Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[Likaleica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Do you mind sharing the SL2 and X1D files?

I'll check.  I may still be under NDA for that sort of thing since it was a prototype camera and firmware.

[Likaleica]

58 minutes ago, 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) .

Duh, yes you are correct.  My mistake (wishful thinking?).  But a good point, nevertheless.

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Q]

1 hour ago, Likaleica said:

I'll check.  I may still be under NDA for that sort of thing since it was a prototype camera and firmware.

OK thanks. I was hoping to visit my local Leica shop this past weekend to compare against my X1D, but I had other errands to run.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Having now used the SL2 breifly, if I could keep only one it would still be the X1D for my shooting. I do love the IBIS of the SL2 and S1R but value the ISO invariance and long exposure implementation of the X1D more. At normal shutter speeds the difference is minor between the X1D at 100 and the SL2/S1R at 50. Shoot a 8 minute exposure and the difference is large. OTOH I can hand hold the S1R to 1/2 a second with good technique at 50mm. So there's that.

I am fortunate not to have to make that choice so I will have the X1D for the files and the S1R/SL2 for the flexibility.

Gordon

[caissa]

Yes, but even you cannot prove your findings on the web. You need a huge printout to make the differences visible, if at all. So here we only have your word for it.
And if I take the experience, that I lost many shots because of slow reaction (wrong timing) and shake (by wind or weather or being in a crowd) or slightly off focus, and hardly ever lost a photo because the files were so terribly bad (meaning the exposure was so far off or DR so small) into account, then the SL2 is much better for me and would always be my choice. Maybe in your place it is different. But you told once that you also do a lot of architecture photos (for housing agents). And I don't believe that the X1D offers an advantage for that, that the customers recognize in any way.
So for anybody outside the realm of art, where the inspiration and the last bits of quality are crucial, the X1D has no advantage.

Again, you compare here a photo with X1D made under the best possible circumstances, with a photo made with SL2 (normal or high res mode) under "daily conditions". For me it is soooo easy to guess which result will be "better". The problem currently is that so many write that Multishot is bad without really taking the time and effort that they would put into an optimal studio shot. (More than the 2 minutes needed for the 8 pictures).

If a photo is taken in nature, with wind or flowing water etc. wouldn't it be strange to expect the same result as in a quiet studio ? Actually that the results are different, is the reason to make this photo outside.

In the web several sites have tests that show clear differences (between normal and high res) when conditions are optimal (studio fotos in high res mode). And there are also examples of in the field fotos with very attractive results (with flowing water etc.), but of course they are not as sharp as the studio fotos. But nobody (hardly anybody) thinks that this is a problem. (and that Multishot should be ridiculed because of that)
Even Hasselblad with their high end products (not the cheap X1D) uses this technology since years (guess why).

As stated before, the X1D is so slow it can only be used for a limited range of topics. Look at the examples displayed in all the fora. (The bad examples from the other topics are simply never displayed). And in the other fields it is a hopeless camera (even the Fuji is faster). So instead of having no foto at all, I prefer to have a successful foto, with the drawback of a tiny bit less sharpness when resized to the size of a wall. 

[Mr.Q]

No.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a lot of whether the multi-shot "high res" mode is deemed useful depends on print size, and hence how you do the "test".

The 187mp image on the S1R opens "natively" (and we can argue about what natively means) at 55" wide to print at 300dpi.

I don't have access to medium format cameras, although have used the X1D in the past. 

But there are studio shots on DP Review for the S1R (with Leica 90mm SL Summicron) in both normal and high resolution modes; also the X1D; and Fuji GFX 100 and Phase One 100mp medium format too.

I print big (which is why I used 5x4 film a lot), and 55" wide is typical for me.

So I looked carefully at the files from the studio shots. I compared them all at 55" wide at 300dpi in Photoshop truly side by side.

Clearly, for everything except the S1R in high res mode, this requires resampling the files upwards in Post.

My conclusion? The S1R in high resolution mode looked EXTREMELY similar to my eyes to the 100mp medium formats.

Both sets IMHO looked better than the X1D ...the latter had less resolution, more moire, more false color.

And, in turn, I thought the X1D looked a bit better than the S1R in normal mode.

 

[otto.f]

On 11/8/2019 at 7:24 AM, biswasg said:

Technically, the mid-size sensor, but in reality?

Much too early to decide whether the theory is also right in this case. But theory has been right so many times, that I do not expect from a FF camera to surpass so easily the bigger sensor. For me, it’s not about prints or big prints, you’ll see the surplus value of a larger sensor on any medium in the bokeh, the smoothness and the less digital appearance of an image. The only thing that makes the SL2 stand out is workflow, versatility, flexibility, a sheer unendless lens park, so you’ve got a great toy to play with. But when it comes down image quality as such, the bigger sensor always wins. Perhaps you might make more photo’s with an SL2 which you wouldn’t have been able to make with the X1D i or ii or the S 1 2 3, because of the practicalities of the system, but this also counts for the M versus the SL, or the CL versus the SL, the M6 versus Hasselblad, the Pentax 67 versus the Linhof Technika V, etc. etc. 

[otto.f]

On 11/8/2019 at 9:10 AM, L-log said:

In the german part of the forum there is a review which includes a comparison to the X1D. 

 

 

And the final verdict of Tom is that he won’t sell his Hasselblad for his SL2, he will have them both. 

[helged]

19 minutes ago, otto.f said:

Much too early to decide whether the theory is also right in this case. But theory has been right so many times, that I do not expect from a FF camera to surpass so easily the bigger sensor. For me, it’s not about prints or big prints, you’ll see the surplus value of a larger sensor on any medium in the bokeh, the smoothness and the less digital appearance of an image. The only thing that makes the SL2 stand out is workflow, versatility, flexibility, a sheer unendless lens park, so you’ve got a great toy to play with. But when it comes down image quality as such, the bigger sensor always wins. Perhaps you might make more photo’s with an SL2 which you wouldn’t have been able to make with the X1D i or ii or the S 1 2 3, because of the practicalities of the system, but this also counts for the M versus the SL, or the CL versus the SL, the M6 versus Hasselblad, the Pentax 67 versus the Linhof Technika V, etc. etc. 

Thanks! 

Admittedly, I have limited experience with digital, mini-MF sensors (=S006 in my case), but there is something special with the files compared to the many FF sensors I have used. Could e.g. the smooth tonal transitions that I see, or that I believe seeing, party be caused by the 16 bit S-files? 

[otto.f]

I don’t know but I thought the 16 bit has more to do with richness and depth of color. The smoothness comes from bigger pixels, bigger sensor. You can also put 24Mp on an APS-C sensor as in the CL but that results in a more ‘digital’ look. If you put 47Mp on a 30x45mm sensor it will always be smoother than on a 24x36 sensor. As far as I know.

[BernardC]

9 hours ago, caissa said:

Even Hasselblad with their high end products (not the cheap X1D) uses this technology since years (guess why).

No need to guess. It's for studio shots of fabrics and art work. Leica-owned Sinar has offered multishot for years. Their web site has a good explanation of the benefits (and a close-up shot of fabric):

https://sinar.swiss/products/digital-backs/#!/1

 

[thighslapper]

36 minutes ago, helged said:

Thanks! 

Admittedly, I have limited experience with digital, mini-MF sensors (=S006 in my case), but there is something special with the files compared to the many FF sensors I have used. Could e.g. the smooth tonal transitions that I see, or that I believe seeing, party be caused by the 16 bit S-files? 

Like all these things you need a blind trial and some way to otherwise equalise the images as far as resolution etc. is concerned without compromising the inherent properties of the file ..... and it depends on processing which need not be identical as the RAW files are different ..... and then the issues of the viewing medium .... as almost everything, including printing compresses the DR and alters things yet again. 

Like testing medicines there is a huge placebo effect at work in subjective assessments of image quality ..... and only a large number of responses would statistically sort out a genuine difference ..... and then would it be an objective one or just a preference .... and would it vary between the groups tested (photographers versus the general public) ? I suspect it would. 

That's why the camera manufacturers just stick to numbers to seduce us ..... as all the rest is nebulous and like nailing jelly to the wall. The human eye and brain is far from infallible and we frequently see what we want to and not what is actually there ..... .

 

 

[bags27]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

 But when it comes down image quality as such, the bigger sensor always wins. 

Obviously there are other variables (like the quality of the lenses supported by that camera). And, as otto.f says, there are considerations of opportunity, such as which camera is more likely to be used more frequently and how. But all things being close to equal, this seems to me to be the closest thing to a truism. True for film, true for metal-oxide.

[Tailwagger]

I'm coming around to the conclusion that in this segment, at least, the lens (and the mammal behind it) is the determining factor.  Regardless, from an IQ standpoint, there is likely to be so little between these two in general shooting circumstance, that it strikes me as, at best, a waste of time to worry about it... let alone decide which system to buy into on the basis of it.  Better to consider the availability, quality and cost of glass.

[Chaemono]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb Tailwagger:

I'm coming around to the conclusion that in this segment, at least, the lens (and the mammal behind it) is the determining factor.  Regardless, from an IQ standpoint, there is likely to be so little between these two in general shooting circumstance, that it strikes me as, at best, a waste of time to worry about it... let alone decide which system to buy into on the basis of it.  Better to consider the availability, quality and cost of glass.

I really look forward to your DR/malleability of files tests between the X1D II and the SL2.  I hope you have a 35mm lens that you can mount on the SL2.  But even with different focal lengths, tests of DR and how much the files can be pushed should be possible.  The X1D clearly has better DR and better files than the M10 but the M10 has a variant of the SL sensor. 😁

[Tailwagger]

1 minute ago, Chaemono said:

I really look forward to your DR/malleability of files tests between the X1D II and the SL2.  I hope you have a 35mm lens that you can mount on the SL2.  But even with different focal lengths, tests of DR and how much the files can be pushed should be possible.  The X1D clearly has better DR and better files than the M10 but the M10 has a variant of the SL sensor. 😁

We'll see.  I've yet to hear back as to whether or not I'll be in the first batch. If so, I do have a couple of 35mm lenses, a late 60's Summilux and the Zeiss Distagon 1.4. Not sure I'm capable of doing any formal testing, but I'll be happy to report my impressions. 

[bags27]

This sent me to Sean Reid's review of the first version of the Hassy. He was astonished by its IQ, and he is far from a hyperbolic writer. Some of the photos in his report are okay or good, others are the kinds that, indeed, when you stare at them, you know there's not a FF in existence that can do this (though I suspect probably closest would be something like the SL2 with the 16-35).

[Mr.Q]

It's quite amazing that a 5 year-old sensor is still outperforming FF sensors today that are close to being maxed out in performance. If and when they release a 2nd gen 50-75 MP sensor, the performance gap will be reverted.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb bags27:

This sent me to Sean Reid's review of the first version of the Hassy. He was astonished by its IQ, and he is far from a hyperbolic writer. Some of the photos in his report are okay or good, others are the kinds that, indeed, when you stare at them, you know there's not a FF in existence that can do this (though I suspect probably closest would be something like the SL2 with the 16-35).

I'm mostly interested in DR and and how much the files can be pushed/pulled to recover shadow/highlight details.  I've shot the X1D with the M10 side by side, no formal tests, and there was clearly more shadow detail to be seen/recovered and better control of highlights with more details 'out-of-the-box' in the X1D files.  In some pictures, I could see on the screen richer and deeper colors of the X1D files as well.  That's due to 16-bit vs. 14-bit image files, I guess.  Even the 61 MPx α7R IV produces 14-bit files.  I'm, therefore, not getting my hopes up that FF sensors match that 'MF' X1D sensor in this respect.  But I am hopeful that the SL2 closes the DR and, as DPR put it in their review of the original SL, "the real world 'push-ability' of shadows" (love this concept and it's one of the main reasons to upgrade FF and APS-C cameras, IMO).  Mr. Tailwagger here will be our best source on this, I think, given that he'll have access to both cameras and seems to be little prone to choice-supportive bias.