Jump to content

Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2


biswasg

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The new XCD 45 provides a terrific option for the system. Kudos to Hasselblad.  I wonder if this will be a one-off or if this is the start of some more lower priced, quieter, mechanical focusing (no focus by wire), albeit possibly slower lenses.  While many seem to waiting for the long anticipated zoom, this was a pleasant surprise in the opposite direction.  I wish Leica would do something similar for the SL native lens line, not just rely on other alliance offerings.

Jeff

+1.  And at a price point that is $400 less than the Leica APS-C Elmarit-TL 18mm.  Hard to ignore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 500
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 only an hour or so with it.  Still, it let me a/b some files taken at the same time and in the same place with an X1D.  Not tight controls, though. Here is what I would say if comparing the two cameras (X1D and SL2): 1) Resolution/image “sharpness” is definitely not a reason to choose one o

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 and also printed test strips the equivalent of size A0 (33x47 inches).  My review is here. Long story short:  I can't wait to get the SL2. I'm not sure if I'll keep the X1D because it is a redundancy I don't need.  The SL2 can do virtually everything I need in a camera system.  I do love usi

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 IMO, pixel count has nearly nothing to do with it.  The largest advantage the added pixels afford is the ability to take a shot in portrait, crop 2x3 in landscape and still have more pixels than any of my current Leica's deliver.  The downside is that all too often any added detail can be a detriment

Posted Images

9 hours ago, kidigital said:

Personally, I think that there's a nice unexplored area of the market between full-frame and these larger sensor systems. And it goes beyond the photographers who like to use medium format for studio or tripod use exclusively. Lightweight, compact lenses combined with larger sensors mean that the systems can be used in a broader range of scenarios. Fuji and Hasselblad seem willing to explore the possibilities. As someone who likes to push the boundaries, I relish the option. While I've loved the images from my S system, taking it to the street or on long hikes is/was not its forte. At this point, with Leica's neglect of the larger sensor category, the cost of the 45P is less than what an S system camera or lens will depreciate in a year at this rate.  

I think a lot of folks were disappointed when the Nikon Z finally came out with a standard FF sensor. The flange, viewable in leaked photographs ahead of the reveal, is certainly large enough to handle a tweener custom sensor and expectations were high. Give the small form of the Z and its nice UI, that would have been an impressive system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2020 at 3:25 PM, CharlesL said:

When you do not want vignette, the Fuji GFX 50 cameras have settings to use only part of the sensor area. For example, the 7:6 ratio setting uses 7232 by 6192 pixels of the 8256 by 6192 sensor. This is raw data, not a crop for the camera JPG.

My statement is incorrect. I now see that the 7:6 image is only the camera JPG. The raw file delivers the full sensor image, which you would crop during post processing to cut out most of the vignette yet still have a larger image than a full-frame 36 x 24 mm sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Could someone please add some more representative images, cropped images showing a more or less measurable difference between the two sensors. I am intending to borrow the XCD 45mm / SL 35mm combination - if everything is ready, I'll show my results.

Best Regards, Shlomo.

Edited by Shlomo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 1/8/2020 at 3:41 PM, 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.  

To my eye the Hasselblad has a more three dimensional quality than the Leica. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The surprising low price of XCD lenses and camera shocks me! While I am not sure its quality, even if it is not as good as Leica, I doubt it could be any disappointing.

However, I am much more impressed by the 907x+CFV-50 II combination than the XCD-II.  Were not I already have SL, I would consider the 907x + CFV-50 II + 21/F4 to be my digital HB 903. I might want to add the 65mm/f2.8 or the 80mm/f1.9 to more general usage. The 45mm/f4 is interestingly compact too. It's simply sexy!

Back to Leica SL. I find I am more and more relying on the 24-90mm zoom than the Leica M primes.  This zoom is "good enough" that makes me lazy to switch lenses, regardless how much better the primes could be.  I think this would be the decisive factor for me to choose between the HB XCD system and the Leica SL. 

 

Edited by Einst_Stein
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Over the past few months I've been shooting primarily with the SL2, while the X1D has largely sat idle.  This has been for a few reasons, AF speed, IBIS, the earlier inability to acquire a spare battery for the X1D, and the reality that building two systems concurrently is an expensive proposition and carrying them at the same time even more so. Where the Leica optics are significantly more expensive, there are a number of excellent alternatives, which are significantly cheaper when compared to the X1D native offerings. As a result, and being an admitted Leica fan boy, I chose to build out the SL2 system first.  For a time I considered selling the X1D, but when the intro of the 45p somewhat killed the resale value of the kit deal, I found myself in no rush to part with it.

Recently, I've begun carrying the X1D again along side the SL2 again as the availability of the new zoom has rekindled my interest in the X1D.  The zoom elevates the X1D utility for my use cases while obviating the need to spend yet another $15K on primes, though still it's still a substantial investment at over $5K.  So before buying that like-a-Leica priced lens, it seemed like a good idea to return the X1D back into the general rotation. I pulled the 35mm from the bag for a couple of days.  Having reminded myself about just how good the ergo of the X1D is, I decided to do a slightly more apples to apples comparison and return the SL-35 to the bag. 

This morning, I found myself on the grounds of one Massachusetts' many mothballed insane asylums. Given somewhat difficult, but plentiful, light, it seemed a sensible location to carry out a more direct comparison of the SL2/SL35 to the X1D/HCD45. The nonsensical part is publishing the results here, but I thought some folks might find them amusing, useful or at least something throw rocks at.  To avoid a little of that last part, I want to stress that while this is a comparison, it just a basic point and shoot one. I didn't try to equalize everything for every shot, no tripods, not attempt to be 100% accurate w.r.t to perspective, just close enough. I shot a few frames at equal fstops and a few at roughly FF vs MF comparable ones.  I've done some very modest processing to all the shots, basically press auto in LR, reset vibrance and saturation to 0.  In one or two of the more difficult scenes, I did a quick curve adjustment to compensate for a less than ideal exposure. No mucking around with extra sharpening, clarity, color luminance, etc. I also cropped the shots, some cropping the X1D to 2x3, some taking the SL2 to 3x4.  So, in sum, nothing scientific, nor taken to a final state of processing. Just a late to the party, basic output comparison between the SL2 armed with one of the best optics on the planet and the larger sensor X1D's with a mid level lens at the equivalent focal length.

I've left them unlabeled, but if you care to know, just click through, you can see which was which.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Tailwagger
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2019 at 4:24 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Really! I don't think so.

You use the term Nittoh as if it's an insult. They make spectacular glass. I'll put the CXD 21, 65, 80 and 135 up against any lens from any manufacturer and they'll do well. The 80 is something special, as is the 135. While they draw differently, it's ridiculous to say the SL glass is *better* than the XCD glass.

If that's what they told you, you might want to go to a dealer that tells the truth.

Gordon

p.s. please note I also still shoot weddings with the original SL, and will continue to do so. But it isn't because the SL lenses are better than the XCD ones.

I have both, and I think the 90SL Apo image fidelity is better. It shoots the cleanest whites I have ever seen. I would say the build quality with the stiff focus rings, and scraping and groaning motors is certainly questionable, but then on the other hand I have one of the xcd 120 Macro disasters. I think the real question for both companies that are selling >5k lenses, is Why is it that many <2K Japanese lens performs better in focus speed, dampening of rings, motor noise?  Both companies are running on their brand name.... Handmade is really great, and we all have an appreciation of that, but it needs to work...

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 3:26 PM, Tailwagger said:

Over the past few months I've been shooting primarily with the SL2, while the X1D has largely sat idle.  This has been for a few reasons, AF speed, IBIS, the earlier inability to acquire a spare battery for the X1D, and the reality that building two systems concurrently is an expensive proposition and carrying them at the same time even more so. Where the Leica optics are significantly more expensive, there are a number of excellent alternatives, which are significantly cheaper when compared to the X1D native offerings. As a result, and being an admitted Leica fan boy, I chose to build out the SL2 system first.  For a time I considered selling the X1D, but when the intro of the 45p somewhat killed the resale value of the kit deal, I found myself in no rush to part with it.

Recently, I've begun carrying the X1D again along side the SL2 again as the availability of the new zoom has rekindled my interest in the X1D.  The zoom elevates the X1D utility for my use cases while obviating the need to spend yet another $15K on primes, though still it's still a substantial investment at over $5K.  So before buying that like-a-Leica priced lens, it seemed like a good idea to return the X1D back into the general rotation. I pulled the 35mm from the bag for a couple of days.  Having reminded myself about just how good the ergo of the X1D is, I decided to do a slightly more apples to apples comparison and return the SL-35 to the bag. 

This morning, I found myself on the grounds of one Massachusetts' many mothballed insane asylums. Given somewhat difficult, but plentiful, light, it seemed a sensible location to carry out a more direct comparison of the SL2/SL35 to the X1D/HCD45. The nonsensical part is publishing the results here, but I thought some folks might find them amusing, useful or at least something throw rocks at.  To avoid a little of that last part, I want to stress that while this is a comparison, it just a basic point and shoot one. I didn't try to equalize everything for every shot, no tripods, not attempt to be 100% accurate w.r.t to perspective, just close enough. I shot a few frames at equal fstops and a few at roughly FF vs MF comparable ones.  I've done some very modest processing to all the shots, basically press auto in LR, reset vibrance and saturation to 0.  In one or two of the more difficult scenes, I did a quick curve adjustment to compensate for a less than ideal exposure. No mucking around with extra sharpening, clarity, color luminance, etc. I also cropped the shots, some cropping the X1D to 2x3, some taking the SL2 to 3x4.  So, in sum, nothing scientific, nor taken to a final state of processing. Just a late to the party, basic output comparison between the SL2 armed with one of the best optics on the planet and the larger sensor X1D's with a mid level lens at the equivalent focal length.

I've left them unlabeled, but if you care to know, just click through, you can see which was which.

Thanks for the comparison. I too have both cameras and consider them each in the "good enough" zone. From your comparison images, I can immediately pick the Hasselblad's rendering of greens - more vibrant than the SL2. And the SL 35mm Summicron images appear slightly more "crisp" in a couple of the shots. That's what I would expect and have experienced myself. For me, the XCD 35-75mm zoom is a game changer for the X1D II. It obviates the need to carry the 30mm, 45mm, 65mm or 90mm primes. Since this thread is on the subject of image quality comparison, I will need to shoot some test shots, as you have, to compare the two systems. I'll share my results. Thank you for sharing yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe Colson said:

Thanks for the comparison. I too have both cameras and consider them each in the "good enough" zone. From your comparison images, I can immediately pick the Hasselblad's rendering of greens - more vibrant than the SL2. And the SL 35mm Summicron images appear slightly more "crisp" in a couple of the shots. That's what I would expect and have experienced myself. For me, the XCD 35-75mm zoom is a game changer for the X1D II. It obviates the need to carry the 30mm, 45mm, 65mm or 90mm primes. Since this thread is on the subject of image quality comparison, I will need to shoot some test shots, as you have, to compare the two systems. I'll share my results. Thank you for sharing yours.

Thanks for doing this Joe! Looking forward to seeing some results from the zoom. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the SL2 colors in most of the images, which is good, as I have one! That said, it is interesting to see the 5th and 6th images, the ones of the building and the tree. What interests me is that the area of lit up brickface is very yellow on the SL2, compared to Hasselblad, which is more of a brick red. I prefer the Hasselblad for that image, but I wonder how much it is just a difference in white balance or profiles....in general the Leica colors are yellower than those of the Hasselblad. I tend to prefer warmer images, so that works for me, but I honestly think my own colors would be between the two.

Edited by Stuart Richardson
Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would summarize the color differences as the SL2 leaning warmer, the X1D leaning cooler. I have a couple of other shots I didn't post where thats far more evident. Beyond the greens, in what I posted you can also see that the skies for the HB lean purple where the SL leans a little aqua. 

As for the brick face, that result was indeed rather striking.  That particular scene, perhaps not immediately evident in the results, was quite challenging from a DR standpoint.  The foreground being relatively deep in shadow, with very strong highlights in the direct sun portions. My guess is that the more extreme color variation in that particular shot may be due to differences in how the scene was metered and what had to be pulled up versus down. It should be remembered that the formats are different and the shots were made from roughly the same spot and then cropped to be equal size.  So the metering of the areas under consideration were not exactly the same, which might contribute to why SL2 (being wider right in the original) seemingly had a harder time of it that shot.

Edited by Tailwagger
Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of us without an X1D but with access to DxO PhotoLab: open a raw file from the SL2 in the program, using the No Correction preset. Set the color rendering to Camera Body | Leica SL. Then change it to Camera Body | Hasselblad X1D. This shows you something about how DxO judges that the two raw files differ, which depends on the filter array that Leica and Hasselblad chose to put over the sensor, as well as adjustments that the firmware in the two cameras may make to data coming off the A/D converters before writing the raw file.

Green in particular looks different. Sometimes I prefer the DxO's X1D profile to be applied to an SL image instead of DxO's SL profile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So summary, what most knew anyway.  The cameras are equal regarding IQ and with some fiddling around in software the last minimal differences can be made to disappear.   My conclusion, one camera is enough unless I need at all cost the difference in weight or reaction time (and can afford it).

But as I also have M lenses and want to continue using them the SL2 is much better suited for me. (And maybe even better with the firmware update coming tomorrow. Highres mode ? )

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2020 at 9:26 PM, Tailwagger said:

I've left them unlabeled, but if you care to know, just click through, you can see which was which.

Hi, thank You for Your images. Could You show some cropped comparisons, please?

Sincerely, Shlomo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, caissa said:

So summary, what most knew anyway.  The cameras are equal regarding IQ and with some fiddling around in software the last minimal differences can be made to disappear.  ....................................

No. Not really.

In some conditions the cameras are interchangeable but not all. The SL2 is VASTLY more flexible. Longer and wider lenses, zooms, much faster operation and much better EVF. Some of the lenses are slightly sharper like the SL35 compared to the XCD45. Video is much better and high res will eventually come.

The X1D still has more DR. You can see it in a couple of shots above, although I don't know what PP was done. X1D images are much more pliable in post. The rear screen is bigger. It's countdown timer and long exposure system is much better than the Leica. It handles better as well. It doesn't require a dark frame for long exposures either and it's slightly better at the mid ISO range but weaker at high ISO. The 3:4 image ratio is different.

If, like me, you shoot a lot of long exposures then the X1D and SL2 don't seem similar at all. Nor would they for someone who needs longer lenses.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

In some conditions the cameras are interchangeable but not all. The SL2 is VASTLY more flexible. Longer and wider lenses, zooms, much faster operation and much better EVF. Some of the lenses are slightly sharper like the SL35 compared to the XCD45. Video is much better and high res will eventually come.

 

And IBIS (and 2 native zooms with OIS).

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

...although I don't know what PP was done. X1D images are much more pliable in post.

All shots Press Auto in LR, drop vibrance, saturation back to 0.  As I mentioned, I played with curves on one shot for both versions, pair #3, due to the extreme DR. I'll add that I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. 

6 hours ago, Shlomo said:

Hi, thank You for Your images. Could You show some cropped comparisons, please?

Sincerely, Shlomo.

The bottom line on this is that from an acuity standpoint, the differences aren't worth worrying about. Issues such as color rendition and chroma are far more evident, but I suspect it in the latter's case I could easily make one look like the other and vice versa.  As Gordon mentions, the HB does have a DR advantage, this is well known, but in practice it's not normally noticed, let alone something to worry about. He also mentions, and I fully agree, the SL2 is a far more versatile, more rapid, superior EVF, etc, etc.  The one thing the 'blad has, IMO, is the best ergo on the planet, despite the lack of a joy stick/4 way controller. If it had one of those, a little more speed, IBIS, and a few more lens choices, it would be formidable. But it doesn't.   

I've done a couple of crops to satisfy your curiosity, but anyone choosing between this two on the basis of sensor acuity needs to have a mental health checkup. Either that or I need one and perhaps an eye exam as well.  1024x1024 100% crops.  

X1DII

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...