007 vs Hassy x1-D

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for that Milan. I actually tried the original X1D before eventually buying the H6D100c and was put off by the EVF. Whenever the new X1D II arrives in malaysia I will try before I buy this time.

Neil 

[Milan_S]

41 minutes ago, NW67 said:

Thanks for that Milan. I actually tried the original X1D before eventually buying the H6D100c and was put off by the EVF. Whenever the new X1D II arrives in malaysia I will try before I buy this time.

Neil 

How you like the H6D100c? That camera is still on my mind. How does it compare to the S series? 

[Advertisement]

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

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Milan_S said:

How you like the H6D100c? That camera is still on my mind. How does it compare to the S series? 

I love it. Perfect for a studio and landscape photography but big and heavy for traveling with. 

Probably not the best forum to knock the S so I will stay quite on that last part of the question 😎😎😎😎

Neil

[tom0511]

I come back to this thread because I am in a longterm "discussion" with myself which system I prefer and which one I want to use for the future. I have used both for some time now and here are some more actual thoughts:

1) Both systems seem to deliver very good IQ tecnically

2) The Hassy is more compact and lighter

3) The contrast AF of the Hassy seems more reliable. The Leica S AF seems to work good with some of my lenses and a little bit less reliable with others.

4) The S007 is a much faster camera in regards of handling, viewfinder blackout etc. With the S I usually know if I caught the moment or not, with the x1d I sometimes have to look at the review image to find out because the viewfinder black out.

5) different viewfinders - we all know the advantages and disadvantages of both EVF and OVF. For me the large OVF of the Leica is prefered, even though the Hassy viewfinder is fine.

6) 2:3 vs 3:4 - I can live with both even though slightly prefer 3:4 for portraits and 2:3 for landscape

7) (and for me most important at the moment): I feel the S lenses stand out, they are sharp without being clinical, they have very low vignetting even wide open, they have a very good bokeh. I feel the xcd lenses are very good as well, but for my taste the Leica S lenses are really special;
With FF-cameras and lenses getting better and better I often ask myself: Is it still worth to use a MF camera? How big is the difference compared to a S1r/SL(2) with a 16-35 or one of the new APO lenses or the Pana 50/1.4? I think there still is a difference, but it gets smaller. And maybe the lenses are the even more important factor than sensor size itself. And IMO the S-lenses are still among the best what you can get, specially if you do not look only on sharpness and resolution but also other factors.

 

[aksclix]

just found this interesting discussion.. I had the S2 and S006 temporarily which I had to let go because they didn't seem superior to my Leica SL2 in IQ and now got an X1D to try out... (hence why I looked up this thread) just got a pretty good deal and so I bought it..

already have a GFX 100 with several gf lenses. I will hold on to my GFX system no matter what.. the 250mm with 1.4x converter and the 110mm f2 are simply outstanding lenses and are second to none IMO. I have the 23mm as well and the landscape shots I was able to get with that are pretty damn good as well.. someday soon I will share them on a website that is "work in progress"

one thing that puzzles me is why there's lot of discussions happening without any visual proof? Sure the <2MB pictures shared here illustrate next to nothing but with so many platforms out there, we should be able to justify our opinions with image comparisons right?

For someone to see thru your eyes, show them what you saw..  we all know pictures speak a 1000 words and yet most are going for 1000 words  

 

[jankap]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb aksclix:

one thing that puzzles me is why there's lot of discussions happening without any visual proof? Sure the <2MB pictures shared here illustrate next to nothing but with so many platforms out there, we should be able to justify our opinions with image comparisons right?

For someone to see thru your eyes, show them what you saw..  we all know pictures speak a 1000 words and yet most are going for 1000 words  

 

I wonder sometimes too, in a photo forum long discussions without pictures.

[mgrayson3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, jankap said:

I wonder sometimes too, in a photo forum long discussions without pictures.

Pictures of what? Camera and lens size? Handling? AF reliability? Speed? Ergonomics? I've used the X1D, S, and GFX systems for over a year each. The Hassy and Fuji systems are gone. The S remains. There's not much to show in pictures to distinguish them. Biggest difference (for me) between the S and X1D systems? There's no 24mm lens for the Hassy - 21 is wider than I'd like and 30 isn't wide enough. If this were an S vs. GFX thread, I'd show the differences in flare between the S24 and the GF23.

IMHO, most of what passes for differences in the output of these systems are just the different default settings of the RAW processors used. They're all pretty much optically perfect.

[aksclix]

1 hour ago, mgrayson3 said:

Pictures of what? Camera and lens size? Handling? AF reliability? Speed? Ergonomics? I've used the X1D, S, and GFX systems for over a year each. The Hassy and Fuji systems are gone. The S remains. There's not much to show in pictures to distinguish them. Biggest difference (for me) between the S and X1D systems? There's no 24mm lens for the Hassy - 21 is wider than I'd like and 30 isn't wide enough. If this were an S vs. GFX thread, I'd show the differences in flare between the S24 and the GF23.

IMHO, most of what passes for differences in the output of these systems are just the different default settings of the RAW processors used. They're all pretty much optically perfect.

Pictures of

- why the IQ is better for one over the other. 

- why the rendering is different and better for one over the other

If it’s just the ease of use and choice of lenses then it’s a different argument and the choices become totally personal then

[BernardC]

6 minutes ago, aksclix said:

why the IQ is better for one over the other. 

- why the rendering is different and better for one over the other

I am more interested in seeing the differences than in being told which is better.

I would love to see large prints, professionally printed, side-by-side, so that I can decide for myself. You really can't tell fine differences apart on the internet.

[mgrayson3]

16 minutes ago, BernardC said:

I am more interested in seeing the differences than in being told which is better.

I would love to see large prints, professionally printed, side-by-side, so that I can decide for myself. You really can't tell fine differences apart on the internet.

The problem is that there are no differences. If a good printer knows what they want, they'll get it from each of these systems. It may take more or less work given each starting point, but there is enough there to get anything. UNLESS it is pure resolution, and then you can count pixels and do the math. I can post enlarged crops from an S(007) and an S3 of the "same" image. Printed at 60" wide, there is a visible difference from 1 foot away. At 84" wide, it's clear. At 120", it's disturbing.

[Jeff S]

14 hours ago, aksclix said:

just found this interesting discussion.. I had the S2 and S006 temporarily which I had to let go because they didn't seem superior to my Leica SL2 in IQ and now got an X1D to try out... (hence why I looked up this thread) just got a pretty good deal and so I bought it..

already have a GFX 100 with several gf lenses. I will hold on to my GFX system no matter what.. the 250mm with 1.4x converter and the 110mm f2 are simply outstanding lenses and are second to none IMO. I have the 23mm as well and the landscape shots I was able to get with that are pretty damn good as well.. someday soon I will share them on a website that is "work in progress"

one thing that puzzles me is why there's lot of discussions happening without any visual proof? Sure the <2MB pictures shared here illustrate next to nothing but with so many platforms out there, we should be able to justify our opinions with image comparisons right?

For someone to see thru your eyes, show them what you saw..  we all know pictures speak a 1000 words and yet most are going for 1000 words  

 

I distinguish IQ solely by making my own prints. Even if I could magically transport them to your brain, your shooting, editing, print and display workflow would most certainly differ.  Photography is about user decisions and choices, far more than gear selection.  Most modern high priced cameras are plenty good enough for fine pics and prints, in the right hands. My camera choices have more to do with viewing and focusing, native lens options, handling/controls and ergonomics, and specific feature requirements, e.g., weather sealing, etc.  
 

I don’t learn anything from screen shots, let alone by strangers.  And definitely not from ubiquitous cat pics... 

 

 

I’m guessing you don’t make prints.
 

Jeff

[glenerrolrd]

Matt is correct .  Comparing these medium format digital systems goes well beyond the skill levels of all but a few testers .  AND you would struggle to see any real differences .  

Digiloyd (despite his anti Leica perspective ) does the very best job of evaluating image quality at the extremes .  You can evaluate high resolution tests shots at an incredible level of detail and actually see the small differences .  Even with his tests he is biased by his preferred subject matter .. extreme contrast mountain landscape .  Field curvature for example is a killer for landscape but can be a plus for studio portraits . 

What still amazes me is that this forum spends 95% of the time discussing image quality without ever bothering to define the intended subject matter .  Or its intended output . 

I will start a different thread on this at some point with examples.   

 

[aksclix]

36 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I distinguish IQ solely by making my own prints. Even if I could magically transport them to your brain, your shooting, editing, print and display workflow would most certainly differ.  Photography is about user decisions and choices, far more than gear selection.  Most modern high priced cameras are plenty good enough for fine pics and prints, in the right hands. My camera choices have more to do with viewing and focusing, native lens options, handling/controls and ergonomics, and specific feature requirements, e.g., weather sealing, etc.  
 

I don’t learn anything from screen shots, let alone by strangers.  And definitely not from ubiquitous cat pics... 

 

 

I’m guessing you don’t make prints.
 

Jeff

sorry, I don't prefer conversations with folks who are rude.. moving on.. 

[Daedalus2000]

15 hours ago, aksclix said:

just found this interesting discussion.. I had the S2 and S006 temporarily which I had to let go because they didn't seem superior to my Leica SL2 in IQ and now got an X1D to try out... (hence why I looked up this thread) just got a pretty good deal and so I bought it..

already have a GFX 100 with several gf lenses. I will hold on to my GFX system no matter what.. the 250mm with 1.4x converter and the 110mm f2 are simply outstanding lenses and are second to none IMO. I have the 23mm as well and the landscape shots I was able to get with that are pretty damn good as well.. someday soon I will share them on a website that is "work in progress"

one thing that puzzles me is why there's lot of discussions happening without any visual proof? Sure the <2MB pictures shared here illustrate next to nothing but with so many platforms out there, we should be able to justify our opinions with image comparisons right?

For someone to see thru your eyes, show them what you saw..  we all know pictures speak a 1000 words and yet most are going for 1000 words  

 

So did you have any thoughts on X1D vs your other cameras?

[aksclix]

9 minutes ago, glenerrolrd said:

Matt is correct .  Comparing these medium format digital systems goes well beyond the skill levels of all but a few testers .  AND you would struggle to see any real differences .  

Digiloyd (despite his anti Leica perspective ) does the very best job of evaluating image quality at the extremes .  You can evaluate high resolution tests shots at an incredible level of detail and actually see the small differences .  Even with his tests he is biased by his preferred subject matter .. extreme contrast mountain landscape .  Field curvature for example is a killer for landscape but can be a plus for studio portraits . 

What still amazes me is that this forum spends 95% of the time discussing image quality without ever bothering to define the intended subject matter .  Or its intended output . 

I will start a different thread on this at some point with examples.   

 

it's what people do.. everybody is allowed to have their perspectives and their opinions.. it's how we all try and not rise above someone else's that matters and no matter what forum we are in, the way people react to perspectives that don't match theirs will never change.. 

[aksclix]

1 minute ago, Daedalus2000 said:

So did you have any thoughts on X1D vs your other cameras?

I do, somewhat!! I haven't truly tested the X1D yet.. It's what I came here to find what people are saying about it.. I did buy the S2 and S006 but returned both of them.. I wish I could've kept the S006 because I did like it but I couldn't justify holding on to $5K gear while I have the SL2 and GFX 100 which I prefer.. I compared a few different images portraits, landscape  and macro with S system and SL2.. I liked the SL2's IQ better, looking at it on my 28" monitor and 75" 4K TV. Like I said on another thread earlier, I would love to be able to afford an S3 because honestly I did develop a liking for the S system. I wouldn't be here if I didn't like Leica

I like the simplicity and the incredible portability of the X1D. I cannot do a thorough comparison of X1D vs others because I only have one lens 45P.. I can compare that with 50mm on my GFX.. will share images and thoughts when I get to do that.. 

 

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, aksclix said:

sorry, I don't prefer conversations with folks who are rude.. moving on.. 

Well, I posted a pic to support my point of view.

Jeff

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, mgrayson3 said:

if a good printer knows what they want, they'll get it from each of these systems.

There's a truism in video that you can always match two cameras, as long as you are willing to make the better camera look worse!

Of course, it's a bigger problem with video, since you need to match colours on cuts. It's jarring when your subject switches back and forth between a shirt with 8 shades of red to one with 2 shades of red...

You rarely get to do side-by-side comparisons of different systems with prints. I've only ever done it once, in university. A photographer was shooting a feature for the school newspaper with a Nikkor 24, and I happened to have my then-new Zeiss 25 with me. We re-shot the same scene, same light, same exposure, same (bulk) film, processed in the same tank. There was no comparison, the Zeiss was miles ahead. I'm not sure that you could have improved the Nikkor prints enough to match the Zeiss with any amount of darkroom magic.

Looked-at in isolation, either print would have been OK. It's hard to see what isn't there.

[mgrayson3]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

There's a truism in video that you can always match two cameras, as long as you are willing to make the better camera look worse!

Of course, it's a bigger problem with video, since you need to match colours on cuts. It's jarring when your subject switches back and forth between a shirt with 8 shades of red to one with 2 shades of red...

You rarely get to do side-by-side comparisons of different systems with prints. I've only ever done it once, in university. A photographer was shooting a feature for the school newspaper with a Nikkor 24, and I happened to have my then-new Zeiss 25 with me. We re-shot the same scene, same light, same exposure, same (bulk) film, processed in the same tank. There was no comparison, the Zeiss was miles ahead. I'm not sure that you could have improved the Nikkor prints enough to match the Zeiss with any amount of darkroom magic.

Looked-at in isolation, either print would have been OK. It's hard to see what isn't there.

There is no substitute for trying them yourself.

I'll finish with a metaphor that I drummed into the head of every new employee. We're trying to make a large telescope. Polishing one spot on the mirror over and over again until it is 1/8 wave perfect (or whatever your standard for absurd excellence) will not improve the images from the telescope. Finding the least perfect part of the mirror and improving it will help in a way that nothing else will. Modern optics and, to a slightly lesser extent sensors, are that already beautifully polished spot on the mirror. Look elsewhere.

Edited January 24, 2021 by mgrayson3

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

vor 17 Stunden schrieb aksclix:

just found this interesting discussion.. I had the S2 and S006 temporarily which I had to let go because they didn't seem superior to my Leica SL2 in IQ and now got an X1D to try out... (hence why I looked up this thread) just got a pretty good deal and so I bought it..

already have a GFX 100 with several gf lenses. I will hold on to my GFX system no matter what.. the 250mm with 1.4x converter and the 110mm f2 are simply outstanding lenses and are second to none IMO. I have the 23mm as well and the landscape shots I was able to get with that are pretty damn good as well.. someday soon I will share them on a website that is "work in progress"

one thing that puzzles me is why there's lot of discussions happening without any visual proof? Sure the <2MB pictures shared here illustrate next to nothing but with so many platforms out there, we should be able to justify our opinions with image comparisons right?

For someone to see thru your eyes, show them what you saw..  we all know pictures speak a 1000 words and yet most are going for 1000 words  

 

ohh...and where are your images ?

I have done it before but it doesnt lead to anything. I have also done it several times for myself, just yesterday, S007, x1dII, SL2...but allmost alltimes small differences in focus, lens rendering, focal length, raw conerter etc. etc. make direct comparisons quite hard.

For me its more the overall sucess rate and impressions of the images and how the camera feels.

The bad (really bad) thing is I like them all three. SL2 for the speed, flexibility, IBIS, and the Summicrons.

The S for the overall rendering of the lenses +sensor, and the classic and natural feel of the camera (even though AF is not perfect and IMO its more difficult to get blure with longer exposure times.)

The x1dII for the compact size, the 80/1.9, the accurate (but SLOW) AF, the good exposure metering and color.

Overall my feeling is that the larger sensor catch more impressive colors and tones overall. I think you realize this specially in more difficult light and conditions.

But then you can shoot the SL2 +50/1.4 at lower ISO, and IBIS also helps to keep ISO down.