007 vs Hassy x1-D

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

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.

 

 

 

I don’t have any images of comparison.. it’s why I came here and raised that point in the first place.. I am fairly new to Leica systems.. never shot M, temporarily tried the S system for a couple of weeks.. my first experience with MF was with the 645z 4 years ago and then I moved to GFX entirely about 1.5 years ago.. I am very satisfied with the IQ GFX offers.. but when I noticed Vieri say gfx is a toy for rich amateurs or something to that effect, I was obviously looking for reasons and justification for that remark.. 

in a Leica forum it’s obvious there will be a fair amount of bias towards the system which is fine.. so, it’s just easier to see your point of view with sample images.. I am happy to share some GFX images though.. never did so because this is a Leica forum 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by aksclix

[glenerrolrd]

2 hours ago, aksclix said:

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.. 

But its much easier to understand and appreciate a different perspective ..IF ...you can know the intended purpose of the gear .  For example...a buddy and I went to Ireland for a 18 day workshop with Peter Cox .  He enjoys landscape and likes to print large ...80% of his photographs are land/seascapes .  He also does about 20% street photography when he travels .  I am the opposite ..I am 80% street photography ,10% land/seascape and 10% sport .  I never print beyond 13x19 .  I enjoy a portfolio of prints ..he likes books and display photos .  

This was a seascape trip for both of us .He used a ALPA/IQ4/150 and the best Rodenstock lenses both the color and the B&W backs .  I used an S 007 and 4 lenses 30/45/120/180 .  We both shot primarily seascape . 

We both enjoyed our gear choices .  I liked that I could do some street/people shooting in the Irish Villages , that my gear was fully water proof and quite rugged .   He of course bested me solidly with image quality ...even at 13x19 you can see the difference between a large sensor system (IQ150) and an S 007 .  But he worried about vibration ,wetness etc and his gear was limited to tripod usage .   

Both the HB X1D and the Fuji 50R would be terrific alternatives for the above context (and maybe better values if starting from scratch ) .  

So I appreciate that coming to different conclusions often is a result of differences in perspectives and preferences . 

[aksclix]

9 minutes ago, glenerrolrd said:

But its much easier to understand and appreciate a different perspective ..IF ...you can know the intended purpose of the gear .  For example...a buddy and I went to Ireland for a 18 day workshop with Peter Cox .  He enjoys landscape and likes to print large ...80% of his photographs are land/seascapes .  He also does about 20% street photography when he travels .  I am the opposite ..I am 80% street photography ,10% land/seascape and 10% sport .  I never print beyond 13x19 .  I enjoy a portfolio of prints ..he likes books and display photos .  

This was a seascape trip for both of us .He used a ALPA/IQ4/150 and the best Rodenstock lenses both the color and the B&W backs .  I used an S 007 and 4 lenses 30/45/120/180 .  We both shot primarily seascape . 

We both enjoyed our gear choices .  I liked that I could do some street/people shooting in the Irish Villages , that my gear was fully water proof and quite rugged .   He of course bested me solidly with image quality ...even at 13x19 you can see the difference between a large sensor system (IQ150) and an S 007 .  But he worried about vibration ,wetness etc and his gear was limited to tripod usage .   

Both the HB X1D and the Fuji 50R would be terrific alternatives for the above context (and maybe better values if starting from scratch ) .  

So I appreciate that coming to different conclusions often is a result of differences in perspectives and preferences . 

thanks for a logical response

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, aksclix said:

thanks for a logical response

Indeed, despite the fact that it would not be possible for him to demonstrate the IQ differences between the S and Alpa pics via pics here on the forum.  And that’s the basic point many here are expressing.

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

I also post fewer images here than in other forums in the past, because I find the file limits so annoying. I typically save photos as 2048px on the long side at 60-80 quality for web use, and that generally only gets me two or three pictures, sometimes less if they are particularly detailed. I find that it is difficult to really demonstrate much unless it is a comparison photo, where two photos are taken of the same subject with a difference between them, for example, a different camera, or a different lens etc. But trying to convey a camera's quality or "look" is hard to do with a sample size of 4 small photos per day. This is all the more so in trying to compare a 47mp camera to a 100mp camera and so on. Basically, you will have to take my word for it. The real trick to the forums is to figure out whose word to take. That comes with experience.

I will say, however, that to characterize the GFX as a "toy for rich amateurs" is pretty dumb. In fact, I would say the GFX is the most popular high end camera I am aware of among a lot of the contemporary art photographers that I know, aside from its popularity with commercial photographers. The reason being that it is still somewhat attainable to a professional, while having a huge advantage over 35mm systems. For people who make their living showing in museums, but are rarely paid in huge sums (photography is not really that great of a gig for most artists), something like the GFX can be a really effective stand in for 4x5 or 6x7, which is what a lot of people still like to shoot (precisely because most a lot of the admired fine art images in the last 50 years have been shot on larger format films like 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 and 8x10 etc., and that look is difficult to achieve with 35mm, even very good 35mm).

Edited January 25, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[aksclix]

17 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I also post fewer images here than in other forums in the past, because I find the file limits so annoying. I typically save photos as 2048px on the long side at 60-80 quality for web use, and that generally only gets me two or three pictures, sometimes less if they are particularly detailed. I find that it is difficult to really demonstrate much unless it is a comparison photo, where two photos are taken of the same subject with a difference between them, for example, a different camera, or a different lens etc. But trying to convey a camera's quality or "look" is hard to do with a sample size of 4 small photos per day. This is all the more so in trying to compare a 47mp camera to a 100mp camera and so on. Basically, you will have to take my word for it. The real trick to the forums is to figure out whose word to take. That comes with experience.

I will say, however, that to characterize the GFX as a "toy for rich amateurs" is pretty dumb. In fact, I would say the GFX is the most popular high end camera I am aware of among a lot of the contemporary art photographers that I know, aside from its popularity with commercial photographers. The reason being that it is still somewhat attainable to a professional, while having a huge advantage over 35mm systems. For people who make their living showing in museums, but are rarely paid in huge sums (photography is not really that great of a gig for most artists), something like the GFX can be a really effective stand in for 4x5 or 6x7, which is what a lot of people still like to shoot (precisely because most a lot of the admired fine art images in the last 50 years have been shot on larger format films like 6x6, 6x7, 4x5 and 8x10 etc., and that look is difficult to achieve with 35mm, even very good 35mm).

yes Stuart.. 2MB size limit is better for site performance but it's really not enough to gauge IQ.. which is why I mentioned about sharing a link to some external website that retains full res. Even if they're not image comparisons, if one can just provide a sample to justify (or rather just support) their opinion when they say so and so image from so and so brand has that special quality, that should suffice I guess.. I may have misled by talking about SL2 vs S2/S006 here but I am only actually trying to compare the X1D to the S007 or even the GFX actually.. so, all mostly level grounds.. not making comparisons with FF format here.. (just that with SL2 and a GFX I couldn't justify keeping an S006 although I would have liked to!)

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Still not close to print evaluation for image quality, which entails far more than resolution.  Even then, no two people will print (or shoot or edit) the same; there are far too many variables. If only gear mattered, we’d all produce the same results, which clearly isn’t the case. How boring that would be. 

I made my own shooting and printing tests using the X1D and S systems (as well as GFX, SL2, and Z7), separately over an 18 month period. Forum (or other online) pics couldn’t possibly convey my goals, methods or impressions. Most differences related to issues other than IQ anyway. If one can’t obtain superb image quality, especially in this day and age, probably best to look within.

Jeff

Edited January 25, 2021 by Jeff S

[tom0511]

In regards of S vs x1d(II) would argue

3:2 vs 4:3

OVF vs EVF

Phase AF (one middle point) vs (slower) contrast AF

bigger camera and lenses vs smaller package

I would give the edge to the S lenses...except the 80/1.9 Hassy

I will try to post one or 2 comparison images , but I dont think it tells you much. 

[aksclix]

8 hours ago, tom0511 said:

In regards of S vs x1d(II) would argue

3:2 vs 4:3

OVF vs EVF

Phase AF (one middle point) vs (slower) contrast AF

bigger camera and lenses vs smaller package

I would give the edge to the S lenses...except the 80/1.9 Hassy

I will try to post one or 2 comparison images , but I dont think it tells you much. 

Looks like you’ve had both the systems since May 2019 at least.. instead of me asking what’s special or what’s best with either systems.. let me ask you what’s the worst - do you have any image samples to demonstrate something that either the S didn’t do well at or the X1D didn’t do well at? Of course, not taking about user errors here..  today, I think sharper images are more what people are chasing rather than smoother rendering.. and I am one of them.. I don’t really care for smoother rendering to be honest.. I can do all of that in post.. I only ask for images because it’s the best way I think I am able to make a decision.. if the difference can only be seen in prints then that doesn’t bother me.. anyway, this has dragged on for too long I guess.. share only if you have it.. otherwise, it’s alright.. 😌

[tom0511]

vor 27 Minuten schrieb aksclix:

Looks like you’ve had both the systems since May 2019 at least.. instead of me asking what’s special or what’s best with either systems.. let me ask you what’s the worst - do you have any image samples to demonstrate something that either the S didn’t do well at or the X1D didn’t do well at? Of course, not taking about user errors here..  today, I think sharper images are more what people are chasing rather than smoother rendering.. and I am one of them.. I don’t really care for smoother rendering to be honest.. I can do all of that in post.. I only ask for images because it’s the best way I think I am able to make a decision.. if the difference can only be seen in prints then that doesn’t bother me.. anyway, this has dragged on for too long I guess.. share only if you have it.. otherwise, it’s alright.. 😌

In the end there are just 2 things which (sometimes) annoy me with the Leica S:

1) the AF System, with some lenses, for example the 100/2.0 I get inaccurate focus way to often. Other lenses like the 70 or 120 seem to work more reliable;
also for some subjects it would really help to have more than 1 focus point

2) Sometimes I wish for IBIS or OIS, the S006 seems a little more prone to camera shake than the x1d for example

x1d(ii):

Startuptime

 

if you send me a pm with your email adress I can mail you few unscientific images of same subject with x1d and S007

[Jeff S]

Generous offer, but viewing someone else’s images may say as much about their shooting and editing practices as the gear. Still best to find a way to demo gear for oneself to draw conclusions.  Post processing is fundamental to results, darkroom or digital. And, as noted, if printing isn’t part of that evaluation, much is missed anyway.  Camera phone pics can look wonderful online, and then break down in print, especially large size.  I found a way to demo all the gear I referenced earlier, without costing much besides time and effort: one rental and a lot of gracious dealer demos.

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

Easier said than done for some of us, unfortunately. I was offered a demo of the S3, but it would have cost me around 5000 euros in tax and a potential six months to recoup the money if I decided not to purchase it, not to mention hundreds of euros in insured express shipping. Customs here does not believe in the concept of "demo". They tax you, and then give you back the money if you can prove you returned it. If you are not near a big city with Leica gear (and even if you are), it can be difficult to demo gear, let alone have it all in one place at the same time, which is required for a proper comparison. For that reason, I often try to find raw files or the evaluation of people whose judgment I trust.

Edited January 25, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Jeff S]

But you would if you could, I suspect.  Others have no desire and/or understanding of pros/cons.

Jeff

[tom0511]

I certainly would (and I had the opportunity to) test both the S and also the x1d for some days before I decided to purchase.

I am lucky to live not more than 100km away from Wetzlar and to have a very good store which sells Hassy and Leica (and all the other good camera brands).

I second to check out the gear yourself, after that I would trust comments from people and photographers I personally know (Here I include also people I know longterm over the net), and only in the third place I would trust discussions in the internet.

Camera gear is a very personal thing, what works for you in regards of ergonomics, but also what works for your eyes. For example I still feel very attracted to film/analog images (but I am too lazy and I have not enough patience and time to ignore digital cameras)

[aksclix]

18 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

I certainly would (and I had the opportunity to) test both the S and also the x1d for some days before I decided to purchase.

I am lucky to live not more than 100km away from Wetzlar and to have a very good store which sells Hassy and Leica (and all the other good camera brands).

I second to check out the gear yourself, after that I would trust comments from people and photographers I personally know (Here I include also people I know longterm over the net), and only in the third place I would trust discussions in the internet.

Camera gear is a very personal thing, what works for you in regards of ergonomics, but also what works for your eyes. For example I still feel very attracted to film/analog images (but I am too lazy and I have not enough patience and time to ignore digital cameras)

I think my actual intention hasn't quite come across it looks like.. I AM checking out the gear by myself anyway.. had the S2/S006 but returned.. now have the X1D and I intend to keep it.. covid and personal circumstances prevent me from experimenting a whole lot with this and so I was looking for some pointers online... See what others who've been using these systems have to say about it.. My X1D has 1.25 firmware and I don't think the boot up time is terribly slow.. This is more for relaxed shooting.. I don't intend to add too many lenses to this system because I've already invested in GFX and like it a lot! The X1D is just going to be my camera for walkabouts and something I want to carry around EVERYWHERE I go.. Also, I don't rent gear usually.. It's a waste of money! I just buy them used and return them IF I don't like them or if it's just not for me... Since I sold my S gear and got the X1D, I wanted to see if this was a bad decision.. I just happened to find a good deal on a used x1d.. I wasn't even looking to buy one  

Being new to Leica and even newer to Hasselblad systems, I was simply looking for some strong reasons, based on IQ, why anybody would choose one over the other.. and, if anybody claimed something was terrible in a system they tried they would probably be able to demonstrate what and why, possibly accompanied by an image... EVF/OVF isn't a deal breaker for me.. I've gotten used to EVFs these past 4 years.. lenses? of course, they are definitely the core part of a decision making process! When someone makes a review, should they or should they not support their views with image samples? If one cannot demonstrate key differences using a large screen monitor or using projectors perhaps, then there ends the argument.. a very simple example would be how video quality is demonstrated in a TV showroom.. all TVs playing the same footage clearly tells you which one is better..

printing on paper is not a frequent job for me.. I've done a few for others and for myself and I would prefer metal printing/canvas printing over papers.. I have some photos I intend to print as wall murals as well but that's in the future (later this year) 

 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, aksclix said:

a very simple example would be how video quality is demonstrated in a TV showroom.. all TVs playing the same footage clearly tells you which one is better..

 

Hardly... some of the oldest tricks in the book, changing tv settings like brightness and contrast, changing ambient store lighting, etc, etc.  I can effectively do the same thing at home with my print display lighting, making an average print look better and a great print go dull. This is but one reason why one needs to control all variables, using one’s own workflow, rather than jumping to conclusions about picture comparisons from others.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna41609942

 

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

I think you are running into a bit of a wall here, because most of the users of medium format systems of this caliber know very clearly what they are looking for, and have workflows are images that are very specific and their work winds up more or less in the same place at the end whatever camera system they use. The difference is in how easy it is for them to get there, and how well the camera fulfills that specific need. I am not of the mind that all the cameras are the same, but the choices are very personal. While I think there are meaningful differences in IQ, those differences are hard to distill through single images and harder still to convey in a 2000 pixel jpeg. Even a 4k monitor is only 8mp, so even if you have a giant screen, it is hard to convey much of anything about the subtle difference between high end MFD cameras on a screen, unless it is just about their "default" looks (see before about most of us having specific workflows). That is why people are talking about prints. For example, a previous generation Epson P9000 can lay down 720dpi on the paper, so your native resolution for a 50mp print is only around A4 size (8,5x11inchs). Not all that information is visible, but the point is that it is untethered to size. It is 720dpi at A4, A0 or Aohmygodthatisahugeprint. Prints have substantially more detail than screens, unless you are talking about a tiny retina screen. Even 8k screens are just barely coming to market.

By way of example, here's what I mean: these are four photos that I used in the same project. Two are with the S006, one is 4x5 and one is with a Phantom 4 Pro AND the S006...

 

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!

[aksclix]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think you are running into a bit of a wall here, because most of the users of medium format systems of this caliber know very clearly what they are looking for, and have workflows are images that are very specific and their work winds up more or less in the same place at the end whatever camera system they use. The difference is in how easy it is for them to get there, and how well the camera fulfills that specific need. I am not of the mind that all the cameras are the same, but the choices are very personal. While I think there are meaningful differences in IQ, those differences are hard to distill through single images and harder still to convey in a 2000 pixel jpeg. Even a 4k monitor is only 8mp, so even if you have a giant screen, it is hard to convey much of anything about the subtle difference between high end MFD cameras on a screen, unless it is just about their "default" looks (see before about most of us having specific workflows). That is why people are talking about prints. For example, a previous generation Epson P9000 can lay down 720dpi on the paper, so your native resolution for a 50mp print is only around A4 size (8,5x11inchs). Not all that information is visible, but the point is that it is untethered to size. It is 720dpi at A4, A0 or Aohmygodthatisahugeprint. Prints have substantially more detail than screens, unless you are talking about a tiny retina screen. Even 8k screens are just barely coming to market.

By way of example, here's what I mean: these are four photos that I used in the same project. Two are with the S006, one is 4x5 and one is with a Phantom 4 Pro AND the S006...

 

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!

so, the bottom line is - there is no way to demonstrate the key IQ differences using even a 4k 75" LED TV.. in that case, I would be happy with either systems is what I am trying to say.. I don't want the ability to print the best with all the systems.. sometimes I use a bigger screen ~120 inch using a projector to display images and if we couldn't tell the difference even on that, then I have no complaints whatsoever.. I don't have a gallery where I display everything in prints honestly.. while I do occasional prints of some of my work for others and for myself, the biggest I have printed so far is 24x36 and I have used Nikon D810 for those..  and even D4s for some smaller prints.. both have been replaced by more modern mirrorless options now though

Thanks for the samples above but these 2MB pictures aren't going to tell me much.. I guess what I am looking for is - see how these colors are reproduced by this camera, it was supposed to be a different shade of that color in reality.. see how the dynamic range in this camera is bad, its better in something else.. hope you get an idea of what I was actually looking for.. anyway, there are work arounds for almost everything but which camera leaves you with less work to do in post matters.. and I believe, most of your votes go to the S system in that case..

I don't want to bug you guys more.. thanks for all the patience and I will do my own tests now.. can't quite go wandering anywhere at the moment so it really restricts the shooting I can do.. 

 

[aksclix]

39 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Hardly... some of the oldest tricks in the book, changing tv settings like brightness and contrast, changing ambient store lighting, etc, etc.  I can effectively do the same thing at home with my print display lighting, making an average print look better and a great print go dull. This is but one reason why one needs to control all variables, using one’s own workflow, rather than jumping to conclusions about picture comparisons from others.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna41609942

 

Jeff

Didn’t know they do that.. anyway, that was just an example and while we compare we don’t do what they do so we can still do a fair enough comparison 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

Use of camera color profiles (e.g., via Color Checker Passport), custom default import settings and/or presets, will dramatically reduce time and effort in PP and can effectively change your supposedly ‘out of camera’ renderings, which already depend on manufacturer decisions, conversion software versions, etc.  The techniques aren’t difficult or time consuming; the hard part is determining your desired output goals and style(s) in the first place.  The tools between the ears always trump the rest.

Jeff