitive. Turn one way then the other way. Until finally I know where it is.

 

Anyway we'll see if the X1D is better

[Advertisement]

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

[ski542002]

Funny because I'm thinking of trading in the SL for the X1D because of the total size of the SL. I love using the M10 because of the size and simplicity. The SL is not so simple and I tend to not use it because of the size with lens and I need 5 minutes to re-acquaint myself with what the buttons do. The M10 I grab and go.

 

I'll be testing an X1D soon to see if the size and ease make it a go-to camera which, after 18 months, sadly the SL is not.

 

Size for a pro level body should be a non-issue IMO.  I find my SL to be as simple to use as my M, or any of my other camera bodies.  You meter your scene, set the aperture/shutter speed, and fire away. Once you do your initial menu setup, very little else changes with any camera.  I do find the Sony to be absolutely kludgy in their menu designs and dumb interface.  But now we're going further off topic.  I still don't feel the SL & X1D are a viable comparison anyway.  X1D & the Fuji, that'd be the logical comparison, but not on this forum!

[Cliff S]

Agreed that once set it's easy. It's when you change from SL to M lenses and from AF to MF you need to rethink too much.

[mmradman]

Agreed that once set it's easy. It's when you change from SL to M lenses and from AF to MF you need to rethink too much.

In that case good luck switching backwards and forwards between M and XID.

[Cliff S]

In that case good luck switching backwards and forwards between M and XID.

What do you mean?

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What do you mean?

Only interpreting what you said; you have no problem with either SL or M stand alone but find it difficult to switch between them due to different user interface, you also said you are selling (or sold) your SL and going for X1D as a substitute, no?

[Cliff S]

I have no trouble going back and forth between the M and the SL. I just don't do it because I prefer the form factor and OVF of the M. Using the SL with M lenses is easy but I ask myself why bother when I use them on the M. And since calibrating the noctilux it focus well on the M. And I don't mind popping on the EVF if I'm having trouble using it in difficult conditions.

 

The problem is that I would like a good AF solution which the SL to me isn't. The lenses, even the 50, are way too big to use when travelling around a new city or even when shooting events. It's why I ditched my Nikon. And using SL lenses in MF is hard because I have no idea where the focus is set as well as some buttons doing different things that I forget what they are. I need to re-acclimate each time I use the camera differently.

 

So it stays in the bag and I use the Q when I want an AF solution. But 28mm is often too wide or too narrow.

 

I really want to use the SL but when I pull it out and see the size with the 24-90 I usually say not today.

 

The lens sizes of the X1D are much more manageable. And it's very intuitive going from AF to MF and on the whole is very intuitive. Since I have more than one camera, I want to just pick it up and shoot without first reviewing how I'm using it, with which lenses and focus technique and just shoot.

[ramarren]

The SL complements the M, and vice versa, in exactly the same way that an M has complemented my film SLR cameras since 1969. 

The SL is essentially a replacement for the stillborn Leica R digital, to me. 

 

If you never enjoyed shooting with an SLR or had a need for all the things that an SLR can do that are, at best, awkward to do with any RF camera, the SL will not appeal to you. The SL body is within millimeters in size and weight between the R8/R9 and Leicaflex SL bodies. The SL zoom lenses are not a lot different in size and weight to what the R zoom lenses of similar specification are, and although the Summilux-SL 50mm is large on the order of the modern Zeiss Otis 50mm, I expect the other SL primes that have been announced will be on the same order of size as the R primes tend to be. In other words, not extraordinarily different from the premium, fast lenses for any modern DSLR camera. 

 

For me, the SL is one of the very best cameras Leica has made in the past thirty years. The fact that Leica M aficionados aren't so thrilled about it isn't very surprising. M rangefinder cameras are all about a different thing than pro-grade SLR cameras, with the words "compactness" and "light weight" being two of the key indicators. I finally love my M again, with the M-D model in my hands, because Leica finally returned to me the feeling of lightness, compactness, and simplicity in operation that the M4-2 or M6 epitomized. But ... If I could only have one camera and a few lenses as the entirety of my camera kit, I'd take an SL and my current lens kit for it as the right way to do. The SL can do anything that I want, photographically, including many things that are at best a struggle with the M. 

 

Rangefinder cameras, in general, have been a struggling niche market since the 1960s, with only Leica being truly successful for all this time. Aside from the modest interest kicked off in film RF cameras in the 1990s by Cosina (under their own brand and with the Voigtländer brand) and then Konica and Zeiss jumping into the fray as well, Leica is the only manufacturer who has stood beside M type cameras from the beginning, and will likely be the last. Cosina's one stab at a digital RF with Epson didn't go anywhere, and they've now discontinued all their film RF bodies, as did Konica a long while back and Zeiss a bit more recently. Funny, but Leica followed those announcements by offering a new film M as well as expanding the M digital lineup. 

 

The Hasselblad X1D (and to a lesser degree the Fuji GFX) enters the market from a totally different footing. Its closest historical precedent is the Mamiya 6 and Mamiya 7—cameras that moved medium format film into the "compact with a huge negative" space and challenges more the kind of shooting that a Leica M does so well—not a challenger to the versatility and speed of the  SLR (or the SL). When I consider the X1D from a broader footing then my previously stated interests, it is the M that it calls into question, not the SL. The X1D will NEVER be able to challenge the SL's versatility and responsiveness ... that's not its reason for existence. It's for the slightly slower pace and more limited shooting space of the M. 

 

 

There's no resolution to our various disagreements on what we like, what is more or less priority to our desires, etc. I'm certain that the X1D is a superb piece of equipment, just as I know from actual use how good the SL and the M digital are. The question is what each of these three cameras do and how do we prioritize it, personally. 

 

• I know what I want out of the SL. Have it, know it works for that, know what I can do with it. Using it brings me great joy.
• I know what I want out of the M and how it complements the SL. Have it, know how it works, and love using it. 
• I don't have the X1D, but I know what to expect from it and what I'd want from it; I know how it would complement the other two cameras. If I decide those things become a high enough priority, an X1D will find its way to me. 

 

You have to make those assessments and decisions for yourself, each of you.

Edited April 5, 2017 by ramarren

[ski542002]

I have no trouble going back and forth between the M and the SL. I just don't do it because I prefer the form factor and OVF of the M. Using the SL with M lenses is easy but I ask myself why bother when I use them on the M. And since calibrating the noctilux it focus well on the M. And I don't mind popping on the EVF if I'm having trouble using it in difficult conditions.

 

The problem is that I would like a good AF solution which the SL to me isn't. The lenses, even the 50, are way too big to use when travelling around a new city or even when shooting events. It's why I ditched my Nikon. And using SL lenses in MF is hard because I have no idea where the focus is set as well as some buttons doing different things that I forget what they are. I need to re-acclimate each time I use the camera differently.

 

So it stays in the bag and I use the Q when I want an AF solution. But 28mm is often too wide or too narrow.

 

I really want to use the SL but when I pull it out and see the size with the 24-90 I usually say not today.

 

The lens sizes of the X1D are much more manageable. And it's very intuitive going from AF to MF and on the whole is very intuitive. Since I have more than one camera, I want to just pick it up and shoot without first reviewing how I'm using it, with which lenses and focus technique and just shoot.

 

 

Have and love the SL with M lenses (& 1 R-lens).  So if I ADD the X1d (NOT replace the SL), it would fundamentally change how I approach a shoot; the way I shoot and how I might light, or not-light a situation.  Run-and-gun, available light, not so much.  But controlled and on a tripod with lighting, I'd be more prone to use the 'Blad. Need to work quicker with more focal-length  options, probably the SL at the expense of some loss of fidelity.  Back in the film days, I'd always try to use my RZ67 over my 35mm because of the much greater quality, flash sync @ any speed, but at the expense of size, lens selection, lack of spontaneity, slower & more deliberate et.al. Other than the smaller file size, the SL gives me pretty much everything I'd need.  I just registered for a Hasselblad demo in mid-April where I'll be able to play with the X1D.  Looking forward to getting a splitting headache!  

[Cliff S]

Have and love the SL with M lenses (& 1 R-lens). So if I ADD the X1d (NOT replace the SL), it would fundamentally change how I approach a shoot; the way I shoot and how I might light, or not-light a situation. Run-and-gun, available light, not so much. But controlled and on a tripod with lighting, I'd be more prone to use the 'Blad. Need to work quicker with more focal-length options, probably the SL at the expense of some loss of fidelity. Back in the film days, I'd always try to use my RZ67 over my 35mm because of the much greater quality, flash sync @ any speed, but at the expense of size, lens selection, lack of spontaneity, slower & more deliberate et.al. Other than the smaller file size, the SL gives me pretty much everything I'd need. I just registered for a Hasselblad demo in mid-April where I'll be able to play with the X1D. Looking forward to getting a splitting headache!

True. I'm keeping the SL but I'm wondering why we hear needing a tripod with the X1D? I understand the much larger hasselblads but this is VERY ergonomic handheld.

[Cliff S]

Have and love the SL with M lenses (& 1 R-lens). So if I ADD the X1d (NOT replace the SL), it would fundamentally change how I approach a shoot; the way I shoot and how I might light, or not-light a situation. Run-and-gun, available light, not so much. But controlled and on a tripod with lighting, I'd be more prone to use the 'Blad. Need to work quicker with more focal-length options, probably the SL at the expense of some loss of fidelity. Back in the film days, I'd always try to use my RZ67 over my 35mm because of the much greater quality, flash sync @ any speed, but at the expense of size, lens selection, lack of spontaneity, slower & more deliberate et.al. Other than the smaller file size, the SL gives me pretty much everything I'd need. I just registered for a Hasselblad demo in mid-April where I'll be able to play with the X1D. Looking forward to getting a splitting headache!

True. I'm keeping the SL but I'm wondering why we hear needing a tripod with the X1D? I understand the much larger hasselblads but this is VERY ergonomic handheld.

[caissa]

I like to use R and M lenses. That is why I love the SL - no matter what size or resolution it has. I love using the bigger M lenses (Nocti, 1.4/28, 1.4/75, 2/90, 135, WATE) which are not so nice on the M. They are great on the SL - a big win. I love using the R macro lenses. Then AF with the SL 90-280 is simply wonderful (it has never been so easy (foolproof) at this focal range, and quality is bombastic, AF speed is incredible). I found also other lenses (Zeiss, Contax and some AF SIgma Art) that give me exactly what I need and enjoy. Not important but the last tiny bit: I love the (low, short) noise of the shutter. And sometimes I like to be able to take bursts of pictures (at 11 frames/s), not crucial for me, but more useful than thought before. (It is my first camera to allow this speed and I was surprised how useful it can be).

 

I would never have thought about going back to medium format (had it 20 years ago, do not miss it). But because of the endless discussions here I threw an eye on the X1D (otherwise would probably have gone for the cheaper Fuji) and got a demo.

As expected I did not like it: First I cannot use any R or M lenses. The shutter noise is in my ears awful (not important, but if you have a "perfect" camera then you notice any difference). The slowness of almost anything (AF, shutter, menus, EVF) is simply nerve racking - and this is VERY important. Then just think of selecting the AF point ! First it is a very fat point and second you need both hands to do it ! You cannot select on the touchscreen ! .... Take the time to swallow this.   Finally I do not like using flash (probably a main strength of the X1D). (My fault not the cameras.)

Cannot say too much about the quality of the raw files, because there was nothing worth shooting in the shop (got only uninteresting raws). But found that you need to use raws (the jpegs are just of minor quality). While I mostly do not a lot of post-processing. (So actually the raws are often overkill for me). In the end it was a clear decision. You can say it was clear from the beginning. Probably you're right. Only a 35 and 70 (45 and 90) is not enough for me, as I like laziness and like to use zooms.

I love to have lenses with f 1.4 and zooms with f 2.0 . All completely impossible with the X1D.

 

For consolation: When I got the first SL demo, I also disliked it completely and thought I would never buy it. I also do not like the SL 24-90 and SL 1.4/50 very much and use them only if I have to. But I have many other lenses to use instead.

Edited April 6, 2017 by caissa

[ski542002]

True. I'm keeping the SL but I'm wondering why we hear needing a tripod with the X1D? I understand the much larger hasselblads but this is VERY ergonomic handheld.

 

Hello Cliff:

 

It's not a matter of needing, but using to one's advantage.  Even shooting with the SL, when I'm shooting a controlled environment, strobes etc., I almost always use a tripod. Not because I need to steady my shaky limbs, but it adds consistency from shot-to-shot, it allows a client to view a specific scene without changes to the overall scene, it forces me to slow down and analyze a scene while I tweak it to make it better. When I process a group of files in LR, I can tweak one image, burn/dodge etc., and sync all files.  The corrections are all in-register from shot-to-shot because of using the tripod. OF course when shooting architecture, or doing exposure and/or focus blending, I use the tripod 99.9% of the time.   IF I purchased the X1d however, I would expect to be able to use it handheld when warranted and if that proved difficult, I would not buy it.

[Cliff S]

Thanks. Makes sense. I'm a hand holder unless I need very slow shutter speeds for water etc.

 

I was worried that MF is more prone to camera shake than FF. But the X1D has excellent higher ISO than typical MF cameras, leaf shutter (no mirror shake) and is light weight, which should bring it back to SL range of camera shake. My research shows that 1/f seems to be fine.

[Jeff S]

I was worried that MF is more prone to camera shake than FF. But the X1D has excellent higher ISO than typical MF cameras, leaf shutter (no mirror shake) and is light weight, which should bring it back to SL range of camera shake. My research shows that 1/f seems to be fine.

Mirror shake is different issue than shutter type; of course the SL is also mirrorless. And actual implementation/ build quality can often be as important as shutter type.

 

Of course technique is paramount, and different users prefer different weights, form factors, etc.

 

The SL zooms also have excellent OIS, which might offset even poor technique.

 

The good news is that it works well for your needs.

 

Jeff

[R3D-D0T]

True. I'm keeping the SL but I'm wondering why we hear needing a tripod with the X1D? I understand the much larger hasselblads but this is VERY ergonomic handheld.

 

 

If you're shooting at low shutter speeds without a tripod, your photos will look a little shaky. Might not matter if it's high shutter speeds.

 

Also it helps with composition.

[almoore]

I threw an eye on the X1D...As expected I did not like it: First I cannot use any R or M lenses...Cannot say too much about the quality of the raw files, because there was nothing worth shooting in the shop (got only uninteresting raws). But found that you need to use raws (the jpegs are just of minor quality)...raws are often overkill for me...it was a clear decision...a 35 and 70 (45 and 90) is not enough for me...I love to have lenses with f 1.4 and zooms with f 2...impossible with the X1D....

What on earth were Hasselblad thinking of when they came up with the concept of the X1D?

 

A medium format camera that doesn't accept lenses designed for a smaller format and a different brand. A camera that takes uninteresting photographs in a camera store. A medium format sensor that requires raw conversions to give the highest quality. And, most damning of all, no medium format zooms with a maximum aperture of f2.

 

With all of these inexplicable shortcomings, the X1D is clearly doomed to failure.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

What on earth were Hasselblad thinking of when they came up with the concept of the X1D?

 

A medium format camera that doesn't accept lenses designed for a smaller format and a different brand. A camera that takes uninteresting photographs in a camera store. A medium format sensor that requires raw conversions to give the highest quality. And, most damning of all, no medium format zooms with a maximum aperture of f2.

 

With all of these inexplicable shortcomings, the X1D is clearly doomed to failure.

 

thanks... I got a giggle out of that....

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ski542002]

What on earth were Hasselblad thinking of when they came up with the concept of the X1D?

 

A medium format camera that doesn't accept lenses designed for a smaller format and a different brand. A camera that takes uninteresting photographs in a camera store. A medium format sensor that requires raw conversions to give the highest quality. And, most damning of all, no medium format zooms with a maximum aperture of f2.

 

With all of these inexplicable shortcomings, the X1D is clearly doomed to failure.

 

Enjoyable satire in a world gone mad.   Your efforts are appreciated!