Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Vieri:

You can find all my Hasselblad lens reviews here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/tag/hasselblad, in all of them there is a section dedicated to fringing and flare with images, so you can make up your mind about each lens' capability on this - and other - aspects (except for the 80mm and 120mm which I haven't had the pleasure to have for review yet).

Hope this helps, best regards

Vieri

Thanks, Vieri, for the systematic review but your comments on fringing are qualified.  You write about the XCD 45/3.5: “I have never seen any sign of colour fringing or chromatic aberrations in my “real world” use as well.”  Tailwagger, on the other hand, in #225 sees quite a bit of fringing with this lens in his way of using it.

In order to answer to the topic of this thread, which should have never been started in the first place, IMO, the question is, does the XCD 45/3.5 fringe where the 35 Summicron-SL doesn’t, does it flare where the 35 Summicron-SL doesn’t, does it show distortion where the 35 Summicron-SL doesn’t, is it, on a more or less, similarly resolving sensor sharper in the center, in the corners, than the 35 Summicron-SL, and so on.  And the same questions, again, for the XCD 90/3.2 vs. the 75 Summicron-SL.  Let’s not even go to the zoom.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

56 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

 Tailwagger, on the other hand, in #225 sees quite a bit of fringing with this lens in his way of using it.

First random example I have from what's on hand on my local drive.  Raw exported out of LR, no adjustments other than applying the lens profile. 

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!

[Mr.Q]

6 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Are you suggesting the x1dII is a better low light action camera than the SL2?

As soon as you calculate in the sensor size difference and want similar DOF you will loose 1-1,5 of the 2 stops, since you have to step down further on the medium format to achieve similar DOF. The 80/1.8 might be the "Noctilux" of the xcd lenses and if the shallow DOF at f1.9 is what you are after than your equation works.

The other xcd focal lengths are slower than their FF counterparts.

If I take images of my kids inside usually I grab the camera which works fastest and it would not be the x1d most of the times.

Well AF performance in low light and freezing the action with high ISO + faster shutter speeds are two distinct areas of concern.

The X1D II wouldn't be my first choice as I have the A9 which is a dream to shoot in low light, but it's certainly capable. I often manually focus the 80/1.9 btw. Takes some practice against moving kids but focusing is smooth.

[Vieri]

9 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Thanks, Vieri, for the systematic review but your comments on fringing are qualified.  You write about the XCD 45/3.5: “I have never seen any sign of colour fringing or chromatic aberrations in my “real world” use as well.”  Tailwagger, on the other hand, in #225 sees quite a bit of fringing with this lens in his way of using it.

In order to answer to the topic of this thread, which should have never been started in the first place, IMO, the question is, does the XCD 45/3.5 fringe where the 35 Summicron-SL doesn’t, does it flare where the 35 Summicron-SL doesn’t, does it show distortion where the 35 Summicron-SL doesn’t, is it, on a more or less, similarly resolving sensor sharper in the center, in the corners, than the 35 Summicron-SL, and so on.  And the same questions, again, for the XCD 90/3.2 vs. the 75 Summicron-SL.  Let’s not even go to the zoom.

In my reviews you can find my fringe test images, shot against the sun in what is arguably a torture test, and you can see with your own eyes. I don't know what I can say more. Best regards,

Vieri

[bags27]

14 hours ago, Chaemono said:

I want to defend Steve Huff, in a way, at pixel level WITHOUT any NR applied, and he clearly states that he doesn’t.  But I also agree with the pushback Ron Weissman gives him on his website that I copied below.  Both are right in a way.  ISO 2500-6400 on the SL2 is useable with NR at +15 to +30.  I compared SL2 ISO 2500 shots to S1 ISO 2500 shots and the noise levels without any NR applied are indeed worlds apart, at pixel level.  But as Olaf explained in another thread, at picture level more noise and more pixels cancel each other out.  That’s why the SL2 pictures are useable for Ron.  Now, if one is spoiled with the high ISO performance of the S1 or the Sigma fp, like Steve Huff is, the SL2 high ISO noise without any NR may not be acceptable.
 

“Ron Weissman says:

DECEMBER 31, 2019 AT 2:50 PM

I’ve had an SL2 for almost a month. Used it for a private theatrical event (and I cannot post pictures from this event) about a week ago, shot using quite variable stage lighting. I let the ISO float, from about 400 to about 6400, with about 25% of the shots in the ISO 2500 to 6400 range. Yes, some of the higher ISO shots have, when viewed 1:1, a slightly detectable pattern of fine grain, if you look REALLY hard. But in no case was the noise anywhere near what was shown in your pics at 2500. I shot with a Panasonic 24-70 F 2.8, at f2.8 -3.5 and mostly 1/200 to freeze the moderate movement of the actors. The pictures are gorgeous–with color, very much as you describe. Of the several hundred shots, none was ruined by noise and, visually,, I can barely tell the low ISO from the high ISO shots–at least not enough to eliminate photos from submission for publication. And for theatrical publication work, the ability to crop is quite important, to isolate individual actors and to give full view to their expressions/character. The SL2 coupled with the Canon R (with the amazingly light and compact new 70-200 R) is my new go-to kit for theatrical events of this type. Perhaps the difference is what we shoot? I don’t shoot dark scenes in pitch-black bars. But stage-lit theatrical shoots have challenging lighting and huge dynamic range issues. Even in the darker portions of the stage, not lit by spotlights, I’m not seeing the noise (at ISOs 2500 – 6400) you captured at ISO 2500. And I’ve shot probably 100 of such frames at the aforementioned event.“

Steve's response to Ron Weissman is interesting, too.

I shot more with it tonight. As I said in this short write up, I am talking LOW light. As in 1/50th second at ISO 25,600. It’s why I said I could not use an SL2 but for everyone else, it would be great. Also, keep in mind that even with RAW files NR is on. I turn off all NR on all of my cameras so what you see here is without any NR. Thanks.

[SrMi]

23 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Steve's response to Ron Weissman is interesting, too.

I shot more with it tonight. As I said in this short write up, I am talking LOW light. As in 1/50th second at ISO 25,600. It’s why I said I could not use an SL2 but for everyone else, it would be great. Also, keep in mind that even with RAW files NR is on. I turn off all NR on all of my cameras so what you see here is without any NR. Thanks.

I read that answer a while ago and I am not clear what Steve is talking about. There is no in-camera NR setting for RAW files, only for JPGs.

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I read that answer a while ago and I am not clear what Steve is talking about. There is no in-camera NR setting for RAW files, only for JPGs.

Right. That's, of course, not the only odd thing he said in his original report of course. For someone writing a review of a camera, not to know that IBIS works with non-Leica lenses, shows that he didn't do a very thorough job. It leads me to believe as well that his judgment that M glass works better with the original SL than with the SL2--contrary to conclusions drawn by Jono and by Sean Reid, who tested extensively that combination--isn't founded on thoughtful evaluation either.

[setuporg]

We need a tears emoji to react to the above.:)

[Ko.Fe.]

A thread where Huffwell was born.

[Chaemono]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

I read that answer a while ago and I am not clear what Steve is talking about. There is no in-camera NR setting for RAW files, only for JPGs.

Semantics.  Steve expresses the fact that the opcodes of SL2 ISO 2500 files tell LR to move the NR slider to +15 as in-camera NR Settings.  😁  In the video he says that NR is “baked” into the RAWs.  It’s not quite accurate to describe opcodes as ‘baked into the RAWs’ because DNG opcodes can be easily removed from the RAWs, and in this case one can simply move the LR NR slider to 0.   But in the broader sense, Steve is not lying either.

vor 10 Stunden schrieb bags27:

Right. That's, of course, not the only odd thing he said in his original report of course. For someone writing a review of a camera, not to know that IBIS works with non-Leica lenses, shows that he didn't do a very thorough job.

He said that it was a ‘first look’ not a thorough review.

vor 11 Stunden schrieb bags27:

Steve's response to Ron Weissman is interesting, too.

I shot more with it tonight. As I said in this short write up, I am talking LOW light. As in 1/50th second at ISO 25,600. It’s why I said I could not use an SL2 but for everyone else, it would be great.

A polite way of Steve’s to reply without repeating that he dislikes the SL2 ISO 2500 noise relative to what the S1 produces, without any NR applied.  The SL2s ISO 2500 and 3200 files don’t show significantly more noise than Z7 files.  This is if the pictures are properly exposed and the shadows don’t need too much lifting in post.  That’s why Ron is happy with them.

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Semantics.  Steve expresses the fact that the opcodes of SL2 ISO 2500 files tell LR to move the NR slider to +15 as in-camera NR Settings.  😁  In the video he says that NR is “baked” into the RAWs.  It’s not quite accurate to describe opcodes as ‘baked into the RAWs’ because DNG opcodes can be easily removed from the RAWs, and in this case one can simply move the LR NR slider to 0.   But in the broader sense, Steve is not lying either.

<snip>

Thanks for clarifying.

He writes: "I turn off all NR on all of my cameras, so what you see here is without any NR."  What he probably meant is that he turns off NR for all of his cameras as there is no NR setting for RAW files.

Nobody is accusing Steve of lying but of incompetence. He tends to be a bit vague on many things, that is his style.

Note that I follow his blog regularly, but have realistic expectations about its content.

[bags27]

I guess I wasn't accusing him of anything.

My comments were aimed precisely at invoking a source for one thing without weighing other considerations about that source. There was a lot of angst about high ISO performance based on Steve's initial take, and I was merely pointing out that his take on ISO was quite preliminary, as were all his results.

We should practice careful Quellenkritik. After all, it is a German camera company. 😀

 

[setuporg]

I did a photo walk with the SL2 + SL 50 APO and X1Dii + XCD 80/1.9 on Sunday, and here’s a Lightroom gallery sorted by capture time.  Not every shot matches, but you can see the same landscape generally side by side.

https://adobe.ly/30cyUdX

[grahamhoey]

50 minutes ago, setuporg said:

I did a photo walk with the SL2 + SL 50 APO and X1Dii + XCD 80/1.9 on Sunday, and here’s a Lightroom gallery sorted by capture time.  Not every shot matches, but you can see the same landscape generally side by side.

https://adobe.ly/30cyUdX

A lot of the Hassy shots seem underexposed and some of the SL2 shots seem slightly overexposed. Any sense of why?

[setuporg]

All on auto.  This is a part of the comparison I guess!  Leica traditionally blow the highlights.  I prefer the underexposed forest by Hassy, Leica looks bleached there.  The grass looks richer on Leica though.  Overall I’d say one needs to keep both as they have different strengths and Hassy files are delicious.  It was much slower in action though.  But easier to carry, although the SL2 notch grows on me.  The inexhaustible fanboy force of @Chaemono is working its magic!

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, setuporg said:

I did a photo walk with the SL2 + SL 50 APO and X1Dii + XCD 80/1.9 on Sunday, and here’s a Lightroom gallery sorted by capture time.  Not every shot matches, but you can see the same landscape generally side by side.

https://adobe.ly/30cyUdX

One has to admit the 80mm draws very nicely. I did notice, however, that it seems to occasionally exhibit what appears to be a considerable amount of CA. I didn't look through them all, but this shot stood out in that regard, whereas the previous shot with the SL seemed to be more well controlled.  

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

One has to admit the 80mm draws very nicely. I did notice, however, that it seems to occasionally exhibit what appears to be a considerable amount of CA. I didn't look through them all, but this shot stood out in that regard, whereas the previous shot with the SL seemed to be more well controlled.  

Well the Leica Summicron is an APO lens and the 80mm 1.9 is not. It'd be interesting to see how the Summilux went here.

I'd also like to see the results with different software. Hassy lens profiles in LR are pretty basic whereas the Leica SL ones are comprehensive and baked into the program. Maybe put the X1D file through Phocus and see how a comprehensive Hasselblad correction compares?

Gordon

[thighslapper]

4 hours ago, setuporg said:

I did a photo walk with the SL2 + SL 50 APO and X1Dii + XCD 80/1.9 on Sunday, and here’s a Lightroom gallery sorted by capture time.  Not every shot matches, but you can see the same landscape generally side by side.

https://adobe.ly/30cyUdX

Thanks. 

I think only the most cantankerous of photographers could grumble about the image quality ...... and whilst I am sure I could find some differences if I tried hard between the two I would be more than happy with the end result from either. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sillbeers15]

5 hours ago, setuporg said:

All on auto.  This is a part of the comparison I guess!  Leica traditionally blow the highlights.  I prefer the underexposed forest by Hassy, Leica looks bleached there.  The grass looks richer on Leica though.  Overall I’d say one needs to keep both as they have different strengths and Hassy files are delicious.  It was much slower in action though.  But easier to carry, although the SL2 notch grows on me.  The inexhaustible fanboy force of @Chaemono is working its magic!

What about the auto exposure settings of the cameras? Are all comparable? Center weighted? Spot? ISO settings? Unless all settings are comparable not all blame goes to the cameras.

[Chaemono]

I don’t need the X1D II nor the XCD 80/1.9.  I don’t photograph landscapes nor stuff where the fantastic but sometimes for my taste a bit over the top colors, which, as I understand, are the result of sensor calibration with color profiles to pseudo 16-bit files by Hasselblad, matter.  But I would keep it as a low light alternative and let go of the S1.  There are two issues why I will likely still ditch it, the slow operations including extremely slow AF in low light, and this darn fringing.  The S1 is wonderful in low light and takes SL lenses. 

From what I can tell so far, the X1D with its lenses is a niche camera fro Pros or an alternative to the M for hobbyists/amateurs.