Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I could be wrong, but I thought the X1D sensor was the same as the GFX 50, ie, 14-bit sensor. Does the X1D process the 14-bit sensor data to add 2 extra bits for the raw files themselves ?

Edited November 13, 2019 by Jon Warwick

[jaapv]

The sensor does not produce the colour data, the interpolation in the internal processing of the camera does.

Late edit: Provided the sensor produces sufficient data.

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

The sensor does not produce the colour data, the interpolation in the internal processing of the camera does.

Thank you.  Interesting.  I found this discussion on the topic: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115890.0

[thighslapper]

18 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Thank you.  Interesting.  I found this discussion on the topic: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115890.0

Thanks .... this does explain a lot ..... and where the misconceptions about this subject come from .....

[jaapv]

48 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Thank you.  Interesting.  I found this discussion on the topic: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=115890.0

Yes, most of the information in that thread is correct. Note that it also explains why it is no use to have more (16) than 14 bits of colour depth. The remaining two bits will only record noise, which will be discarded by Photoshop anyway (despite having  a 16-bit conversion in ACR, but that is for other reasons)

[Jon Warwick]

So if several medium format sensors are actually 14 bit but then process the data through interpolation to 16 bit - why don’t 35mm full frame (with 14 bit sensors) do the same? Can exceptional microcontrast in SL Summicron lenses help get more colour depth from “just” 14 bits?Maybe I should stop - the discussion is reminiscent of whether Leica’s 12 bit on the M 246 made a visible difference vs the 14 bit on the MM1!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The question is - does interpolation add anything to the image quality? It is not like extra data -other than "invented" ones- are added. It is great on the camera spec sheet though.

[Chaemono]

It adds to processing requirement and heat.  No wonder the X1D is so slow.  We are talking 1/3fps.  Not sure how much faster the Mark II is.  The CPU would be too strained otherwise, I guess. 

[NicholasT]

14 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

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 find myself agreeing with this point of view.

I have to confess to having limited experience with medium format and no experience with X1D. For that reason alone I wouldn't blame anyone for dismissing my views out of hand.

That said, for what it's worth I lean in favor of the argument that a sensor to sensor comparison "alone" sort of misses the point even if ones goal is to create images with best possible IQ and print very large prints. The number of "controlled" circumstances in which the sensor alone will be the determining factor seem rather limited. 

The user interface of the camera, the quantity and quality of available glass, IBIS, camera handling speed, whether one is shooting handheld or using a tripod, length of the hike to arrive at shooting location (assuming one is involved) and a myriad of other factors are likely to play a far greater role in determining the quality of the output, and indeed as others have pointed out whether or not the shot ever gets taken in the first place. 

For most photographers and most shooting situations even when needing to produce large prints SL2 is likely to win out if "practical" considerations are fully taken into account.

Those few photographers and very specific controlled circumstances where medium format will noticeably outperform SL2 are such that the photographer in question doesn't even need to read these posts or ask for advice. Those select photographers "know" exactly how to extract the result they are seeking and they know that medium format is the best way for them to achieve the optimum result in their admittedly limited "use cases". 

The SL2 seems to deliver so much of the value that was previously thought of as the exclusive preserve of "medium" format  that it is  narrowing the number of instances where medium format is clearly the better tool.

Just a personal perspective. Regarding the finer points about sensor differences I  defer to those with the far deeper knowledge about medium format, which includes a awful lot of folks on this forum.

[Jeff S]

Calling the X1D 16 bit seems more marketing-speak, considering it’s not coming from the sensor.

Jeff

[Alistairm]

On 11/12/2019 at 4:22 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

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

I am in exactly the same boat. Having used the S1R for a while now I didn’t hesitate to order as SL2. As good as the XCD lenses are, and there is nothing to complain about with any that I own, I slightly prefer the way the Leica lenses draw and I love the flexibility of the SL system, including the ability to use small and fast M lenses and the wonderful native glass. But while it’s getting long in the tooth and is slow, the X1D’s sensor still produces the best IQ of any camera I’ve had the pleasure of using, which is astonishing when you consider how compact the XCD with 45 lens is. 

I’ll be keeping a foot in each camp for now and hope both systems stay true to their current paths. 

[Agent M10]

Here is a short article I found about the SL2 and X1D. Thomas Burger shows it's real close. Looking forward to next week.

[Jared]

20 hours ago, otto.f said:

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.

The X1D (which I own and love) is not really a 16 bit camera in any event.  While the files are 16 bit, the chip itself is not.  If the chip isn’t generating 16 bit data, not really a 16 bit result.  I can’t take an 8 bit JPG, convert it to a 16 bit TIFF, and expect to get all the benefits of a raw file.  Thanks kinda what Hasselblad is claiming when they say it’s a 16 bit camera.  Take that one with a big grain of salt as a marketing claim with little actual improvement to back it up.

[Jared]

6 hours ago, Chaemono said:

It adds to processing requirement and heat.  No wonder the X1D is so slow.  We are talking 1/3fps.  Not sure how much faster the Mark II is.  The CPU would be too strained otherwise, I guess. 

The speed of the X1D (both versions) and the Fuji equivalents is limited primarily by the chip itself, not the processing afterwards.  The chip has a 300ms write speed per frame, so 3fps or so is about the maximum regardless of DSP capabilities.  You wrote ⅓ FPS.  I assume you meant 3fps.  My X1D Mk 1, in practice, could achieve about 2fps and the Mk II version I own is about 3fps.  The Fuji’s are a touch faster and come close to the theoretical limit for the chip.  None of them are action cameras, but the slowness is not related (at least not primarily) to the file size or processing requirements.

[Jared]

On 11/7/2019 at 10:24 PM, biswasg said:

Presently a Leica M owner, I am considering moving to an autofocus solution. The newly launched Leica SL2 have great specs and functionality, the other high end camera on the market is the Hasselblad X1D. Both now have almost equivalent  pixels 47 megapixels vs 50 megapixels respectively. However, the Leica is a 35 mm full-frame and the Hassy is the 40% or so larger mid-size sensor.

I am wondering, from the perspective of the image quality, which would be better, especially for making prints and displaying on a large sized screen? Technically, the mid-size sensor, but in reality? Would like to hear from those with experience and if there is a difference, is it discernible?

Thanks

Gautam

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 over the other. Comparing this aspect is like discussing angels on the head of a pin.  There are much more obvious and almost certainly important reasons to choose one over the other.  Seriously.  Either can produce large prints with substantially similar apparent sharpness.  There are a reasonably wide range of excellent quality lenses available for either, especially if you include adapted lenses and third party lenses.  Just skip this concern.  Really.

2) The SL2 has some really obvious advantages in terms of flexibility.  First, it is a much faster camera, both in terms of responsiveness, shutter lag, FPS, as well as AF.  It also has multiple, excellent zooms available while the X1D is mostly limited to primes.  The SL also has very capable video.  If you want a “do it all” camera, it’s not even close.  The SL2 is far superior.  SL2 also has IBIS.

3) The X1D has more dynamic range than the SL2 (assuming the SL2 is roughly similar to the Q2), but both have ample dynamic range, especially at base ISO, for the vast majority of photos.  If I did a lot of long exposure photography, though, the X1D is by far the better camera.  By long exposure, I mean multiple seconds, tripod mounted or with a tracking mount for night sky.  I actually do a fair amount of this, and I pushed my Q2 pretty hard in terms of its long exposure capabilities with image stacking, etc., and while that chip is reasonably capable, this is once place where the X1D will far exceed the SL2.  It’s noticeable and easy to see and doesn’t require pixel peeping.

4) X1D is better at higher ISO than the chip in the SL2 (again, assuming substantially similar to Q2 chip).  But, in many situations where you would want high ISO capabilities, other aspects of the X1D’s performance could hold it back such as lack of IBIS, mediocre to poor AF speed and low light focus capabilities, etc.  That may mitigate the X1D’s advantage depending on the type and style of subject.

5) Viewfinder is much better in the SL2, but the Mk II version of the X1D is “good enough” that I am no longer limited by the viewfinder, so this is more about joy of using the tool than it is about getting/missing a shot.  The same was not true with the early version of the X1D whose viewfinder was poor enough that I didn’t do as good a job composing, and I could struggle with manual focus in really, really low light, e.g., starry nights.

6) UI and haptics are really, really excellent in both.  From this perspective, these are, I think, the two best cameras currently made.  This is a personal choice, of course, but both cameras do an exceptionally good job of allowing you access to the controls you need without a large number of buttons that may be hard to remember and without a complex menu structure.  Both cameras are winners in this area.  Of the two, I prefer the X1D for both haptics and controls, but reasonable people could choose differently.

7) The X1D is the smaller, lighter camera in most situations.  I can put an X1D with two lenses in a Hadley Small bag, for example, but can’t do that with the SL2.

8). Battery life is better in the SL2.  It is mediocre in both, but better in the SL2.

9) They handle colors very differently.  It is an obvious difference in every shot.  You can make images from one look like images from the other, but out of camera the colors are very different.  Especially greens and magenta’s.  Not better or worse, just different.  I won’t get too much more specific on this, because I am again assuming the SL2 colors (after Adobe has a profile for the camera and isn’t using the embedded DNG profile) will be similar to the Q2. 

10) If you use Capture 1 rather than Adobe, the SL2 is the obvious choice since Phase is unlikely to ever support Hasselblad raw file formats.

11) If you work with strobes, the X1D has some real advantages.  Nikon compatibility and a leaf shutter are huge.  With Leica, strobes are really an afterthought.  Less of an utter disaster than they used to be, but still quite poor on balance.  Luckily (for Leica), the trend is to do more and more of the lighting work in post.

In summary... Where my shooting requirements fall within both cameras’ capabilities, e.g., landscape, still or slow moving subjects, more contemplative photography, I would take the X1D due to its smaller size and weight, better dynamic range, better high ISO performance, and the UI that I prefer.  But any time the X1D leaves it’s “comfort zone” it becomes a really poor camera.  Slow, limited range of focal lengths with native glass, no (OK, one) zoom, no IBIS, long viewfinder blackout, no continuous focus, etc..  I will still keep the X1D when my SL2 arrives, but if I could only have one of them it would be the SL2 because it’s just a much more flexible camera.  Mostly, I’m very grateful I don’t have to make that choice.  There are lenses I love in the X1D lineup, and a few places/situations where the X1D has a distinct and obvious advantage over the SL2 that make for better pictures.

Resolution, though?  Forget about it. Depth of field differences between formats?  Not relevant since full frame’s lens speed advantage tends to offset MF’s chip size advantage.  Medium format magic?  No such thing.  Larger format chips have more full well capacity and generally better dynamic range for a given generation of chip, but there is no magic, and the days where one could point to a moderate-to-large size print or a computer monitor image and say, “only with medium format” are well behind us.  Choose whichever tool better suits your photographic needs and your particular joy in photography.  

[CharlesL]

The Fuji GFX cameras deserve comparison. The X1D has a leaf shutter, no? It is easy to use M-mount glass on the Fuji GFX's, and they have a 35mm mode that uses the center part of the sensor, so you don't worry about vignette and you get a smaller raw file. The cameras also have a good line of prime lenses, which of course use the entire "medium format" sensor.

 

[wellfleet]

12 minutes ago, CharlesL said:

The Fuji GFX cameras deserve comparison. 

 

Shouldn't that be for another thread? The title of this thread is "Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2." It seems pretty specific. 

[CharlesL]

2 minutes ago, wellfleet said:

Shouldn't that be for another thread? The title of this thread is "Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2." It seems pretty specific. 

The OP stated, " the other high end camera on the market is the Hasselblad X1D" and the discussion is to a large degree about sensor size difference. I merely note that the X1D is one of the other high end cameras on the market at the larger sensor size.

[wellfleet]

But the OP didn't ask about that.

53 minutes ago, CharlesL said:

 the discussion is to a large degree about sensor size difference. 

Where is that discussed?  So far, the only two sensors being discussed have been specific to the OP's thread title, and it would be nice to limit it to that. Maybe we should follow what Jaapv has stated in the Leica SL2 thread, " Actually, this thread is meant to showcase SL2 images as and when they become available,  just like all other camera-specific image threads, not for this kind of discussion. Please use or start appropriate threads for those."

Edited November 13, 2019 by wellfleet

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Tailwagger]

17 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

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.

On the other hand, the physics of light havent changed in a 13.5 billion years or thereabouts, so getting a few more years out of the old girl shouldn't be that surprising.   😉