Jump to content
🇩🇪 Neu: Leica SL3 Reporter ×
🇺🇸🇬🇧 New: Leica SL3 Reporter ×

Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

biswasg

By biswasg
in Leica SL System

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jared
Jared

I own an SL and. Q (similar/same sensor to the SL2 but without Maestro III processor).  I also own an X1D Mk II.  I have also had the opportunity to demo an SL2 but do not yet own one and have spent o

Likaleica
Likaleica

I tested the SL2 against the X1D, qualitatively.  Same subject, same settings, 75 apo-summicron-sl and 90 xcd.  I applied the 2:3 crop ratio to the X1D files and looked at them "blind" in Lightroom an

Tailwagger
Tailwagger

It probably depends on just where in reality you happen to reside.  Don't have and SL or SL2 yet. Do have a Q, M240, M10 and an X1DII. The difference in image quality is large across the brands, but I

Posted Images

Einst_Stein

Einst_Stein

Posted
Posted
On 11/8/2019 at 2:18 AM, meerec said:

Think again then 🤗 and check the 80/1.9 which is the fastest hassy lens ever made, f/1.5 equivalent and it’s very good

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Hasselblad_XCD_65mm_f_2.8_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_80mm_f_1.9_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_35-75mm_f_3.5-4.5_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_30mm_f_3.5_Lens/BHitems/1436793-REG_1436792-REG_1487058-REG_1285145-REG

Take a look at the row "covered area". None of these favored focal length cover 44x33mm, they are more like a 35mm full frame or even sub-full-frame lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
John Smith

John Smith

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Hasselblad_XCD_65mm_f_2.8_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_80mm_f_1.9_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_35-75mm_f_3.5-4.5_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_30mm_f_3.5_Lens/BHitems/1436793-REG_1436792-REG_1487058-REG_1285145-REG

Take a look at the row "covered area". None of these favored focal length cover 44x33mm, they are more like a 35mm full frame or even sub-full-frame lens.

If this means what I think it means, that's a Yikes!.

Edited by John Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe Colson

Joe Colson

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Hasselblad_XCD_65mm_f_2.8_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_80mm_f_1.9_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_35-75mm_f_3.5-4.5_Lens_vs_Hasselblad_XCD_30mm_f_3.5_Lens/BHitems/1436793-REG_1436792-REG_1487058-REG_1285145-REG

Take a look at the row "covered area". None of these favored focal length cover 44x33mm, they are more like a 35mm full frame or even sub-full-frame lens.

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!

I'm not quite sure what their "Area of Coverage" measurement refers to, but the units are in centimeters, not millimeters. The 44x33mm sensor is 4.4x3.3cm. You may have misread the B&H spec as "mm" instead of "cm".

Joe

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Einst_Stein

Einst_Stein

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, Joe Colson said:

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!

I'm not quite sure what their "Area of Coverage" measurement refers to, but the units are in centimeters, not millimeters. The 44x33mm sensor is 4.4x3.3cm. You may have misread the B&H spec as "mm" instead of "cm".

Joe

Thanks for pointing out. Good catch.

Then it might mean the covered object area in the closest distance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joakim

Joakim

Posted
Posted

If you head over to Hasselblads site you will see that "Area of coverage" is listed in the section titled "Close focus range data" so I think it is calculated from MFD and the reproduction scale at MFD

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Remember looking at my mamiya c330s slides compared to 35mm and they were massive!

But i noticed on digital medium format and especially the crop medium format the sensor is simply a bit bigger than full frame.

Compared to film days medium format seems like a minor upgrade to me but maybe i am missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
tom0511

tom0511

Posted
Posted
vor 36 Minuten schrieb steve 1959:

Remember looking at my mamiya c330s slides compared to 35mm and they were massive!

But i noticed on digital medium format and especially the crop medium format the sensor is simply a bit bigger than full frame.

Compared to film days medium format seems like a minor upgrade to me but maybe i am missing something?

I agree that the difference is certainly not as  dramatic compared to film times. I feel there is still a difference. Not so much resolution but tonalit, color and sharpness roll off. But I also feel the SL2 (just for example) with a good lens is not that far away from MF IQ.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
caissa

caissa

Posted
Posted (edited)

The difference is small, but the SL2 with multishot is in my eyes slightly better (with a good lens). Regarding noise, color, DR, ....      

Take a 6x6 slide/negative film and digitize it with the SL2. Compare the results   with multishot  and with digital "MF".   Typically the SL2 multishot gets more details and better noise. (Maybe also better (cleaner, "true") color with a slide). The difference is small but with enough zooming it is visible.   (e.g.  film copy with a high end magnifier lens apo rodagon).

So for archiving the SL2 is by far the better choice (more flexibility, faster processing, quality at least as good, with multishot "full colors").

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites
FlashGordonPhotography

FlashGordonPhotography

Posted
Posted

I do a lot of reproduction work of my partners art, which we print at A1. Multishot works well here. Even an Olympus PenF does more than enough with good glass. To say a 187MP image from an SL2 is slightly better than a 50MP image from and X1D isn’t exactly a stretch. The fact some only see a slight improvement is telling. I’m not convinced in my own testing that DR is better though.

In the field multishot is a different beast. It’s not always usable. And for long exposures (over a second) it can’t be used at all.

As a landscape camera the X1D, for me, is clearly superior most of the time. It’s nice to see that the SL2 has gotten so close in just its second generation and that most of the issues were resolved by Leica. In studio the X1D can sync manual flash at high speeds due to its leaf shutters.

The X1D is a scalpel. The SL2 is a swiss army knife.

Gordon

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
caissa

caissa

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I do a lot of reproduction work of my partners art, which we print at A1. Multishot works well here. Even an Olympus PenF does more than enough with good glass. To say a 187MP image from an SL2 is slightly better than a 50MP image from and X1D isn’t exactly a stretch. The fact some only see a slight improvement is telling. I’m not convinced in my own testing that DR is better though.

In the field multishot is a different beast. It’s not always usable. And for long exposures (over a second) it can’t be used at all.

As a landscape camera the X1D, for me, is clearly superior most of the time. It’s nice to see that the SL2 has gotten so close in just its second generation and that most of the issues were resolved by Leica. In studio the X1D can sync manual flash at high speeds due to its leaf shutters.

The X1D is a scalpel. The SL2 is a swiss army knife.

Gordon

For archiving it is certainly a value in itself if you get the full colors (avoiding the Bayer interpolation, resulting in real RGB color for each pixel). There it is worth the extra effort with multishot. At a "zero" extra cost, if you compare it to solutions from Hasselblad like the H6D-400c which product photographers buy to get true colors (if you can believe the marketing messages :unsure:B)). The value lies more in the full colors (color accurate photos) than in the "nominal" higher resolution. It improves "color truth" (Farbtreue), reduces noise, and maybe adds a little bit of extra res (just a minor bonus in my eyes). So for product photography the SL2 has its clear advantages. Avoiding Bayer in itself already adds some extra resolution/detail (usually not observed because we normally do not check the pics in such detail).

In the field all of this is difficult to achieve (and usually also not necessary).

You mention printing, but I think libraries or archives (governmental, state, municipality etc. ...) usually do not print. And want to keep their copies for centuries (Ideally in a (software)neutral format, so DNG is not a bad choice).  (Think of famous historic collections of books lost in a flood (Herzogin Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar flooded in 2004), or maybe also the Stadtarchiv in Koeln (historic archive of the city) that was severely damaged in 2009 when an underground line was built. (est. damage 1.3 billion euro))   (Köln exists since Roman times, and is one of the oldest cities in Germany, only Trier is even slightly older.)

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted
On 11/11/2019 at 5:57 AM, caissa said:

Sorry, but the crop factor is only 1.5 (compared to APS-C). So equivalent to 420mm. But using an adapted 400mm lens would be interesting (and resulting in 600mm equivalent in APS-C). Probably the MC-21 adapter will work on the SL2 (nobody has confirmed or denied, yet). So a Canon 400mm DO/f4 could be very interesting. Or a Nikon PF lens with a manual adapter (e.g. 500mm PF/f5.6 is quite affordable) .

MC-21 seems to work well on SL2:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/304615-sl2-sigma-mc-21-vs-novoflex-adapters-for-canon-ef-lenses-test/

Link to post
Share on other sites
caissa

caissa

Posted
Posted (edited)

:D Thanks for your reply. But if you check the date (ten months ago), you can imagine that the question has been answered in the meantime. :rolleyes:   But thanks anyway. (It was at the time when the SL2 had just been announced ...  even before anybody had the camera.)

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
Macberg

Macberg

Posted
Posted (edited)

I had been following this very interesting thread for a while. Now I'd like to dig it out again, as I found this video. I thought this might be interesting here, too, as it shows that the sensor of the X1DII captures a bit more details and allows pushing the exposure quite a bit (I think he says 2-3 stops) in the course of postprocessing without losing too much clarity and details.
However, I don't know the 35mm Sigma lens he used - maybe the result would have been different with the Summicorn SL 35mm...

 

Edited by Macberg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alistairm

Alistairm

Posted
Posted

No real surprises to me. I’ve only used the X1D for dedicated landscape use since the SL2 and M10R arrived. After years of ownership, tens of thousands of photos and using newer generation cameras, the DR and malleability of the X1D output continues to impress. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
jscottyk

jscottyk

Posted
Posted
On 11/8/2019 at 6:38 AM, Tailwagger said:

...  If I could have only one, I'd choose the _________.   Dont know. Maybe a year from now I will.  

 

@Tailwagger, it's a little bit more than a year now, I'm curious if you now have an opinion on "if I could have only one"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...