Hassy X1D ii + 80/F1.9 or SL2 + 50/F1.4

[ardbeg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, tom0511 said:

you want to add a system to the M.

What is your goal/motivation?

Do you want something faster, with AF, something more flexible with zooms, option to use longer tele lenses? -> SL system

Do you search something which offers even better IQ than the M, has AF but is not really faster to use (I would say the x1d(ii) is slower, then x1d.

One big advantage of SL would be to be able to also use your M lenses, and to have similar menue system/ UI logic.

 

Goal is an AF system as a complement to but not replacement of my existing M10 + 4 lenses (24, two 50s, and a 90). Having options beyond 90 (with AF) would be nice however I mainly do landscape, portraits, and street so I’d like a longer tele but don’t need a 300m+ as I don’t shoot sports or bears (a colleague of mine does shoot grizzlies thus we’ve had lots of discussions on how close you do and do not want to get to a large hungry mammal with teeth). A move from 24 megapixel to ~50 would be nice but going beyond 50 is unnecessary to me (thus the GFX 100 is not under consideration). Prior to the M, I’ve owned Nikons (film and digital), a Hassy 501cm, and a 4X5 field camera. From all those different camera and shooting experiences, I’ve determined that I do not compose well in square (thus no 6x6), I like clean industrial design in my cameras with a preference for dials/knobs over buttons or deeply nested config menus, and although I don't mind weight, bulk/volume does concern me (thus I’m hesitant about the 90-280 SL and if I go Leica SL I would hope for a prime tele beyond 90 to be released).

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, ardbeg said:

Goal is an AF system as a complement to but not replacement of my existing M10 + 4 lenses (24, two 50s, and a 90). Having options beyond 90 (with AF) would be nice however I mainly do landscape, portraits, and street so I’d like a longer tele but don’t need a 300m+ as I don’t shoot sports or bears (a colleague of mine does shoot grizzlies thus we’ve had lots of discussions on how close you do and do not want to get to a large hungry mammal with teeth). A move from 24 megapixel to ~50 would be nice but going beyond 50 is unnecessary to me (thus the GFX 100 is not under consideration). Prior to the M, I’ve owned Nikons (film and digital), a Hassy 501cm, and a 4X5 field camera. From all those different camera and shooting experiences, I’ve determined that I do not compose well in square (thus no 6x6), I like clean industrial design in my cameras with a preference for dials/knobs over buttons or deeply nested config menus, and although I don't mind weight, bulk/volume does concern me (thus I’m hesitant about the 90-280 SL and if I go Leica SL I would hope for a prime tele beyond 90 to be released).

Have you handled the Nikon Z7 as part of your brand experience? I was impressed with the viewing system despite my hesitation with EVFs... better than the resolution suggests.  Weather sealed with decent lens options, and in a nice compact package.  You wouldn’t be the first here to enjoy using it alongside an M.

Jeff

Edited November 3, 2019 by Jeff S

[PeterGA]

..

Edited November 3, 2019 by PeterGA

[ardbeg]

8 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

You seem to have made up your mind about Fuji ( the obvious alternative) to both SL2 and X11D - so I won't go there - except to say that you must be joking when you say that Fuji has 'usability friction' compared to either the SL or XD camera systems. The only thing the GFX100 lacks is the 'finish quality' of either the SL or XD series.

I like the APS Fuji’s — another friend of mine has an X-Pro2 and if I hadn’t already fallen in love with my M, a X-Pro2 or X-Pro3 would likely be my choice for a compact, “rangefinder”-style camera. I have not handled an GFX100 but I have handled a 50S and 50R and while the menu system was fine, the bulk/volume (not weight) bothered me as did the lack of “fit and finish” compared to the M, SL, or a Hassy V system camera. I have not yet handled a X1D or ii and of course the SL2 isn’t out yet. The “usability friction” comment was more directed at Canon, Sony, and Nikon (I have not tried the Z so I reserve judgement there; Nikon originally lost me when they removed the DoF / aperture markers on their lenses with the move from AF-D to AF-S but I’m a curmudgeon). No offense to their user bases nor to their tech (which is advancing beyond Leica and others in many areas), but the amount of menu options and “automation” in their camera do not appeal to me as I feel disconnected from the shooting experience.

[IkarusJohn]

48 minutes ago, ardbeg said:

Goal is an AF system as a complement to but not replacement of my existing M10 + 4 lenses (24, two 50s, and a 90). Having options beyond 90 (with AF) would be nice however I mainly do landscape, portraits, and street so I’d like a longer tele but don’t need a 300m+ as I don’t shoot sports or bears (a colleague of mine does shoot grizzlies thus we’ve had lots of discussions on how close you do and do not want to get to a large hungry mammal with teeth). A move from 24 megapixel to ~50 would be nice but going beyond 50 is unnecessary to me (thus the GFX 100 is not under consideration). Prior to the M, I’ve owned Nikons (film and digital), a Hassy 501cm, and a 4X5 field camera. From all those different camera and shooting experiences, I’ve determined that I do not compose well in square (thus no 6x6), I like clean industrial design in my cameras with a preference for dials/knobs over buttons or deeply nested config menus, and although I don't mind weight, bulk/volume does concern me (thus I’m hesitant about the 90-280 SL and if I go Leica SL I would hope for a prime tele beyond 90 to be released).

I think you'd enjoy the X1D II.  For the moment, I'm using just the 21 & 80 on the basis that the M & SL fill the middle.  I appreciate that I will simply duplicate my [preferred focal lengths.  Somehow, logic would suggest to move the whole SL system on ... but I can't bring myself to do that yet.  

Quote

I have not handled an GFX100 ...

I have, and as the dealer pointed out, someone smacked it with the ugly stick.  Not my idea of a nice ergonomic design, but then like you I really like good, minimalist industrial design.  The GFX100 looks like someone at Fuji threw buttons at it ...

Edited November 3, 2019 by IkarusJohn

[Fedro]

I am mostly using the X1D with the M. In fact, I just sold both the SL and 50 Lux. Not sure yet, but I will probably buy the SL2 to use with zooms, but I had to pick only one, I would keep the X1D

Both SL Lux and 80 1.9 are awesome, though different as they are used different formats

Edited November 3, 2019 by Fedro

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For landscape and portrait I might give the edge to the x1d(ii) over the SL(2) since the AF is probably fast enough for such subjects, and you could probably benefit from the rich color of the medium format sensor. Is the reach of x1d lenses  long enough?

On the other hand the 16-35 combined with 75 or 90mm on the SL is also a very flexible combo, and face detection can be an advantage for portraits specially for kids who are not sitting still.

Another question would be 3:4 vs 2:3 sensor.

For my part I use the SL system much more at the moment. I dont like the long start up and black out times of the x1d. The x1dII is faster but still a slow camera.

[hillavoider]

Why no Sony options that are better and half the price 😝

joking..... a little bit, those cameras are getting awesome 

[caissa]

SL and X1D are so different that for me it is obvious which I choose. Now the SL2 anyway.   (By the way both lenses would not necessarily be my top choice.)

I'd rather go for 16-35 and 90-280 . With this choice X1D has nothing comparable to offer.  But if a user loves the X1D then he does love it, and nobody could give him a useful advice. So this question cannot be answered by a stranger, everybody has to find his personal answer.

There is one exception: The macro photographer. The SL has currently no perfect macro lens, while X1D has a great macro. In this case I would definitely choose the X1D. (If I came from scratch, but I have FF since many years (two thirds of my life) and gave up MF long ago. So I have no money to buy an expensive second system). (And probably also not enough time to use both side by side.)

Time goes on, technology makes progress. And for my budget it will be easier to keep up to date in FF than in MF.

Edited November 3, 2019 by caissa

[ardbeg]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

[Tailwagger]

Personally, I've decided to own both. They are indeed very different cameras which might overlap in terms pixel count, but after that not so much. The upcoming SL is certain to be the speedier, more flexible of the two. I think that it is more reasonably compared to other FFs of its ilk from a features and capability perspective than the X1D. You pay a premium, but its not too hard, assuming cost isn't a first order concern, to justify investment over SoCaNikons in the longer term given the optics available. The L system is, or at least will shortly be, full of options from short to wide, IBIS, OIS, etc.

The X1D, OTOH, is an utterly closed system, somewhat of a desperate experiment and IMO a much riskier investment from a long term perspective. That said, assuming 180mm (ff eq) is long enough for you and you're not longing for zooms, it's a reasonably complete system.  While it is in no way M-like (though interestingly with the 45mm it weighs slightly less than an M with an RRS grip and a 50MM Summilux), it does share some of its core esthetic in that it embraces a simplicity of interface and a deliberate, yet not necessarily overly demanding style of operation. Yes, there's a svelte modern design and touch screen, but in many ways, it's still old school. ie. if you need to shoot at 1/8", best bring a tripod... no IBIS or OIS is on the menu. Compared to my Leicas, in daily operation it's ever so slightly less refined. OTOH, once one recalls the basic differences between MF and FF and how to work with them, its output is about as good as it gets, particularly if you like to limit the amount of time you spend in post. Files arrive fully formed, tempting to just leave untouched, but with a few tweaks the results can be quite stunning. As you reference the XCD 80, I'd point out that with a maximum shutter speed of 1/2000" and base ISO of 100 (yes there is the e-shutter) shooting wide open can be challenging in some situations without filters.

For landscape, given the size, weight, cost, interface and optics, the X1D is IMO, unparalleled. For fast operation on the street the M, and one suspects the SL as well,  kicks its rear, but then you already have that base covered.  For portrait, IMO, it's a toss up. High speed sync, X1D, optics, SL2. Chasing the cat or the kids, the X1D would be quite disappointing, we'll see how the SL2 will do in that regard in the next few days. And of course, if reusing one's M glass is important...

[ardbeg]

Any follow up thoughts now that the SL2 is released and exact specs known?

[Mr.Q]

As for the X1D II and SL2 comparison, I'd say Tailwagger pretty much nailed it in post #31.

You mentioned that you are seeking a prime telephoto beyond 90mm. From Hassy, there's the XCD 135 + 1.7x converter that is excellent.  If you are primarily a prime shooter, the XCD lens lineup is quite comprehensive, covering a range from 16.6mm to 181mm (35mm equivalent). Lens release from Leica has been a bit slow. I believe the 24 and 28 are being released in 2020 and the 21 is pushed back to 2021.  That's where the roadmap ends, so we never may see a 135 or 180 SL prime from Leica. If you don't mind shooting with non-Leica lenses, then there's the Panasonic 70-200/4 and Sigma 135/1.8.

[ropo54]

On 11/2/2019 at 10:36 PM, ardbeg said:

Goal is an AF system as a complement to but not replacement of my existing M10 + 4 lenses (24, two 50s, and a 90). Having options beyond 90 (with AF) would be nice however I mainly do landscape, portraits, and street so I’d like a longer tele but don’t need a 300m+ as I don’t shoot sports or bears (a colleague of mine does shoot grizzlies thus we’ve had lots of discussions on how close you do and do not want to get to a large hungry mammal with teeth). A move from 24 megapixel to ~50 would be nice but going beyond 50 is unnecessary to me (thus the GFX 100 is not under consideration). Prior to the M, I’ve owned Nikons (film and digital), a Hassy 501cm, and a 4X5 field camera. From all those different camera and shooting experiences, I’ve determined that I do not compose well in square (thus no 6x6), I like clean industrial design in my cameras with a preference for dials/knobs over buttons or deeply nested config menus, and although I don't mind weight, bulk/volume does concern me (thus I’m hesitant about the 90-280 SL and if I go Leica SL I would hope for a prime tele beyond 90 to be released).

If you opt for the SL, consider the S lens adapter for the SL with the S 120 or S 180; they work extraordinarily well on the SL.  Retail pricing for the adapter is expensive, as are the lenses, but on the pre-owned market, they are truly bargains (as the S market is depressed at the moment due to the uncertainties on the release date of the S3, new pricing for the S3, and competition from Fuji and Hasselblad releases).  I suspect S lens pricing may firm up once the S3 is released.

S lenses are on the large size but balance so very well. But, the images, even from the SL, are terrific.

Rob

Edited November 9, 2019 by ropo54

[Tailwagger]

Out of curiosity, for S lenses does anyone know if the CS is supported on the SL2?

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Out of curiosity, for S lenses does anyone know if the CS is supported on the SL2?

The S to SL adapter accommodated all S lenses, including CS.  

Jeff

[ynp]

You can use your CS lenses on the SL2, but the central shutter will not work, unfortunately. 

[ardbeg]

On 11/9/2019 at 4:33 AM, ropo54 said:

If you opt for the SL, consider the S lens adapter for the SL with the S 120 or S 180; they work extraordinarily well on the SL.  Retail pricing for the adapter is expensive, as are the lenses, but on the pre-owned market, they are truly bargains (as the S market is depressed at the moment due to the uncertainties on the release date of the S3, new pricing for the S3, and competition from Fuji and Hasselblad releases).  I suspect S lens pricing may firm up once the S3 is released.

S lenses are on the large size but balance so very well. But, the images, even from the SL, are terrific.

Rob

I had not thought of using S glass for longer tele coverage on a SL/SL2. Thank you for the suggestion.

[ropo54]

44 minutes ago, ardbeg said:

I had not thought of using S glass for longer tele coverage on a SL/SL2. Thank you for the suggestion.

You're quite welcome.

And, if you decide for a given opportunity you would like an even longer reach, shoot the S lens in APSC mode on the SL. (I recently acquired the S 180 and tried setting the SL to APSC mode, giving me a 270mm perspective. It worked really nicely).

Rob

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

42 minutes ago, ropo54 said:

You're quite welcome.

And, if you decide for a given opportunity you would like an even longer reach, shoot the S lens in APSC mode on the SL. (I recently acquired the S 180 and tried setting the SL to APSC mode, giving me a 270mm perspective. It worked really nicely).

Rob

Why not shoot in FF mode and crop thereafter? Just curious...