Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[Alistairm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the X1D is a better comparison for most Leica shooters, especially M body shooters, because size and weight wise it is a legitimate consideration to swap an M body for a X1D. I know that's what I did. Despite the Fuji MF system being cheaper, more flexible and at least as capable as the X1D, its UI and the experience of shooting with it is much more "SLR replacement" than the X1D, which can be used as a genuinely smallish walkaround camera. 

 

@Jared Really enjoyed your very well thought out analysis of the SL2 v X1D. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by Alistairm

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

Jared, thank you for your interesting analysis where I agree95%.

The only thing I dont agree that the x1d is more compact than SL. If you put one of the new  Summicrons on  SL(2) I would say it feels about the same size like the x1d+lens, while offering a faster f-stop.

 

[Chaemono]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Jared:

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.

No, I meant 1/3fps. Anyone who owns or who has used an X1D knows that it takes about two to four seconds per picture depending on whether one shoots JPEG, RAW, or both.

[Tailwagger]

14 hours ago, Chaemono said:

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.

Apologies to whoever posted the link to this article earlier, not sure if it was in this or another thread, but I just went back to finish reading the review and couldn't find who to attribute it to. So thanks for pointing this review out! The ISO results toward the end of the article look to sum up the noise comparison pretty well.  I was clicking through them without knowing which camera was which and it was easy to correctly guess which camera was which.  There's a bit more wiggle to the dance step than I'd expect from angels and pins, but IMO, and again, I think if you're deciding between these two, the more compelling reason for one over the other resides outside the IQ space.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Tailwagger

[Jared]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

Jared, thank you for your interesting analysis where I agree95%.

The only thing I dont agree that the x1d is more compact than SL. If you put one of the new  Summicrons on  SL(2) I would say it feels about the same size like the x1d+lens, while offering a faster f-stop.

 

Not very different, but the Summicrons are a bit longer than most of the XCD lenses.  Again, I can fit the X1D with any two of the primes (aside from the 80mm and 135mm) in a Harley Small.  Can’t do that with the SL/SL2 and two Summicrons.  Perhaps if you allowed M lenses?  Then I certainly could.  

It isn’t a huge difference, but my X1D is typically a bit more compact than my SL, and that was with primes not with the big zooms.

[Jared]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

No, I meant 1/3fps. Anyone who owns or who has used an X1D knows that it takes about two to four seconds per picture depending on whether one shoots JPEG, RAW, or both.

Not my experience at all with my X1D or X1D Mk II.  Maybe it’s that slow if I refocus between shots?  But definitely not with manual focus on continuous drive.  My Mk II is, I think, closer to 3fps than 2.  The original X1D was a bit slower, but still well over 1 FPS.  

In any event, neither camera is particularly practical for anything requiring continuous drive.  Mirror blackout alone ensures that.  Even my Mk II is virtually blind as long as I hold the shutter release down.  They are, essentially, single shot cameras.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Apologies to whoever posted the link to this article earlier, not sure if it was in this or another thread, 

Agent M10... this thread and another..

Jeff

[Fedro]

8 hours ago, Jared said:

Not my experience at all with my X1D or X1D Mk II.  Maybe it’s that slow if I refocus between shots?  But definitely not with manual focus on continuous drive.  My Mk II is, I think, closer to 3fps than 2.  The original X1D was a bit slower, but still well over 1 FPS.  

In any event, neither camera is particularly practical for anything requiring continuous drive.  Mirror blackout alone ensures that.  Even my Mk II is virtually blind as long as I hold the shutter release down.  They are, essentially, single shot cameras.

besides, I am not sure if people would buy the X1D for speed  - I certainly dont. The SL will always be faster. The the SL Mk1 was not super impressive in terms of AF, so hopefully the SL2 will be better. Cannot wait to have it in my hands (I believe on the 21st).

Back to the topic of image quality, I am sure that the SL2 will close the gap, but MF will retain some advantage in terms of details and DR. Remains to be seen what Hasselblad has in store for the X2D, if anything. The Mk2 of the X1D has improved usability but the sensor is the the same, much as it is a great performer ..

[Fedro]

X1D + 21

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!

[Fedro]

SL +24-90 @24mm only levels retouched - including dehaze - and slight rotate/crops

The SL looks amazing too, cannot wait to have the mk2

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 November 14, 2019 by Fedro

[Chaemono]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Tailwagger:

Apologies to whoever posted the link to this article earlier, not sure if it was in this or another thread, but I just went back to finish reading the review and couldn't find who to attribute it to. So thanks for pointing this review out! The ISO results toward the end of the article look to sum up the noise comparison pretty well.  I was clicking through them without knowing which camera was which and it was easy to correctly guess which camera was which.  There's a bit more wiggle to the dance step than I'd expect from angels and pins, but IMO, and again, I think if you're deciding between these two, the more compelling reason for one over the other resides outside the IQ space.

Thanks.  First, with all due respect for Thomas Berger, while his ISO noise findings are technically correct, they are for all practical purposes meaningless because the SL2 has IBIS, the X1D doesn't.  Hence, in practice one will never have to go as high in ISO with the SL2 which negates the noise advantages of the X1D.  Second, he doesn't test for DR and malleability of files.  The two go hand in hand, IMO.

I found these two X1D and M10 RAW files with some highlights and shadows on my computer.  RAW files can be downloaded.  One can see that at ISO 1600 the X1D captures some more highlight details 'out-of-the-box.'

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-SKHCXg/

X1D with LR defaults, Sharpening +50, no NR. RAW file can be downloaded here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g1018933556-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=i0lNIfWBbPMe0w3c7Vn759TOMaWtmvG99mD34ck5zxk=

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!

M10 WB adjusted to match, LR default, no NR.  RAW file can be downloaded here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g913176178-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=tEhq2iRUcR1CGyuSC1Rkn2Tq9wWqHVJhZODt4qfzMe0=
 

Edit - the M10 picture may be slightly brighter to begin with.  This would explain more blown highlights than with the X1D above. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

And now with Shadows +100 and Highlights -100.  I'm not convinced that the X1D will capture more highlight and shadow details than the SL2.  Besides, the X1D picture gets this over-the-top HDR look when highlights are pulled back all the way.  Further testing is needed.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-SKHCXg/

X1D like above and Shadows +100, Highlights -100

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!

M10 like above and Shadows +100, Highlights -100

[Mr.Q]

1 hour ago, Fedro said:

SL +24-90 @24mm only levels retouched - including dehaze - and slight rotate/crops

The SL looks amazing too, cannot wait to have the mk2

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 feel the X1D image retains a lot more color depth in the sky and water.

[Mr.Q]

1 hour ago, Fedro said:

besides, I am not sure if people would buy the X1D for speed  - I certainly dont. The SL will always be faster. The the SL Mk1 was not super impressive in terms of AF, so hopefully the SL2 will be better. Cannot wait to have it in my hands (I believe on the 21st).

Back to the topic of image quality, I am sure that the SL2 will close the gap, but MF will retain some advantage in terms of details and DR. Remains to be seen what Hasselblad has in store for the X2D, if anything. The Mk2 of the X1D has improved usability but the sensor is the the same, much as it is a great performer ..

Good point. While the criticism for the operational and AF speed of the X1D is warranted, neither camera is a sports camera. Granted, the SL2 is much faster overall, but browsing through the images in Jono's review thread, most of the 30+ images in the review are either of a static or posed subject. And that holds true for most of the SL2 reviews so far. (probably why none of those reviewers comment on the poor AF-C performance) So how much of the speed advantage is beneficial in the real world? For the way I use my X1D, the difference is negligible. Again, it's not for sports, and it's also certainly not suited for weddings, reportage or street photography either. Those are areas where the SL2 would be much much better. Sitting on a tripod for long exposures though, the 'blad with the small XCD lenses is a landscape photographer's dream camera. 

[Fedro]

2 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

I feel the X1D image retains a lot more color depth in the sky and water.

I agree

[Fedro]

1 hour ago, Mr.Q said:

Good point. While the criticism for the operational and AF speed of the X1D is warranted, neither camera is a sports camera. Granted, the SL2 is much faster overall, but browsing through the images in Jono's review thread, most of the 30+ images in the review are either of a static or posed subject. And that holds true for most of the SL2 reviews so far. (probably why none of those reviewers comment on the poor AF-C performance) So how much of the speed advantage is beneficial in the real world? For the way I use my X1D, the difference is negligible. Again, it's not for sports, and it's also certainly not suited for weddings, reportage or street photography either. Those are areas where the SL2 would be much much better. Sitting on a tripod for long exposures though, the 'blad with the small XCD lenses is a landscape photographer's dream camera. 

for anything on a tripod or slower shooting I find the X1D hard to beat. The quality level given weight is great

I love the SL for longer lenses, zooms etc

As others have pointed out, great not to have to choose between the two - right now

[Tailwagger]

Just spoke with my dealer who assured me I'll have a camera pretty soon, possibly in the first batch. Sounds as though there are quite a few folks lined up already.  In the meantime, a real world example of X1DII DR in what I would consider to be a very difficult scene and an example of why I enjoy working with the files. Foggy, extreme contrast.  Sadly I couldnt export the original at less than 500k for upload, but trust me, it is essentially nothing but light and shadow.  Settings were ISO 100, f5.0,  1/500 sec, handheld.

Lower left corner, the darkest area of the shot. Straight out of LR, no adjustments:

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!

Processed purely to show what happens when the sliders are maxed. Contrast, Highlights, Whites, Blacks, Shadows all slammed to 100.  Everything else default. Keep in mind this is an OOF area taken in foggy conditions (so not the best situation for analyzing noise) in the extreme corner while utilizing the least capable lens in the system. Sadly I forgot to apply the lens corrections before uploading for the post and couldn't find a way to replace the uploaded file (with 47MPx L-cameras perhaps its time to up the limit a tad). When the lens correction is applied the corner is lifted considerably above what is shown here.  This area could easily have up'd another 2-3+ stops beyond whats shown here with no ill effects. Regardless of the screwup, this conveys the general idea as to the level of flexibility on offer:

Finally the processed shot. As you can see while I favored retaining the high contrast in the foreground, the upper left was lifted considerably... note the fallen leaves from the top of the crop shots.  In the original, the red and orange of the leaves in the left corner were black, no indication of any color at all, save for a few spots where the shafts of light came through the trees.:

It's hard to imagine needing any more than this.  If the SL2 is close, and from the article it is, its going to be a winner in my book. 

[Tailwagger]

Hmmm... couldnt replace the second crop, but a new post can show it. Heres it is with the corrections applied.

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]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[CharlesL]

11 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

 (with 47MPx L-cameras perhaps its time to up the limit a tad).

When you want to show an image in detail or in the large, you can: 1. Upload the file to a website without stringent limits, for example, Flickr. 2. Get the URL of the uploaded image; in Flickr, use the Download symbol (a down arrow against a line), bring up the selection of sizes, and right-click on the desired size and copy the URL. 3. Use the URL in your post at the "Insert other media" box. After the first time, it is easier to do it than it was to read this recipe.

 

[Tailwagger]

16 minutes ago, CharlesL said:

When you want to show an image in detail or in the large, you can: 1. Upload the file to a website without stringent limits, for example, Flickr. 2. Get the URL of the uploaded image; in Flickr, use the Download symbol (a down arrow against a line), bring up the selection of sizes, and right-click on the desired size and copy the URL. 3. Use the URL in your post at the "Insert other media" box. After the first time, it is easier to do it than it was to read this recipe.

 

Didnt want to upload the crops to Flickr... the final shot is in fact a link to Flickr.