Image quality comparison between Hasselblad X1D II and Leica SL2

[CharlesL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

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

Yes, our posts seem to have crossed.

Also, you can hide images uploaded to Flickr, so they do not clutter your photostream as others see it -- while you still have the capability of snatching the URL and using it in a thread like this.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, CharlesL said:

Yes, our posts seem to have crossed.

Also, you can hide images uploaded to Flickr, so they do not clutter your photostream as others see it -- while you still have the capability of snatching the URL and using it in a thread like this.

Thanks, hadn't thought of making them private. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Q]

I finally visited the Leica store and handled the SL2. According to the Leica staff, firmware was the latest production version. 

- I like the design. Makes the camera look smaller than the SL1.

- The EVF is fantastic. Honestly though, I can't tell the difference with the latest 3MP+ EVF's anymore. They're all good enough.

- I'm underwhelmed with the new controls. I'm now convinced that the 4-button layout was the best thing the SL had going for it. The Leica guys agreed.

- The new menu screen is also a step in the wrong direction. Operationally it's now the same as Sony's FN screen or Fuji's Q screen.

- The new grip is an improvement, but the X1D still feels much better in hand.

- IBIS works as advertised. Got sharp shots off at 1/4s with the 50/2 SL. With the X1D + 80/1.9, I got blurry pictures even at 1/40s.

- AF-S was super snappy, just like the Q. AF-C tracking was unreliable. No surprises here.

I took a few shots to compare against the X1D files, but my interest in the SL2 has waned significantly. While IQ is important, haptics is also a priority for me. It's why I pay a premium to shoot with Leica's and Hassy's. I recently sold my Q2 in favor of the Q-P for it's superior handling, and I fear I'll be making the same mistake with the SL2.  I'm now off the pre-order list. Sorry to be a downer.

[Tailwagger]

8 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

- The EVF is fantastic. Honestly though, I can't tell the difference with the latest 3MP+ EVF's anymore. They're all good enough.

- I'm underwhelmed with the new controls. I'm now convinced that the 4-button layout was the best thing the SL had going for it. The Leica guys agreed.

- IBIS works as advertised. Got sharp shots off at 1/4s with the 50/2 SL. With the X1D + 80/1.9, I got blurry pictures even at 1/40s.

- AF-S was super snappy, just like the Q. AF-C tracking was unreliable. No surprises here.

1, 3 & 4 (along with a reasonable, for Leica, initial asking price) are what have me convinced to go for it.  #2 doesn't bother me as much as I never used the 4 button and its similar to the M10, so at least somewhat familiar.  To be honest,  where the SL is concerned, my interest has always been driven by the lenses. The body is largely just a vessel to mount the optics to.  I could easily live without the SL2 per se, but I'm finding it increasingly hard to live without a few of those L-Summicrons.   

[Agent M10]

16 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

1, 3 & 4 (along with a reasonable, for Leica, initial asking price) are what have me convinced to go for it.  #2 doesn't bother me as much as I never used the 4 button and its similar to the M10, so at least somewhat familiar.  To be honest,  where the SL is concerned, my interest has always been driven by the lenses. The body is largely just a vessel to mount the optics to.  I could easily live without the SL2 per se, but I'm finding it increasingly hard to live without a few of those L-Summicrons.   

I'm of the same mind, ever since I saw the differences between the Summicrons and M lenses in an LFI magazine a few months ago. 

[Mr.Q]

22 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

1, 3 & 4 (along with a reasonable, for Leica, initial asking price) are what have me convinced to go for it.  #2 doesn't bother me as much as I never used the 4 button and its similar to the M10, so at least somewhat familiar.  To be honest,  where the SL is concerned, my interest has always been driven by the lenses. The body is largely just a vessel to mount the optics to.  I could easily live without the SL2 per se, but I'm finding it increasingly hard to live without a few of those L-Summicrons.   

That makes sense as well, and I agree that the Summicrons are extremely desirable, especially the new 35. Admittedly, the issues I have with the camera (size, weight, haptics, controls) are very personal. After handling it for 30 minutes, I quickly realized that it wouldn't inspire me to go out and shoot like the X1D II.  And that goes beyond any difference in IQ or features, as I have enough cameras collecting dust already 

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Mr.Q:

That makes sense as well, and I agree that the Summicrons are extremely desirable, especially the new 35. Admittedly, the issues I have with the camera (size, weight, haptics, controls) are very personal. After handling it for 30 minutes, I quickly realized that it wouldn't inspire me to go out and shoot like the X1D II.  And that goes beyond any difference in IQ or features, as I have enough cameras collecting dust already 

interesting. for me it is the opposite way.. I like the x1d but the slowish start up and the blackout annoy me sometimes. The x1dII I demoded was better but still slowish.

[Jeff S]

Great to have such wonderful choices.  Good times for customers, even if not for many manufacturers.

Jeff

[Tailwagger]

On 11/14/2019 at 3:05 AM, Chaemono said:

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. 

And now, with both in my hands, I can say that you are absolutely correct.  And this is the problem with tests as opposed to the real world. There is no doubt that the X1D is marginally better all things being equal. But they are not, as you astutely pointed out. I can say having shot with the pair today that in the real world of actually making photographs, for static subjects at least, the SL2 has the edge, and a significant one. Last night, with the SL2, I was able to reliably shoot the 75mm at  0.6 seconds at ISO 100 under conditions that with IBIS off, I had to push things to 3200 (noise was easily dealt with in post). To hand hold the X1D in the same situation with the 90mm 3.2 would  require very good technique, minimally at 6400. This due, not merely to the lack of IBIS, but the slowness of the lens compared to the Summicron.

This in no way is a knock against the value of the X1D, but  it does speak to the versatility of the SL2. On a tripod, the X1D noses the SL2 out, but in your hand, there is no comparison.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Tailwagger

[LS1]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

And now, with both in my hands, I can say that you are absolutely correct.  And this is the problem with tests as opposed to the real world. There is no doubt that the X1D is marginally better all things being equal. But they are not, as you astutely pointed out. I can say having shot with the pair today that in the real world of actually making photographs, for static subjects at least, the SL2 has the edge, and a significant one. Last night, with the SL2, I was able to reliably shoot the 75mm at  0.6 seconds at ISO 100 under conditions that with IBIS off, I had to push things to 3200 (noise was easily dealt with in post). To hand hold the X1D in the same situation with the 90mm 3.2 would  require very good technique, minimally at 6400. This due, not merely to the lack of IBIS, but the slowness of the lens compared to the Summicron.

This in no way is a knock against the value of the X1D, but  it does speak to the versatility of the SL2. On a tripod, the X1D noses the SL2 out, but in your hand, there is no comparison.

Agree with you, I too have both , in good light results pretty similar, slight edge to X1d. Low light, big edge to sl2/ ibis. However, for me, because of the larger lcd screen, the x1d enables a different kind of shooting, where you can brace the camera on a table, wall etc and compose on the larger screen. Sure you can do this with any camera, but the 3.6 inch display just makes it easier. Shooting this way I get pretty close to sl2/ibis, and kinda enjoy framing shooting off tripod this way. medium format iPhone 😂

 

[Tailwagger]

One other point, not directly relate to image quality. I was noticing that in LR dealing with the SL2 files seems snappier and less of a burden to deal with than the X1D's.  In looking at the file sizes I was a little perplexed, given there's roughly a 6% difference in pixel count, but the X1D raw file size is consistently double or greater than that of the SL2.  Random example:

SL2 file size, raw and processed:

84M Nov 28 09:04 L1000101.DNG

238M Nov 28 19:10 L1000101-Edit.tif

X1D files , raw and processed

177M Nov 28 11:05 B0001211.DNG

284M Nov 28 20:09 B0001211-Edit.tif

While the processed versions look to be at least in the ball park of file size difference between processed photos, there's a far greater disparity in the OOC raw files. While file size vary on both platforms  + or - 10Mb, the ratios seem to be in place regardless of the shot content. I might of thought that the SL2 files would be more problematic as one would think they are more aggressively compressed, so more work to unpack with similar amounts of memory used once done. Perhaps the gulf in raw size and speed under LR is somehow a consequence of the pseudo 16-bittedness of the X1D, but who knows. Anyhoo, I thought it was curious enough to report.  

[CharlesL]

Difference in .DNG size may in part be a result of how large a preview JPG is embedded into it.

Also, if you run an uncompressed DNG file through Adobe Raw Converter, you will probably get a much different file size. You can put the new DNG through the same LR steps; there should be no difference, or there might be a difference because Adobe assumes white balance matrices based on D65 while previous Leica cameras, including the SL, build the matrices based on D50.

 

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

One other point, not directly relate to image quality. I was noticing that in LR dealing with the SL2 files seems snappier and less of a burden to deal with than the X1D's.  In looking at the file sizes I was a little perplexed, given there's roughly a 6% difference in pixel count, but the X1D raw file size is consistently double or greater than that of the SL2.  Random example:

SL2 file size, raw and processed:

84M Nov 28 09:04 L1000101.DNG

238M Nov 28 19:10 L1000101-Edit.tif

X1D files , raw and processed

177M Nov 28 11:05 B0001211.DNG

284M Nov 28 20:09 B0001211-Edit.tif

While the processed versions look to be at least in the ball park of file size difference between processed photos, there's a far greater disparity in the OOC raw files. While file size vary on both platforms  + or - 10Mb, the ratios seem to be in place regardless of the shot content. I might of thought that the SL2 files would be more problematic as one would think they are more aggressively compressed, so more work to unpack with similar amounts of memory used once done. Perhaps the gulf in raw size and speed under LR is somehow a consequence of the pseudo 16-bittedness of the X1D, but who knows. Anyhoo, I thought it was curious enough to report.  

Hasselblad raw files are using 16-bit data, while SL2 raws are using 14-bit data. I assume that causes the difference in file sizes.

[sillbeers15]

MF sensor will no doubt produce very desirable depth in IQ that differentiate  itself.

I am also pleasantly surprised how close the pics IQ from the SL2 and SL lenses can produce in term of ‘desirable depth’.

[Mr.Q]

On 11/29/2019 at 1:41 AM, Tailwagger said:

And now, with both in my hands, I can say that you are absolutely correct.  And this is the problem with tests as opposed to the real world. There is no doubt that the X1D is marginally better all things being equal. But they are not, as you astutely pointed out. I can say having shot with the pair today that in the real world of actually making photographs, for static subjects at least, the SL2 has the edge, and a significant one. Last night, with the SL2, I was able to reliably shoot the 75mm at  0.6 seconds at ISO 100 under conditions that with IBIS off, I had to push things to 3200 (noise was easily dealt with in post). To hand hold the X1D in the same situation with the 90mm 3.2 would  require very good technique, minimally at 6400. This due, not merely to the lack of IBIS, but the slowness of the lens compared to the Summicron.

This in no way is a knock against the value of the X1D, but  it does speak to the versatility of the SL2. On a tripod, the X1D noses the SL2 out, but in your hand, there is no comparison.

You could always get the 80/1.9.  I've also had very good results with my 50 lux ASPH for casual/slow stuff in darker situations, but I'm usually drunk those hours so I'd rather roll with a simpler camera (ie the Q2) 

A fast wide (like the 24/1.4 GM) would be awesome for both systems.   

[PeterGA]

Different cameras. The SL2 is much much more versatile and delivers 90% of the IQ 99% of the time. there are photographs I can make on the SL2 I could never make using an X series from Hasselblad. However the larger sensor does deliver its own 'look' and the form factor, quality of build can't be faulted if bling is your thing - was 'sexy' enough for me to buy into the system. I've since replaced it with better - but I do miss the form factor if not its obvious and many shortcomings.

[Alistairm]

I’ve now had a good go using the SL2. I’m an X1D shooter (not mkII), but IQ should be similar/identical. For my style of shooting, the X1D sensor and native lens combinations are still comfortably ahead of the SL2 on raw IQ, with files that remain very noticeably more malleable in post processing and with the X1D having better dynamic range, better noise characteristics at high ISO and just overall a depth that the smaller format sensor doesn’t match. 

That said, I echo the comments above... the advantages of IBIS are real, and the SL2 shines in versatility. For my use case this is especially so when using M lenses in the evening and at night, where the SL2 becomes a very simple to handle and very effective low light camera. The combination of the superb compatibility with M glass, IBIS and a brilliant EVF that makes focussing all my M glass a cinch gives me a camera that can go from being a do it all SLR replacement beast with superb native SL glass (including zooms) and then switch to a reasonably compact camera using M lenses that are fast, high quality and have lovely and unique rendering. 

So, as usual in my X1D v SL contemplations, I end up concluding that both systems handle beautifully, both have wonderful native glass, the X1D sensor (despite being long in the tooth now) remains mind boggling and the native glass is lovely, but the SL2 comes close IQ wise, also has amazing native glass, is much more versatile and is even more versatile now with IBIS and the superb compatibility with M glass gives access to a series of lenses that are unparalleled in terms of size, speed and quality and a manual focussing experience that is better than any other camera I have ever used. 

[nicci78]

I asked one of my favourite reseller in Paris : Elle & Lui (which is also the second biggest Leica dealer in France and a wedding/Studio photographer) Also sell Hasselblad and Sigma.
Which one to choose ? 

For him there is no contest : SL2 with SL lenses are way better than X1D II + Nittoh’s made XCD lenses. Nothing beats Leica’s lenses. Especially the APO-Summicron-SL, combined with the SL2. They are way better than Blad’s mirrorless, because SL2 > X1D II & SL lenses > XCD. So the maths is simple. 
 

For their own work they still use original SL with SL lenses. Usability wise it is better than X1D II. They will switch to SL2 when the demand from their customers will lower. 
 

So they convinced me not to choose Hasselblad.

 

[Fedro]

these comparisons are a little pointless unless you get more specific .. they are quite different cameras and serve different purposes

The X1D excels at a few styles (like landscapes) and is not very good at others, the SL2 is much more flexible and usable for a wider range of applications

So it really depends on what you use them for

Edited November 30, 2019 by Fedro

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Alistairm]

Double post. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Alistairm