SL+primes vs medium format

[Jared]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And, finally, the extreme upper left corner.  At least, it's the extreme upper left from the Hasselblad.  Due to aspect ratio differences, it's the extreme top of the frame for the CL, but not quite the left edge...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sillbeers15]

To me the X1D will shine in less dynamic application, similar to the M10. Good for slow stills. SL is better for all rounder application and with more superior glasses it lets me create good images with wider application. If your shooting experience calls for 200mm focal length, tell me X1D is better? Need another body and lens? Added together still consider compact?

[Jared]

Of course the SL is better for longer focal lengths. The X1D doesn’t even have any focal lengths over 120mm so far. The SL also has a better viewfinder, faster AF, zooms, much higher frame rate, image stabilization (in some lenses), etc. It’s a well rounded camera and the X1D is not. But I think it’s a mistake to compare it to medium format or to say that, with the new primes, the lines are blurred between the formats. Lots of cameras of different formats are capable of exceptional image quality if your technique is good and if you stay within the performance envelope of the camera. That’s what I was trying to show with my example. Even formats smaller than full frame can produce exceptional results with regard to technical image quality.

 

The SL was not intended to compete with medium format, and it doesn’t really. That’s not taking anything away from it. It’s a great camera—probably the one I would keep if push came to shove and you told me I had to get rid of all my cameras but one.

[Jeff S]

But let’s recognize that the XCD lens line already includes a macro, a wide prime (16-17mm equivalent), a 35 prime equivalent, and a 1.7x converter (along with a 107mm equivalent, for 181mm total), none of which yet exist for the SL, and the system is a year or so younger. Plus it can adapt various other Hasselblad lenses, and a native zoom is soon to come. Oh, and the lenses are relatively compact and portable. Different priorities.

 

Jeff

Edited May 19, 2018 by Jeff S

[Jared]

Different priorities is exactly right.

[BernardC]

But let’s recognize that the XCD lens line already includes a macro, a wide prime, a 35 prime equivalent, and a 1.7x converter, none of which yet exist for the SL,

 

And the SL offers a wide zoom, 50/75/90 mm "equivalents", and a long zoom, none of which are available on the X1D.

...and the SL can also adapt various other lenses (hundreds of them, not just a dozen).

 

I'm not sure what your point was, other than list-making. The difference between the two systems isn't hidden on the last page of the system brochure, it's obvious from the start. If anything, the two systems are complementary.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And the SL offers a wide zoom, 50/75/90 mm "equivalents", and a long zoom, none of which are available on the X1D.

...and the SL can also adapt various other lenses (hundreds of them, not just a dozen).

 

I'm not sure what your point was, other than list-making. The difference between the two systems isn't hidden on the last page of the system brochure, it's obvious from the start. If anything, the two systems are complementary.

It’s not a contest. Just different priorities, as I wrote. All the posts prior to mine touted the variety of lenses, especially tele lengths, that exist for the SL, emphasizing its flexibility compared to the X1D. I merely gave a counterpoint illustrating certain types of lenses that Hasselblad chose to release before comparable SL lenses. Each person can decide his/her own needs and priorities. Just tools. Get the point?

 

Jeff