GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

39 minutes ago, Succisa75 said:

Talking to Phase One users and seeing the files it does open up a conversation is the 100 and 100s true 16bit. 
 

I agree the 50MP sensor at 14bit does compete still after this many years. 
 

 

Phase One cameras have larger sensors(better DR) and in their cameras 16-bit seems to matter.

[BernardC]

6 hours ago, JMF said:

Let's hope  for the day when  the S line lenses will be rehoused with cine mode specs !

They are, under the Thalia name. They've been used on many big budget features. 

The Thalia set includes a 55 and a 90, which may some day be included in the S lineup. One can dream.

No zoom or 120TS, but  those two lenses are less relevant to cinema. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

Talking to Phase One users and seeing the files it does open up a conversation is the 100 and 100s true 16bit. 
 

I agree the 50MP sensor at 14bit does compete still after this many years. 
 

 

The specifications of both sensors are widely known. Both from Sony. You can look them up. No conversation required.

Your trying to compare a miniMF (33x44mm) sensor to a 50x44mm sensor. Unsurprisingly the larger sensor performs better. Just like the 14bit 44x33mm sensor outperforms most 45-50MP 24x36mm 14 bit sensors. There's no surprises here. All else being equal a larger sensor has larger photosites and the files are more pliable.

Gordon

[LD_50]

3 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

It’s not so much about the end result as it is working with the files. For example If you use files from a phase one you will see the difference. End results from most cameras are hard to decipher as we are in an era most cameras are really good, but it’s working with the files that you see the differences. 
 

One of the reasons photographers buy into MF is not just detail but working with the files. 

I’m also referring to working with the files, which leads to the end result. If you didn’t read the bit depth on a spec sheet I can guarantee you’d have no idea its significance. 

You also mentioned the S lenses are older, what’s that have to do with working with the files?

Phase One uses a larger sensor than the Fuji so I’m not sure how that’s related.

 

[aksclix]

Here is the size and weight comparison of the 3 systems..

XCD + 90mm f3.2

GFX100s + 80mm f1.7

S007 + 70mm f2.5

increasing focal lengths and decreasing sizes across these 3 systems 😌 although the aperture is a factor impacting sizes of the lenses

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!

[setuporg]

Excellent comparison!  To be more fair you might choose XCD 80/1.9, that will immediately bring the weight up a bunch.  The S also has its “S Nodtilux”, the 100, which seems a better peer of the other two systems’ widest lenses, but it is very similar to the S70 in size and weight.

I think S rendering is really unique compared to simply hyper realistic one of both the mirrorless nephews.  So even if you don’t print, you see a rather pronounced difference.  Another reason to get a 007.

The Fuji is really sexy but it’s surprisingly heavy with the 80/1.7, which just shows you cannot have it all.  As the summer gets into bloom and I go on more and more hikes, I can’t help leaning back to FF and even APS-C systems.  X1D+45P is the only MF I care to carry uphill.

Edited April 12, 2021 by setuporg

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, aksclix said:

Here is the size and weight comparison of the 3 systems..

XCD + 90mm f3.2

GFX100s + 80mm f1.7

S007 + 70mm f2.5

increasing focal lengths and decreasing sizes across these 3 systems 😌 although the aperture is a factor impacting sizes of the lenses

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!

Most sources list S007 at 2.8lb (body only), and S70 Summarit (non-CS) at 1.63lb, for total 4.43lb.  And the Hasselblad X1Dii (with battery) plus XCD 90 combo at 3.05lb (original X1D lighter still). 

Jeff

Edited April 12, 2021 by Jeff S

[aksclix]

9 minutes ago, setuporg said:

Excellent comparison!  To be more fair you might choose XCD 80/1.9, that will immediately bring the weight up a bunch.  The S also has its “S Nodtilux”, the 100, which seems a better peer of the other two systems’ widest lenses, but it is very similar to the S70 in size and weight.

I think S rendering is really unique compared to simply hyper realistic one of both the mirrorless nephews.  So even if you don’t print, you see a rather pronounced difference.  Another reason to get a 007.

The Fuji is really sexy but it’s surprisingly heavy with the 80/1.7, which just shows you cannot have it all.  As the summer gets into bloom and I go on more and more hikes, I can’t help leaning back to FF and even APS-C systems.  X1D+45P is the only MF I care to carry uphill.

Yea.. but someone else will have to do that comparison.. can’t afford the bokeh masters of S and X for now.. 😌 

 

[aksclix]

2 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Most sources list S007 at 2.8lb (body only), and S70 Summarit (non-CS) at 1.63lb, for total 4.43lb.  And the Hasselblad X1Dii (with battery) plus XCD 90 combo at 3.05lb (original X1D lighter still). 

Jeff

With the hoods? 

[Jeff S]

Just now, aksclix said:

With the hoods? 

No mention, but if not, then the S combo would of course weigh even more.

Jeff

[aksclix]

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

No mention, but if not, then the S combo would of course weigh even more.

Jeff

Hmm.. I am seeing some weird results with my weighing scale.. my 10lb weight weighs 9.13 😂

without battery and body cap, the s007 still weighs 2.10lbs in my scale.. as opposed to 2.8lb listed on B&H

 

 

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!

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

I think S rendering is really unique compared to simply hyper realistic one of both the mirrorless nephews.

The S lens lineup really hit a sweet spot. It's at the forefront of the "fully corrected" generation of lenses (not just from Leica, but also Zeiss Otus), but it was also designed to be used without software correction.

Leica also used lens designs that weren't too subservient to autofocus speed. Most later designs try to use the lowest possible mass for focusing elements, which is great for AF speed, but it's also an extra compromise in the overall design.

[setuporg]

6 hours ago, aksclix said:

but someone else will have to do that comparison

Let's have a party, I'll bring the XCD 80 and the S100 systems, and a different scale!:)

[aksclix]

1 hour ago, setuporg said:

Let's have a party, I'll bring the XCD 80 and the S100 systems, and a different scale!:)

Lol.. alright then!

[John Smith]

21 hours ago, BernardC said:

Leica also used lens designs that weren't too subservient to autofocus speed. Most later designs try to use the lowest possible mass for focusing elements, which is great for AF speed, but it's also an extra compromise in the overall design.

I don't know where the idea of "extra compromise" comes from. The SL primes demonstrate the highest performance of any Leica lenses while also employing the lowest mass for focusing elements.   

[BernardC]

12 minutes ago, John Smith said:

I don't know where the idea of "extra compromise" comes from. The SL primes demonstrate the highest performance of any Leica lenses while also employing the lowest mass for focusing elements.   

Everything is a compromise in optics.

Comparing the SL 28mm with the S 35mm, two lenses with the same field of view and the same exit pupil (28/2 = 35/2.5). The SL lens uses more elements (13 vs. 11), and more aspherical surfaces (6 vs. 2). I can't say for sure that these are related, but I remember Mr. Karbe mentioning the focusing design of the SL lenses as being complicated.

A similar example: I remember reading, a long time ago, that Zeiss lens designers considered the shutter size of the Hasselblad CF and C lenses to be one of their biggest constraints. They had to squeeze all of the light rays into a 25mm-diameter bundle at the aperture. That's probably why the "F" shutterless lenses outperformed their CF cousins. Geek note: except for the 80 which was the same lens in F and CF, other than minimum focus distance.

So yes, it's a compromise. As with most compromises, there are ways around it, usually involving extra cost, or other compromises. It would be a good question to ask at an upcoming Leica Q&A.

[John Smith]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

 Most later designs try to use the lowest possible mass for focusing elements, which is great for AF speed, but it's also an extra compromise in the overall design.

Everything is a compromise in optics.

Poor syllogism. If you like S or M lenses that involve the movement of all lens elements for focus, that's fine. But it's another thing to say that the latest AF designs which involve the movement of only one or two lenses or lens groups is "an extra compromise." Karbe said in one video that Leica pretty much had to design the SL lenses from a clean sheet, but that doesn't translate into "an extra compromise" either. 

[LD_50]

34 minutes ago, John Smith said:

Poor syllogism. If you like S or M lenses that involve the movement of all lens elements for focus, that's fine. But it's another thing to say that the latest AF designs which involve the movement of only one or two lenses or lens groups is "an extra compromise." Karbe said in one video that Leica pretty much had to design the SL lenses from a clean sheet, but that doesn't translate into "an extra compromise" either. 

Of course it’s an extra compromise. That doesn’t mean the optical results are worse. It might just mean the lenses are larger and heavier than they might be for the format. It might mean the price is higher because different material choices had to be made. 

[John Smith]

On 4/13/2021 at 5:23 PM, LD_50 said:

Of course it’s an extra compromise. That doesn’t mean the optical results are worse. It might just mean the lenses are larger and heavier than they might be for the format. It might mean the price is higher because different material choices had to be made. 

A different design philosophy doesn’t equate to “an extra compromise.” Whatever.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

12 hours ago, John Smith said:

A different design philosophy doesn’t equate to “an extra compromise.” Whatever.

Would you prefer the word "constraint?"