GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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? 

[Advertisement]

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

[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]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

[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?"

[Alistairm]

Here is the M35 APO on the GFX100S (at f/2). The coverage/vignetting is better than I had expected. 

While I don't really "notice" the EVF in the GFX100S (which is a good thing), it's lower resolution comes into play more strongly when trying to use MF lenses with it. The SL bodies really do shine in this application. 

 

 

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 April 17, 2021 by Alistairm

[FlashGordonPhotography]

5 hours ago, Alistairm said:

Here is the M35 APO on the GFX100S (at f/2). The coverage/vignetting is better than I had expected. 

While I don't really "notice" the EVF in the GFX100S (which is a good thing), it's lower resolution comes into play more strongly when trying to use MF lenses with it. The SL bodies really do shine in this application. 

 

 

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!

Pretty good although the pincushion distortion in the top corners is quite spectacular.

Gordon

[meerec]

10 hours ago, Alistairm said:

Here is the M35 APO on the GFX100S (at f/2). The coverage/vignetting is better than I had expected. 

Have you tried this 35 on the 907X ?

[SoarFM]

On 4/12/2021 at 2:58 PM, aksclix said:

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

I’ll hazard a guess and say your Danskin exercise weight is not really manufactured within tolerances to be a calibration weight. I’ve compared cheap kitchen digital scales to more rigorously calibrated scales and find the cheap scales remarkably accurate. Same goes for bathroom scales...😢 I’d wager a lot of money that your danskin weight really is 9lbs 13 ozs.

[aksclix]

4 hours ago, SoarFM said:

I’ll hazard a guess and say your Danskin exercise weight is not really manufactured within tolerances to be a calibration weight. I’ve compared cheap kitchen digital scales to more rigorously calibrated scales and find the cheap scales remarkably accurate. Same goes for bathroom scales...😢 I’d wager a lot of money that your danskin weight really is 9lbs 13 ozs.

It is quite possible I guess.. 😌😌

[Mick H]

GFX 100S Owners:  How does the EVF stack up vs SL, SL2?  Can you magnify effectively in the EVF to ascertain critical focus?  Is the EVF usable for manual focusing, with and without magnification?  Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Succisa75]

8 minutes ago, Mick H said:

GFX 100S Owners:  How does the EVF stack up vs SL, SL2?  Can you magnify effectively in the EVF to ascertain critical focus?  Is the EVF usable for manual focusing, with and without magnification?  Thanks.

EVF on SL2 is better. Yes you can magnify and control how much you want to magnify in. 
EVF is usable for manual focusing but if you shoot at 1.7 or with faster lenses always best to magnify to make sure you nail focus. This goes with all cameras.