Farewell Leica...

[MarkinVan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, thank you for all the inspiration and details on your SL experiences. They were helpful in my decision and I remain happy with my SL and by the time I tire of it hopefully there will be an SL2 to continue to grow with my SL zoom trio and maybe some primes to come. I really do appreciate it. Cheers!

[Vieri]

17 hours ago, hhn360 said:

Hello Vieri,

Congratulations on your switch to the X1D system!

I've owned and used all 3 (SL, X1D, and GFX) and speak from personal experience.  I had the complete X1D kit (black version, 2 camera bodies and all 4 XCD lenses, at the time).  The X1D is an extremely elegant camera (probably the most elegant, in my opinion), with an amazingly comfortable grip, and the image files are stunning.  It didn't work for me because I shoot fashion and beauty, and found it too difficult to use in the field and work with pace and fluidity.  If I were a landscape photographer, I would absolutely have kept it.  After every fashion shoot, I wanted to throw away the camera, only to brought back after seeing the quality of the files.  Eventually I had enough and ended up switching to the GFX 50S when Profoto HSS was released for Fujifilm.  The handling is perfect for what I shoot and the image files are just as stunning.  Also the GFX had the lens in the wheelhouse for my style (portrait focal length, 110 f2) and the XCD system didn't offer one, by comparison.  I had never been a Fujifilm guy before and now absolutely love their way of doing things.  I still have my SL (2 bodies) and all the SL lenses - I will probably never give them up because I absolutely love this camera, even though the GFX has far surpassed the SL in terms of image quality.

Best,

Hien

Hello Hien,

thank you for your message, and to share your X1D experience with us. I can see how shooting fashion with the X1D wouldn't work, the camera is probably not fast enough for that. For my work on the other hand, as you said, I find it simply perfect

16 hours ago, ramarren said:

I'll be interested to read your reviews and see your work with the Hasselblad X1D, Vieri. I've been attracted to that camera since it was announced; for me, the 21mm and 100mm Macro lenses would be a perfect lens kit for it. The crop to square with that lens would finally give me what I've wanted in terms of an "all digital Hasselblad SWC" ...!

I doubt I'll ever go for one, simply because my photography has moved in a different direction in the past year and some, but I won't say never.. Happily, I still have my Hasselblad SWC and don't mind shooting the occasional roll of film through it. 

I will definitely review the X1D and lenses, and I am looking forward very much to doing that. However, that will have to wait until April, since I am hitting the road next week and will be away from home for two months - can't wait! 

13 hours ago, BernardC said:

I've read the other way, namely that the GF lenses need to be stopped-down to provide decent performance from edge to edge. I suspect that a lot of that confusion has to do with the usual caveats of internet lens testing: small sample sizes (often just 1 lens), poor methodology, paid content, post-purchase rationalization, etc.

One common trait is that lenses are tested at near-macro distances, and the results are extrapolated to other shooting situations.

While I am not a lens reviewer by any means, I have to agree with you about testing distance. For my articles, I use every lens both at infinity and focussed close, and I do that on real-world landscapes (the view from my house). The results are often different than what the common wisdom about what a particular lens can do. As well, while I review lenses at any aperture, for my work I use my lenses 80-90% of the time stopped down, and that also makes a serious difference in real use

7 hours ago, Likaleica said:

Good luck with the X1D, Vieri.  I got excited (because I love my 500 CM) and went all in for it over a year ago, liquidated a lot of equipment to get an even swap on the 3 lens kit, but sold it this summer because I was disappointed in the camera for landscapes.  The files were rich and deep but the lenses were lacking in my opinion.  I also didn't like the EVF and the user interface was not as simple as I like it.  However, I hope you have a much better experience with it and I look forward to seeing your beautiful creations.

Thank you very much indeed! I am interested in hearing your opinion about the lenses, I wonder why you found them lacking - I find them amazing. About the EVF, pretty much anything feels poor after the Leica SL's amazing EVF. However, I found that the X1D's, while less spectacular to look at in general, works much better as far as refresh rate in low light than the SL's, perhaps due to the lower pixel count (?), and that is something I truly appreciate for my work.

1 hour ago, MarkinVan said:

Well, thank you for all the inspiration and details on your SL experiences. They were helpful in my decision and I remain happy with my SL and by the time I tire of it hopefully there will be an SL2 to continue to grow with my SL zoom trio and maybe some primes to come. I really do appreciate it. Cheers!

You are very welcome, I am glad that my work with the SL and my articles served to inspire you to get one, and that you are happy with it. The Leica SL is an amazing camera, I love it and that doesn't change of course, I just find the X1D better suited for my work  

Best regards,

Vieri

[caissa]

I can understand that you don’t want to be ambassador anymore. But I am actually a bit surprised, that you made a decision for the mf camera. I thought the wide angle options were not too great - but maybe you can also adapt the 10 to 15 mm lenses? (with some cropping)  And of course not this awful LENR ....

But I wonder did you ever consider the coming Panasonic camera ? It would also give you 47 Mpixel and additionally the high resolution possibility (some kind of sensor shift), so even greater resolution than currently the small mf. And all the wide-angle options that you currently have, and no LENR probably ...

All the best, but this is probably not necessary, as you can still use the current stuff, as long as you keep it. ✌️

 

Sorry another question, how do you like the colors of the X1D compared to the SL ? For me they were too sweet (especially for humans the SL colors looked much more natural), and so I wonder if the colors were also a reason to switch to X1D. The higher saturation is maybe preferable for landscape photographers, or the deeper greens ... ?

Edited January 24, 2019 by caissa

[Agent M10]

On 1/23/2019 at 9:05 AM, hhn360 said:

I had never been a Fujifilm guy before and now absolutely love their way of doing things.  I still have my SL (2 bodies) and all the SL lenses - I will probably never give them up because I absolutely love this camera, even though the GFX has far surpassed the SL in terms of image quality.

By what measure? The GFX creates 14-bit files which the SL does too. The sensors, I believe, came out the same year. So, besides the larger number of megapixels, just how does the GFX surpass the image quality of the SL with the SL having class-leading zooms and primes? How is "far surpassed the SL in terms of image quality" isn't just a bunch of hooey? 

Edited January 24, 2019 by Agent M10

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, caissa said:

...

But I wonder did you ever consider the coming Panasonic camera ? It would also give you 47 Mpixel and additionally the high resolution possibility (some kind of sensor shift), so even greater resolution than currently the small mf. And all the wide-angle options that you currently have, and no LENR probably ...

This is similar to what I was thinking. I’ve used the x1d and worked a lot on its files, and I do wonder just how much the differences in its image quality that I currently see over the SL owes mostly to megapixel differences.

I know sensor size should have an influence in favour of medium format, but I’m also assuming that gap in image quality could be narrowed substantially when the higher megapixel cameras like S1R appear (especially in combo with the superlative SL Primes) .....

[hhn360]

4 hours ago, Agent M10 said:

By what measure? The GFX creates 14-bit files which the SL does too. The sensors, I believe, came out the same year. So, besides the larger number of megapixels, just how does the GFX surpass the image quality of the SL with the SL having class-leading zooms and primes? How is "far surpassed the SL in terms of image quality" isn't just a bunch of hooey? 

Have you shot extensively with the GFX and SL and worked on their files?   I'm not referring to technical measures such as number of stops better in terms of recovery of shadows, highlights, low light capability etc.  I am going by what I see when I work with the files.  

Here are 2 galleries of my work.  About half of the images are taken with the GFX, but the rest are taken with the SL, Nikon D810, Hasselblad X1D, as well Phase One IQ3 100.  I do think I know what image quality is when I see and work with it.  

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Bridal-Fashion/

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Beauty

And btw, I didn't put a value judgement on "far surpassing".   That depends on one's intent.  Just like a classic Porsche is still fantastic to drive, perhaps even more fun than the current generation 992 for the driver, so may be the SL for the photographer.  I wouldn't race on the track with a 930 Porsche if I'm interesting in lap times, but it doesn't mean I don't love driving it on back roads.  As I mentioned, I am keeping my full SL kit (2 bodies along with all the SL lenses) because I truly love this camera.  

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You don't need to put a value judgement on "far surpassing" - the words themselves do that.

[jyrkialanen]

14 hours ago, Agent M10 said:

By what measure? The GFX creates 14-bit files which the SL does too. The sensors, I believe, came out the same year. So, besides the larger number of megapixels, just how does the GFX surpass the image quality of the SL with the SL having class-leading zooms and primes? How is "far surpassed the SL in terms of image quality" isn't just a bunch of hooey? 

You can't be serious. Leica SL has a 24MP full frame sensor and GFX has a 51,1MP medium format sensor. So besides the more than doubled megapixels the GFX sensor is also 67% larger.. The advantage of bigger sensor isn't "a bunch of hooey", not even in a Leica SL forum.

Of course the excellent Leica lenses may "narrow the gap" (they are very sharp from wide open) but even Leica lenses doesn't have the ability to enlarge the existing camera sensor size.

 

 

[caissa]

These are only words. The images I see show no big difference between the two.

Despite the huge theoretical advantage of double the number of pixels you need a very large print to be able to observe any differences. So I simply look forward to see what Vieri is going to produce with the new camera.

Unfortunately the images in the web will not be detailed enough, and I do not know if his photos are shown anywhere - I mean in a physical exhibition...

[helged]

3 minutes ago, caissa said:

These are only words. The images I see show no big difference between the two.

Despite the huge theoretical advantage of double the number of pixels you need a very large print to be able to observe any differences. So I simply look forward to see what Vieri is going to produce with the new camera.

Unfortunately the images in the web will not be detailed enough, and I do not know if his photos are shown anywhere - I mean in a physical exhibition...

See https://vieribottazzini.com/exhibitions.

[frame-it]

13 hours ago, hhn360 said:

 

Here are 2 galleries of my work.  About half of the images are taken with the GFX, but the rest are taken with the SL, Nikon D810, Hasselblad X1D, as well Phase One IQ3 100.  I do think I know what image quality is when I see and work with it.  

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Bridal-Fashion/

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Beauty

 

lovely galleries

[Vieri]

20 hours ago, caissa said:

I can understand that you don’t want to be ambassador anymore. But I am actually a bit surprised, that you made a decision for the mf camera. I thought the wide angle options were not too great - but maybe you can also adapt the 10 to 15 mm lenses? (with some cropping)  And of course not this awful LENR ....

But I wonder did you ever consider the coming Panasonic camera ? It would also give you 47 Mpixel and additionally the high resolution possibility (some kind of sensor shift), so even greater resolution than currently the small mf. And all the wide-angle options that you currently have, and no LENR probably ...

All the best, but this is probably not necessary, as you can still use the current stuff, as long as you keep it. ✌️

 

Sorry another question, how do you like the colors of the X1D compared to the SL ? For me they were too sweet (especially for humans the SL colors looked much more natural), and so I wonder if the colors were also a reason to switch to X1D. The higher saturation is maybe preferable for landscape photographers, or the deeper greens ... ?

Well, while I liked the X1D from its release, I wouldn't choose it for my work at the time. There were two main steps in the X1D's development that made it into what I think might just be the best system for landscape photography, at least for the kind I do:

- Release of the 21mm, or 16.7mm FOV equivalent;
- Implementation of Electronic Shutter, which allows me to use pretty much any lens I like, bar the mechanical vignetting of the lens;

At the moment, I am back to using my beloved Voigtlander 15mm, which I loved to use on the SL before the release of the 16-35mm. The 15mm works great on the X1D, with no need for cropping if you shoot in 1:1 or 16:9, minor cropping for 3:2, and a little more cropping for 4:3. I will review this lens on the X1D when I back home from my Spring Workshops, probably in mid-April.

No, I didn't even consider the Panasonic S1R camera. Setting aside that it is non-existent at the moment, and that not much in terms of specs is known, what we know so far is:

- It supports different cards in its slots, and I prefer both slots using the same card;
- I love the "Essential" philosophy behind the SL, and behind the X1D, and it seems to me that the Panasonic camera has a million buttons on it;
- I don't want to start a war, but I believe in the difference made by sensor size and pixel size when it comes to image quality: I appreciate it that some might think that is all in my mind (and in the minds of the many that thinks like me on this one) but I can see it in my photographs, so it's there for me. I have no presumption that my thoughts hold any universal value, but they do for me and that's all I need to know
- I print large, I just launched a new series of prints sized 100x150mm of printed area, and - again without wanting to start a war - I can definitely see the difference in resolution reflected in my prints. Again, I appreciate it that some might think that is all in my mind (and in the minds of the many that thinks like me on this one) but see point above.

About the X1D's colour, and about colour in general. I love the X1D's colours, they are different than the SL's but they are beautiful to my eye. That said, I worked with dozen digital cameras and I found that I always could managed to make my images look the way I wanted them to look. Some with a little more effort, some less. So far, the X1D falls into the "less effort" camp - I find its files easier to work than the SL's and of much better quality, especially on long exposure and despite the lack of LENR.

18 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

This is similar to what I was thinking. I’ve used the x1d and worked a lot on its files, and I do wonder just how much the differences in its image quality that I currently see over the SL owes mostly to megapixel differences.

I know sensor size should have an influence in favour of medium format, but I’m also assuming that gap in image quality could be narrowed substantially when the higher megapixel cameras like S1R appear (especially in combo with the superlative SL Primes) .....

Hello Jon, while I am sure that the S1R (and possibly a higher-MP count SL2 at some point) will narrow the gap, there will always be an advantage in IQ for MF cameras, resolution aside. As well, I think that when the SL2 will be released, we might see an X2D as well, with 100 Mp probably. Whether I will go for it is not clear in my mind yet, but what I mean is that as technology progresses there will always be an advantage in MF vs FF, there is no doubt in my mind about it.

3 hours ago, caissa said:

These are only words. The images I see show no big difference between the two.

Despite the huge theoretical advantage of double the number of pixels you need a very large print to be able to observe any differences. So I simply look forward to see what Vieri is going to produce with the new camera.

Unfortunately the images in the web will not be detailed enough, and I do not know if his photos are shown anywhere - I mean in a physical exhibition...

 

3 hours ago, helged said:

See https://vieribottazzini.com/exhibitions.

My images are exhibited from time to time, and I sell Fine Art Prints fairly big in size (https://vieribottazzinifineart.com), so I must definitely appreciate the extra resolution. See above for my thoughts re: higher resolution S1R or SL2 vs X1D (and potentially X2D).

Hope this helps! Best regards,

Vieri

[Agent M10]

9 hours ago, jyrkialanen said:

You can't be serious. Leica SL has a 24MP full frame sensor and GFX has a 51,1MP medium format sensor. So besides the more than doubled megapixels the GFX sensor is also 67% larger.. The advantage of bigger sensor isn't "a bunch of hooey", not even in a Leica SL forum.

Of course the excellent Leica lenses may "narrow the gap" (they are very sharp from wide open) but even Leica lenses doesn't have the ability to enlarge the existing camera sensor size.

 

 

Why can't I be serious? Maybe instead of throwing out that a not-so-much-bigger sensor equals "far surpassing" image quality is self evident, you can articulate how the GFX far surpasses the SL in image quality.Take a look at hhn360's galleries and you tell me which ones were taken with the SL and which were not. I'd bet you that if you placed two prints 24x36 side by side, one taken with the GFX and the other with the SL, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two, except maybe the colors and some depth of field depending upon the lenses used.   Well, let me qualify that. You would probably notice a difference if the SL photograph was shot with one of the new primes at 2.0.

 

19 hours ago, hhn360 said:

Have you shot extensively with the GFX and SL and worked on their files?   I'm not referring to technical measures such as number of stops better in terms of recovery of shadows, highlights, low light capability etc.  I am going by what I see when I work with the files.  

Here are 2 galleries of my work.  About half of the images are taken with the GFX, but the rest are taken with the SL, Nikon D810, Hasselblad X1D, as well Phase One IQ3 100.  I do think I know what image quality is when I see and work with it.  

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Bridal-Fashion/

https://www.hhnstudios.com/Beauty

And btw, I didn't put a value judgement on "far surpassing".   That depends on one's intent.  Just like a classic Porsche is still fantastic to drive, perhaps even more fun than the current generation 992 for the driver, so may be the SL for the photographer.  I wouldn't race on the track with a 930 Porsche if I'm interesting in lap times, but it doesn't mean I don't love driving it on back roads.  As I mentioned, I am keeping my full SL kit (2 bodies along with all the SL lenses) because I truly love this camera.  

Why would I need to shoot extensively with the GFX and SL for you to respond to my question about "far surpassing image quality"? Maybe it's my 5K iMac, but I took a look at your galleries and, frankly, couldn't tell what photograph was shot with what camera. I certainly didn't see any "far surpassing" any others. Maybe you can explain. The car analogy is a nonstarter.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Agent M10

[Jeff S]

20 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

Maybe it's my 5K iMac, but I took a look at your galleries and, frankly, couldn't tell what photograph was shot with what camera. I certainly didn't see any "far surpassing" any others. Maybe you can explain. The car analogy is a nonstarter.

For screen viewing, even phone pics can look beautiful.  The print is the thing.  But even then, user skills are critical... same as in the darkroom days.  This stuff isn’t plug and play.

Jeff

[Agent M10]

21 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

For screen viewing, even phone pics can look beautiful.  The print is the thing.  But even then, user skills are critical... same as in the darkroom days.  This stuff isn’t plug and play.

Jeff

Right. The claim here is an exceptional difference in image quality at the same sized print, the GFX somehow having turned the SL into the equivalent of a digital Brownie. And, of course with the bigger sensor you lose the 0.95s, 1.4s, and virtually all of the 2.0s. Funny how that is lost in the image-quality hubbub.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Agent M10

[frame-it]

4 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

Right. The claim here is an exceptional difference in image quality at the same sized print, the GFX somehow having turned the SL into the equivalent of a digital Brownie. 

so in your opinion does that apply to the S007 vs the SL as well ?

[Jeff S]

25 minutes ago, Agent M10 said:

Right. The claim here is an exceptional difference in image quality at the same sized print, the GFX somehow having turned the SL into the equivalent of a digital Brownie. And, of course with the bigger sensor you lose the 0.95s, 1.4s, and virtually all of the 2.0s. Funny how that is lost in the image-quality hubbub.

So why are you surprised at not being able to distinguish screen shots?  I think you missed the point.  Better gear CAN make a difference, but it takes a skilled user to bring that to life...in print.  Vieri believes he’s been able to do just that.  You won’t know unless you try, and that also depends on your skills and judgment.  No absolutes, but appropriate tools in the right hands can help.

Jeff

[Agent M10]

8 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

So why are you surprised at not being able to distinguish screen shots?  I think you missed the point.  Better gear CAN make a difference, but it takes a skilled user to bring that to life...in print.  Vieri believes he’s been able to do just that.  You won’t know unless you try, and that also depends on your skills and judgment.  No absolutes, but appropriate tools in the right hands can help.

Jeff

I wasn’t the one who pointed to screenshots. Did you not read where hhn360 pointed to his online galleries as proof of the GFX’s surpassing greatness? I haven’t missed the point at all.  I’ve just asked the posters to back up their claims that the GFX is heads and shoulders better than the SL. A user’s skills have nothing to do with the claims or the question. 

[thighslapper]

Ah ..... the hoary old chestnuts of 'image quality' again and what is 'better', 'significantly better' and 'unsurpassed' ...... all part subjective and part measurable in variable proportions depending on your viewpoint and brand loyalty.

There are some incontrovertible truths ....... bigger pixels catch more light, more pixels capture more detail and better lenses yield cleaner, more detailed images. 

Whether you need all or any of these three depends entirely on the subject matter and what you intend to do with it. Vieri has made a rational choice based on his needs as a professional landscape photographer. For him the change makes a significant difference. To others it may be marginal or hardly worth it. No-one is wrong and no-one is right. 

For my needs the SL is fine ..... and if they could only get rid of LNER I would happily get an SL2 . As an amateur I have too much invested in Leica to jump completely to a new system unless the changes are genuine quantum leaps in sensor and processing technology. 

I currently have G.A.S. under control ..... but as a reformed addict I am constantly aware of the dangers of the 'dealers' on forums like this preying on the weak and vulnerable.....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Mr.Q]

The X1D sure is tempting. The XCD lenses are much smaller and lighter than the SL primes, albeit slower. One can travel lighter with the X1D system than a SL system, and that's mind-boggling.  No zoom, no problem.  Just carry the 21, 45, and 90 and crop for in-between focal lengths. I'm sure you get more than 24 MP at most focal lengths.

And finally, the 80/1.9 is a game-changer, as it provides a fast prime to the lineup and also boasts a shallower DOF than the 50SL. GAS is re-ignited.