Hasselblad X1DIi + 45mm F4P, the Q2 alternative?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

In a photo sharing coffee meet, friends told me X1DIi + 45mm F4P is the Hasselblad version of Q2. 

From the quick glance, I really like X1D tonality. I think the 36mm equivalent view angle is more suitable than 28mm. It’s F4 is slower than Q2,  but should only affect the gradual focusing rendering, not so much about the low light, 

Any direct longer term experiences? 

[Leica28]

If I were you I would rent one for a month to see how well you like it.  

[Jeff S]

Interchangeable vs fixed lens.  Different sensor size.  Different aspect ratio.  Different field of view (many own 28 and 35 for that very reason). Different controls and ergonomics.  

I agree that testing is the only way to know.  I did just that, with multiple systems, before choosing the SL2.

Jeff

[Einst_Stein]

28 minutes ago, Leica28 said:

If I were you I would rent one for a month to see how well you like it.  

That will be the second step. 

[Einst_Stein]

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Interchangeable vs fixed lens.  Different sensor size.  Different aspect ratio.  Different field of view (many own 28 and 35 for that very reason). Different controls and ergonomics.  

I agree that testing is the only way to know.  I did just that, with multiple systems, before choosing the SL2.

Jeff

How many systems have you rented and how much money have you spent?

[Jeff S]

29 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

How many systems have you rented and how much money have you spent?

Leica S006, Hasselblad X1D, SL and SL2, Fuji GFX and Nikon Z7.  Set up extensive dealer demos with all, no charge. This was over 18 months; no rush to find the best complement to my M gear. Rented a 50 M APO for a few hundred bucks to use with my M gear for better comparison. Processed files and made prints with all.  No surprises when I landed on the SL2.  And I bought a 50 M APO, black chrome, since I didn’t like the controls and ergonomics on the standard version that I rented.

Jeff

Edited September 30, 2020 by Jeff S

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

43 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Leica S006, Hasselblad X1D, SL and SL2, Fuji GFX and Nikon Z7.  Set up extensive dealer demos with all, no charge. This was over 18 months; no rush to find the best complement to my M gear. Rented a 50 M APO for a few hundred bucks to use with my M gear for better comparison. Processed files and made prints with all.  No surprises when I landed on the SL2.  And I bought a 50 M APO, black chrome, since I didn’t like the controls and ergonomics on the standard version that I rented.

Jeff

No X1D II, no 907X? No Canon, no Sony?

[Jeff S]

11 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

No X1D II, no 907X? No Canon, no Sony?

No, no, no and no. X1Dii not available locally (and no need to rent once I tried SL2), zero interest in others.  I had specific decision criteria and priorities, including viewing and focusing, native lenses, ergonomics and controls, weather sealing (body and lenses), and such.

Jeff

Edited October 1, 2020 by Jeff S

[nicci78]

13 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

In a photo sharing coffee meet, friends told me X1DIi + 45mm F4P is the Hasselblad version of Q2. 

From the quick glance, I really like X1D tonality. I think the 36mm equivalent view angle is more suitable than 28mm. It’s F4 is slower than Q2,  but should only affect the gradual focusing rendering, not so much about the low light, 

Any direct longer term experiences? 

2.5 stops less light gathering. 
No OIS     
Slower operations (AF et general use)
Bigger body     
No macro ability.  
35mm equivalent  

I am not sure why it would be a Q2 equivalent. 

[ramarren]

18 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

In a photo sharing coffee meet, friends told me X1DIi + 45mm F4P is the Hasselblad version of Q2. 

From the quick glance, I really like X1D tonality. I think the 36mm equivalent view angle is more suitable than 28mm. It’s F4 is slower than Q2,  but should only affect the gradual focusing rendering, not so much about the low light, 

Any direct longer term experiences? 

I have the Hasselblad 907x Special Edition and XCD 45/4 P, as well as the Leica CL that I use with M and R lenses. I've considered a Q2, but for my uses a CL with an appropriate lens does what I want that form-factor camera to do so nicely there's really little point. I bought the 907x instead of the X1D II because I can use the digital back with my 500CM bodies and lenses as well. 

As a replacement for the Q2 ... Sure, the X1D II with 45P lens is a larger format 50Mpixel camera of roughly similar size and weight, with an EVF, and produces superb photographs. The crop factor compared to the Q2 is 1.3x larger, so the 45P nets a FoV that is closer to 35mm focal length coverage on the Q2 FF format and the DoF would be as if you were working with a 35mm f/2.8 lens. Hasselblad's tethering capabilities and color science using their Phocus software are excellent. 

The Hasselblad will cost a bit more but ultimately is the more flexible camera. There's a lot of good to be had with both cameras: Only you can decide which works better for you, fits your needs better. 

G

[brickftl]

12 hours ago, nicci78 said:

2.5 stops less light gathering. 
No OIS     
Slower operations (AF et general use)
Bigger body     
No macro ability.  
35mm equivalent  

I am not sure why it would be a Q2 equivalent. 

it's not at all a Q2 equivalent for all the reasons you cite, as well as the fact that having a fixed lens camera is a different (and to many like me, preferable) alternative to a changeable lens camera.

[Jared]

On 9/30/2020 at 11:39 AM, Einst_Stein said:

In a photo sharing coffee meet, friends told me X1DIi + 45mm F4P is the Hasselblad version of Q2. 

From the quick glance, I really like X1D tonality. I think the 36mm equivalent view angle is more suitable than 28mm. It’s F4 is slower than Q2,  but should only affect the gradual focusing rendering, not so much about the low light, 

Any direct longer term experiences? 

I have owned each for about as long as they have been out. Neither is a substitute for the other. They are very different cameras. The Hasselblad has more dynamic range and creates richer, more malleable files. It has the single best control layout of any camera on the market. The Hasselblad also plays nicely with a wide range of strobes. The 45P (unlike the original 45mm lens for the X series) is optically superb and very compact. The AF on the X1Dii is slow and finicky and there is a fair amount of shutter lag. Forget using it for moving subjects, even people walking. Obviously, the 35mm equivalent field of view and 4:3 aspect ratio is also different. The X1Dii can be charged or tethered via USB-C while the Q2 can not. Obviously, one could buy other lenses for the X1D as well which one can’t do for the Q2.

The Q2 is significantly smaller and lighter. It has macro capabilities. The AF is much faster and more reliable than in the Hasselblad. The frame rate is higher. The lens is quite a bit faster. There is OIS.

Which is the better choice will come down to the type of photography you intend to do. The Q2 is the better choice for street. It’s also the better choice, I think, for vacations or travel when photography is a secondary aspect of the trip. The X1Dii is the better choice for studio work of any type, for any photography involving a tripod (though the 45mm lens may require you build a panorama for wider fields of view) and it would excel at environmental portraits. I’d say the X1Dii is surprisingly light and compact for a medium format, but it’s still much less convenient than the Q2. Both are excellent, excellent cameras capable of superb results with a skilled photographer. Neither is a ‘one camera for all situations’ type of system.

[Einst_Stein]

4 hours ago, Jared said:

I have owned each for about as long as they have been out. Neither is a substitute for the other. They are very different cameras. The Hasselblad has more dynamic range and creates richer, more malleable files. It has the single best control layout of any camera on the market. The Hasselblad also plays nicely with a wide range of strobes. The 45P (unlike the original 45mm lens for the X series) is optically superb and very compact. The AF on the X1Dii is slow and finicky and there is a fair amount of shutter lag. Forget using it for moving subjects, even people walking. Obviously, the 35mm equivalent field of view and 4:3 aspect ratio is also different. The X1Dii can be charged or tethered via USB-C while the Q2 can not. Obviously, one could buy other lenses for the X1D as well which one can’t do for the Q2.

The Q2 is significantly smaller and lighter. It has macro capabilities. The AF is much faster and more reliable than in the Hasselblad. The frame rate is higher. The lens is quite a bit faster. There is OIS.

Which is the better choice will come down to the type of photography you intend to do. The Q2 is the better choice for street. It’s also the better choice, I think, for vacations or travel when photography is a secondary aspect of the trip. The X1Dii is the better choice for studio work of any type, for any photography involving a tripod (though the 45mm lens may require you build a panorama for wider fields of view) and it would excel at environmental portraits. I’d say the X1Dii is surprisingly light and compact for a medium format, but it’s still much less convenient than the Q2. Both are excellent, excellent cameras capable of superb results with a skilled photographer. Neither is a ‘one camera for all situations’ type of system.

I tried both on my hand. Yes, X1DII + 45MM feels much heavier than Q2 and significantly bigger.  The shutter lag is noticible slower. Everything is about proportional to the price  (quote: $6200 vs. $4615). But X1DIi has much preferred IQ and the focal length,  I think X1DII weakness is manageable.

All in all, it is enough for me to put off my interests in Q2. Upgrade the 35mm lens on M 240? maybe, maybe not. The price is not much lower than X1DII + 45MM F4P. 

Edited October 2, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[Jared]

If the X1DII is a better match for your uses, by all means get it. It’s issues are well documented and will not be a problem for many types of photography. I love mine. I also love my Q2. I much prefer to use the X1DII when I have static subjects and don’t need OIS. The image quality is, indeed, better. The benefits of a larger chip with larger pixel pitch. It’s an astonishingly small, light camera for mini-medium format and the controls are a joy to use. It’s just not a speed demon and has no OIS or IBIS.

[tom0511]

Q2 is much smaller and lighter, it is also faster.

I would prefer the Q2 when it shall be light, or small, or fast.

I do however love the x1dII for portraits and tonality. The x1dII lso has the advantage that you can mount other lenses. I love ther 80/1.9 for example.

 

[Tp2000]

I have them both side by side at the moment to make a decision on the x1dii. Sure, the X1dii is ultimately better from an IQ perspective, but I was surprised at how well the Q2 holds up under half decent lighting conditions. 

The X1dii is a beautiful piece of engineering and the layout and feel in the hand trumps most cameras I can think of. The interface and menu system is fabulous too.

Whether it makes it into the bag more permanently I'm unsure. I took both out this evening for a night walk and found myself reaching for the Q2 as the AF just worked in the complex lit night scenes. That said, the low light performance of the X1D is breathtaking and its Auto White Balance in complex situations left me scratching my head in how accurate it was.

Have to admit to being fascinated by the SL35 & SL2 against the X1dii and the 45p in a comparison.

Neither will do you a disservice, but at the moment I'm struggling to justify the X1d over the Q2.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Tp2000

[Einst_Stein]

Q2 is the biggest small camera, while X1DII + 45P is the smallest big camera.

I would prefer a 35mm Q2, but X-U (X113) works just as well with me.  

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Q2 is the biggest small camera, while X1DII + 45P is the smallest big camera.

I would prefer a 35mm Q2, but X-U (X113) works just as well with me.  

The Q2 is already a 30mp APS-H 35mm-FOV camera with the rangefinder-like ability in the EVF to see outside the image area for context. The 35mm crop from the Q2 uses the best part of the image area from an IQ perspective, cropping out the somewhat softer corners at 28mm that are the result of the software distortion corrections.

My GFX 50R with GF 50 is nowhere near the size of the X1DII, but the sensor is the same and I can say with certainty that using f/4 on that sensor is nowhere near the versatility of an f/1.7 lens on the Q (approx f/2.2 equiv on the X1DII). IMO, the 50R/X1DII at f/4 are next to useless when shooting handheld in low light situations like a dark restaurant or bar. Hasselblad and Fujifilm will need a small-body IBIS solution to compete.

Edited January 19, 2021 by hdmesa

[Einst_Stein]

It does not makes sense to me to pay the Q2 but use it cropped most of time.  To crop it, X 133 makes more sense to me.

F4 is next to useless? You only shoot your camera with F2.8 or wider?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Fedro]

I had both and kept the X1D for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that they are substitutes.

The Q2 is excellent, but I found the files too heavy for what I used it for (family, street)

The X1D is slower camera so I take fewer pictures and I don't mind having its larger files for the use that I make and given it is MF

Also the Q meant using my M10 less, which I was not entirely happy about

The things that I miss about the Q are macro in such a small package and compared to the M10 weather sealing (though I had to send it back to Germany to change the EVF which had two specs of dust in it)

Edited January 19, 2021 by Fedro