Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

SL2

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!

[Tailwagger]

X1DII

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Tailwagger]

SL2

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!

Edited June 19, 2020 by Tailwagger

[Tailwagger]

I hadn't intended to do this, but with the release of the latest SL2 firmware update, I thought I'd repeat last weeks exercise, this time using multi-shot.  Also this time, no holds barred in that, with one exception, I processed the shots as I normally would rather than limiting myself to LR auto. The one exception was that I did not attempt to remove any chroma or moire as this has been my most serious criticism of the X1D results, at least when armed with the 45mm.  If the X1D was marginally ahead in ultimate acuity in the above, here, at least to my eye it falls visibly behind. Certainly the 35mm Summicron proves itself to be seriously capable in resolving 1/2 pixels.  Under the right conditions the multi-shot result looks fantastic.  

X1D

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!

SL2

X1D

SL2

 

[Jim B]

Yes, nice test!  I think this really points out the advantages of shooting the Leica Apo lens. You can really see the differ even in how clean the white building becomes with the Apo. It was the first thing I noticed when first using my 90apo. How clean the whites were! No completely free of aberration! 
You should post these over on the Hasselblad digital forum, those guys will crap their pants....lol

Edited June 27, 2020 by Jim B

[Likaleica]

On 6/13/2020 at 1:26 PM, Tailwagger said:

This morning, I found myself on the grounds of one Massachusetts' many mothballed insane asylums. 

 

 

 

as a visitor, I trust.... ☺️

[Tailwagger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, Likaleica said:

as a visitor, I trust.... ☺️

Of course. Alumni are always encouraged to return to visit with old friends.

[tom0511]

I shot some comparisons in my garden today...I dont  have the time to post them. (x1d+45 vs sl2+35sl vs s007+45 and x1d+90 vs sl2+75sl)

Besides resolution and DR there is also a difference in bokeh quality, and here IMO the 35SL and 45S clearly beat the Hassy 45 (which is not bad, but not as beautiful as the Leica lens rendering IMO).

Obviously the x1d renders somewhat cooler, which can be adjusted.

I feel the x1d images are slightly "clearer" in some cases but also a little harsher while the Leica renders more "cinematic" and smoother.

I really like the ergo of the x1d, the speed of the SL2 and the OVF of the S

Overall I feel the SL2 for a full frame camera is damn close in IQ to the other two, in regards of bokeh even better than xcd (maybe the 80/1.9 or 65 or 135 are different animals)

Keeping in mind the flexibility of SL-zooms from 16mm to 280mm the SL2 to me seems a very very flexible system.

I thought about investing more into the x1d system because of the compact size over the Leica S, but the SL2 is soo good.

[tom0511]

I need to post some images the next days. Regarding my last comment, even though in some images the Leica Bokeh looks better (35SL vs 45xcd) I also found at pixel level some strange bokeh in some Leica images. I am not sure if it could be from IBIS. I have to test this.

[meerec]

On 6/19/2020 at 7:12 AM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

If, like me, you shoot a lot of long exposures then the X1D and SL2 don't seem similar at all.

G’Day Gordon @FlashGordonPhotography

Trust you’re safe from Covid and hope you’re finding a solution to your land erosion problem: saw you on tele the other day some time ago. 
I’m making a plunge into the Hasselblad world with the 907X and am wondering about your experience with the XCD 4/21 and 1.9/80 lenses, as these two I’m likely to acquire first. What’s your advice and good and bad things you can tell about these two?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

9 hours ago, meerec said:

G’Day Gordon @FlashGordonPhotography

Trust you’re safe from Covid and hope you’re finding a solution to your land erosion problem: saw you on tele the other day some time ago. 
I’m making a plunge into the Hasselblad world with the 907X and am wondering about your experience with the XCD 4/21 and 1.9/80 lenses, as these two I’m likely to acquire first. What’s your advice and good and bad things you can tell about these two?

Hi Meerec,

House is still standing (just). It'll be a long term project but we'll get there. Thanks.

The 21 and 80 are both fantastic lenses. The 80, especially is something special. AF on the 80 is a tiny bit slower and it's a beast (think SL 50 Summilux) but it's sharp and draws exquisitely  on the X1D. The 12. 30, 65 90, 120 (slow AF on the 120) and 135/TC are all really really good. The original 45 is a bit behind. I haven't tried the new version. I have all the lenses but mostly settle on the 21, 30, 35-75, 80 and 135/TC as my kit with the 21, 35-75 an 80 doing 90% of the work.

I'd love a 907X but I'm not letting myself as I just picked up the M10M & P in the last three months. Love to hear your experiences with it.

Stay safe mate....

Gordon

[tom0511]

Gordon,

would you mind to share your findings about the 35-75?

How does it handle (in regards of weight and size), and how do you like the IQ?

Do you use the x1d Vers. 1 or Vers.2?

Thanks a lot, Tom

[meerec]

11 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Hi Meerec,

House is still standing (just). It'll be a long term project but we'll get there. Thanks.

The 21 and 80 are both fantastic lenses. The 80, especially is something special. AF on the 80 is a tiny bit slower and it's a beast (think SL 50 Summilux) but it's sharp and draws exquisitely  on the X1D. The 12. 30, 65 90, 120 (slow AF on the 120) and 135/TC are all really really good. The original 45 is a bit behind. I haven't tried the new version. I have all the lenses but mostly settle on the 21, 30, 35-75, 80 and 135/TC as my kit with the 21, 35-75 an 80 doing 90% of the work.

I'd love a 907X but I'm not letting myself as I just picked up the M10M & P in the last three months. Love to hear your experiences with it.

Stay safe mate....

Gordon

@FlashGordonPhotography Gordon, I’m looking at the 80 or the 135 as my go-to portrait lens. And I mean half a figure portrait and headshots. Which one will work better if I can buy only one?
-mirek

Edited August 22, 2020 by meerec

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, meerec said:

@FlashGordonPhotography Gordon, I’m looking at the 80 or the 135 as my go-to portrait lens. And I mean half a figure portrait and headshots. Which one will work better if I can buy only one?
-mirek

Not a fair question.   Both are great. On paper probably the 135 as it's a 110mm~ equiv. BUT..... I'd choose the 80mm (65 equiv) every time. The 80 is special. You know when a system has one or two lenses that are just something you don't see in other systems? If I were only allowed one XCD lens it would be the 80.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Gordon,

would you mind to share your findings about the 35-75?

How does it handle (in regards of weight and size), and how do you like the IQ?

Do you use the x1d Vers. 1 or Vers.2?

Thanks a lot, Tom

I have one of each. A mk1 and mk2.

The zoom is fabulous. The best standard zoom for MiniMF ( I have 2 copies of the S30-90, the Hasselblad 35-90 and Pentax 45-85) I've used and better than any standard zoom for 135 format from just a few years ago. Size and handling is like the SL2 with 24-90 but with better body ergonomics. It's a lump but not unwieldy.

I haven't use my 45 or 65 since I got it and it's the core of my kit. Great lens. My favourite is the 80 but the zoom is the one that gets the most use.

Gordon

[tom0511]

Am 22.8.2020 um 22:50 schrieb FlashGordonPhotography:

I have one of each. A mk1 and mk2.

The zoom is fabulous. The best standard zoom for MiniMF ( I have 2 copies of the S30-90, the Hasselblad 35-90 and Pentax 45-85) I've used and better than any standard zoom for 135 format from just a few years ago. Size and handling is like the SL2 with 24-90 but with better body ergonomics. It's a lump but not unwieldy.

I haven't use my 45 or 65 since I got it and it's the core of my kit. Great lens. My favourite is the 80 but the zoom is the one that gets the most use.

Gordon

Thank you Gordon. The Zoom sounds very tempting. If it started at 30 the decision would be easier though.

Would you (or other who upgraded) mind to comment about how much faster the MKII feels? I know it is still not a speed daemon, but does it feel faster (startup, blackout, etc.)

I dont want to use it for action but for portraits sometimes, do i gain much upgrading to the mkII? Das it feel faster?

[Chaemono]

Consider that the mkII cuts the pain in the butt by about half. Is das enough to entice one to upgrade? You’ll have to judge for yourself. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

13 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Thank you Gordon. The Zoom sounds very tempting. If it started at 30 the decision would be easier though.

Would you (or other who upgraded) mind to comment about how much faster the MKII feels? I know it is still not a speed daemon, but does it feel faster (startup, blackout, etc.)

I dont want to use it for action but for portraits sometimes, do i gain much upgrading to the mkII? Das it feel faster?

Operation, definitely faster. Everything is snappier. Startup time is halved and zooming in on images is nearly instant. AF, not so much, but I have less problems with the AF on some HC adapted lenses. Also the EVF and rear screen are noticeably better.

The rubber material is slightly less grippy. That's the only thing I think is better on the MK1.

I too wish the zoom had a bit more range (for me to 90mm) but I accept that I get outstanding optics by not trying to make it a super zoom. I have the HC35-90 and it's actually very good (and enormous!!) but no where near the 35-75. What I really want is a 25mm to fill the gap between the 17 and 30. Or better yet a 20-35mm zoom of the same quality.

Gordon

[tom0511]

I agree there would be room for a 24 or 25mm lens, specially as an addition for users of the 35-75.

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Fedro]

a 21-35 zoom would be very nice to have