GFX100S vs SL2/X1D

[Mick H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Succisa75 said:

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. 

So it is useable and you can magnify deep enough to ensure focus at 102 MP on the nearest eye, iris area?

[Succisa75]

36 minutes ago, Mick H said:

So it is useable and you can magnify deep enough to ensure focus at 102 MP on the nearest eye, iris area?

Yes you can. No issues, but why not use AF lenses? 

[aksclix]

59 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.

Of course, pressing the thumb wheel engages magnification by default unless you change it to do something else in manual mode.. the magnification is very good and more than enough to assist you in nailing the focus

 

without magnification It’s guess work if we’re talking about something as small as the iris.. you still have the focus peaking which makes your guess work much easier too

Edited April 18, 2021 by aksclix

[JAMA]

I have both the SL and the X1D and have preferred MF most of my life on film. The X1D is unsurpassed in IQ and re: handling, is even better than the SL, being lighter and fitting better into one's grip. The only thing that I don't like is the sound of the leaf shutter in the 45 3.5 and the fact that I can't shoot in monochrome mode. (Yes I know I can do it in PP but the viewing in BW is part of the experience of shooting). I must add also that the SL is a beautiful camera to use, its build quality is on another level and its usability is sublime. My daughter prefers the SL for event photography along with a Q, whereas I like the Blad and an MP240, as they hark on a different era of photography for me. We also have some Fuji x100s which are great little cameras but have the most complicated menus of all.

The jump in IQ with MF though is substantial. The Blad is on another level altogether if you want to pixel peep.

For recorded detail the X1D is truly amazing, it is ergonomically perfect, well weighted and the user interface on the screen, and simplicity of the dials make it easy to use. Does it lack some things like a joystick.....yes, but I have never missed a photo because of it. Is the AF up to speed for action......no?.......then buy a Sony FF for that. 

I have no doubt the Fuji will create incredible images, though 2 x pixels on the same size sensor does not necessarily equate to that. 

I don't think that anyone buying a Fuji was ever going to buy a Hasselblad nor sway a long term Leica user away from the fold. People buying Fuji quote specs and price, people using Leica speak user experience and lenses, and people using the X1D talk of IQ and ergonomics.

Buy whichever category is the most important for you. Whichever camera gets you out taking photographs is the best one.

[Alistairm]

I own all three systems. 

Much could (and has) been said about them. I’d summarise it thus, noting that all make fantastic images. 

The X1D has the best menu system, arguably the best ergonomics (apart from smelly rubber and sub-par weather sealing) and second best outright image quality but is very slow and lacks stabilisation. It is also the system I worry about most long-term, (eg in terms of whether there will ever be a new body). 

The SL has a very good menu system, the best range of lenses and handles beautifully. In terms of a blend of haptics, feel in hand and technology, it is my favourite system. I also like the way the Leica lenses render, and the integration with M glass.  

The GFX100S has comfortably the best image quality, is much cheaper than the other systems, has a clunky menu system and doesn’t feel as nice in hand as the Blad or the Leica. 

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Alistairm said:

I own all three systems. 

Much could (and has) been said about them. I’d summarise it thus, noting that all make fantastic images. 

The X1D has the best menu system, arguably the best ergonomics (apart from smelly rubber and sub-par weather sealing) and second best outright image quality but is very slow and lacks stabilisation. It is also the system I worry about most long-term, (eg in terms of whether there will ever be a new body). 

The SL has a very good menu system, the best range of lenses and handles beautifully. In terms of a blend of haptics, feel in hand and technology, it is my favourite system. I also like the way the Leica lenses render, and the integration with M glass.  

The GFX100S has comfortably the best image quality, is much cheaper than the other systems, has a clunky menu system and doesn’t feel as nice in hand as the Blad or the Leica. 

The important question is: which of the three cameras do you use most or least?
I also own all three systems, and GFX100S gets the least use at the moment.

[Alistairm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1. SL2/SL2-S

2. GFX

3. M 

4. X1D/907

As nice as the equipment is, I should probably sell the Hasselblad. The GFX is relatively cheap and great for certain uses (macro, landscape). And overall I still prefer the Leica systems to the Hasselblad. The tipping point there was probably IBIS. The X1D is just getting very long in the tooth.

 

[Mick H]

53 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The important question is: which of the three cameras do you use most or least?
I also own all three systems, and GFX100S gets the least use at the moment.

I have the SL and GFX100S and I have been using the Fuji more (with GF110 mostly).  I have held an X1D but never got the chance to use one.  The SL is still very useful with the 24-90 and super fast L mount Sigma 35 1.2.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Mr.Q]

I recently sold all of my X1D/GFX/SL gear and I consolidated to a couple of Sony A1's.

Honestly I've been kind of a Sony hater the last few years so I was skeptical at first but after testing one for a couple weeks I bought a second A1 shortly after. The tech simply works and it's helped my keeper rate to sky-rocket. I've owned the NEX-5 and A7ii in the past, and I feel Sony has come a long way with their menu system and color science. I Iove their new S-cinetone profile, as it makes cinematic looking video incredibly easy. And the 24, 35 and 50 GM lenses are just epic. Dare I say they are the best trio of lenses I've ever owned....

As for my Leica gear, I'm quite happy with my Q2, M6, and M9-P.  For family outings or travel, these small Leica's are a joy to use. 

[Speeding]

On 6/26/2021 at 8:53 AM, Mr.Q said:

I recently sold all of my X1D/GFX/SL gear and I consolidated to a couple of Sony A1's.

Honestly I've been kind of a Sony hater the last few years so I was skeptical at first but after testing one for a couple weeks I bought a second A1 shortly after. The tech simply works and it's helped my keeper rate to sky-rocket. I've owned the NEX-5 and A7ii in the past, and I feel Sony has come a long way with their menu system and color science. I Iove their new S-cinetone profile, as it makes cinematic looking video incredibly easy. And the 24, 35 and 50 GM lenses are just epic. Dare I say they are the best trio of lenses I've ever owned....

As for my Leica gear, I'm quite happy with my Q2, M6, and M9-P.  For family outings or travel, these small Leica's are a joy to use. 

Agree about the small Leica's.  Just a joy to carry everywhere. 

I've had various FE cameras over the years so I naturally picked up the A1.  Mine had issues with the EVF glitching and blacking out in sunlight.  Plus the IBIS was flaky.  Fortunately still in the 30-day return window.  Not sure it added anything over my A9II anyway.  My biggest challenge with Sony is the dust gets in everywhere.  Whatever weather seals they use need to be improved.  Humidity has burned out two mainboards and Sony service is terrible (and slow) to deal with.  Leica is by no means fast lol but their service and communication has been exemplary.  

[Mr.Q]

I see, I don't have that problem in Japan as the Sony service here is great.  I purchased mine from the Sony Store and their 5-year warranty covers all accidental (including drop and water) damage as well.  Both my A1's have been great so far, knock on wood.

[Mr.Q]

On 6/28/2021 at 1:32 AM, Speeding said:

Agree about the small Leica's.  Just a joy to carry everywhere. 

I've had various FE cameras over the years so I naturally picked up the A1.  Mine had issues with the EVF glitching and blacking out in sunlight.  Plus the IBIS was flaky.  Fortunately still in the 30-day return window.  Not sure it added anything over my A9II anyway.  My biggest challenge with Sony is the dust gets in everywhere.  Whatever weather seals they use need to be improved.  Humidity has burned out two mainboards and Sony service is terrible (and slow) to deal with.  Leica is by no means fast lol but their service and communication has been exemplary.  

BTW the EVF and IBIS issues are fixed with the firmware (v1.10) released today.

[Speeding]

13 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

BTW the EVF and IBIS issues are fixed with the firmware (v1.10) released today.

Might help someone else but too late for me - I had it in March and returned it for refund.  There was not much incentive to upgrade over the A9II anyway.  Sony still hasn't fixed the biggest faults with the alpha series and those aren't firmware fixes 🤣

[Mr.Q]

Yeah, speed/AF isn't much of an upgrade over even the original A9. If you aren't regularly using at least 2 of it's 3 main strengths (speed, resolution, video) then it probably makes little sense to upgrade. 

[Speeding]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

Yeah, speed/AF isn't much of an upgrade over even the original A9. If you aren't regularly using at least 2 of it's 3 main strengths (speed, resolution, video) then it probably makes little sense to upgrade. 

The resolution is probably the biggest benefit.  The speed (I assume you mean burst speed with AF) didn't actually change with the GM lenses I tested with.  They still topped out at 16fps on the 100-400 and 14fps on the 600/4 (same as the A9II).  The only time I actually got 28-30fps was on a stationary target.  Once things started moving the actual frame rate dropped considerably.  I found video too shaky to use without a gimbal (similar to A9II).  Besides, I have a host of L-mount cameras and PL lenses for video work with a tried and true workflow in place so video was never going to be an interest with Sony.  Really, it's the ergonomics and build that put me off.  Just doesn't work for me, especially with gloves.   

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Mr.Q]

That makes sense as we all have our preferences. Ergonomics is fine for me as I have medium sized hands and I never wear gloves when shooting. As for speed, I meant speed in general, including read/write, buffering, AF acquisition, 1/400 flash sync, etc etc.

I rely on AF for video so the L-mount cameras are a non-starter. Canon is great too but their codecs make the file sizes unacceptably huge. Sony files are much more manageable (even for 10bit 4k120p) especially when used with proxies. As for stabilization, I use a small gimbal for rare projects (all serious work needs a gimbal if we're being honest) but I'm surprised how effective Catalyst Browse is for most handheld stuff.

There are compromises of course, but the A1 has allowed me to consolidate all my MILC's into one body. I've tried them all, and at the end of the day they're all computers in a box, just with different shapes and flavors. Nothing comes remotely close to a rangefinder for pure enjoyment. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Succisa75]

6 hours ago, Speeding said:

The resolution is probably the biggest benefit.  The speed (I assume you mean burst speed with AF) didn't actually change with the GM lenses I tested with.  They still topped out at 16fps on the 100-400 and 14fps on the 600/4 (same as the A9II).  The only time I actually got 28-30fps was on a stationary target.  Once things started moving the actual frame rate dropped considerably.  I found video too shaky to use without a gimbal (similar to A9II).  Besides, I have a host of L-mount cameras and PL lenses for video work with a tried and true workflow in place so video was never going to be an interest with Sony.  Really, it's the ergonomics and build that put me off.  Just doesn't work for me, especially with gloves.   

You should be hitting 25-26FPS with GM lenses. Need to set AFC to release instead of focus.  This helps a lot in terms of speed. Also set burst mode to H+

[Succisa75]

45 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

That makes sense as we all have our preferences. Ergonomics is fine for me as I have medium sized hands and I never wear gloves when shooting. As for speed, I meant speed in general, including read/write, buffering, AF acquisition, 1/400 flash sync, etc etc.

I rely on AF for video so the L-mount cameras are a non-starter. Canon is great too but their codecs make the file sizes unacceptably huge. Sony files are much more manageable (even for 10bit 4k120p) especially when used with proxies. As for stabilization, I use a small gimbal for rare projects (all serious work needs a gimbal if we're being honest) but I'm surprised how effective Catalyst Browse is for most handheld stuff.

There are compromises of course, but the A1 has allowed me to consolidate all my MILC's into one body. I've tried them all, and at the end of the day they're all computers in a box, just with different shapes and flavors. Nothing comes remotely close to a rangefinder for pure enjoyment. 

Agree. Right now it’s the best work camera for everything. Leica is for the enjoyment of photography, Sony is to capture anything you want to or need to for work etc. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

16 hours ago, Succisa75 said:

Agree. Right now it’s the best work camera for everything. Leica is for the enjoyment of photography, Sony is to capture anything you want to or need to for work etc. 

I have used a dozen brands of camera for work and none of them, including Sony or Leica, has stopped me from capturing every shot I needed to. Maybe a sports shooter needs more but the current reliance on gear to get the shot over skill speaks more about the photographer than the camera.

Just shoot video and pull frames if that's what you feel you need. Not photography though.

Gordon

[Michael Markey]

25 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have used a dozen brands of camera for work and none of them, including Sony or Leica, has stopped me from capturing every shot I needed to. Maybe a sports shooter needs more but the current reliance on gear to get the shot over skill speaks more about the photographer than the camera.

Just shoot video and pull frames if that's what you feel you need. Not photography though.

Gordon

Can`t disagree but ....

Some of us are getting older and maybe want an easier time of it 

I used to capture the stuff I do now with film M`s and my timing is still pretty good however the new gear does help especially on those days when things aren`t falling into place .

You don`t get more keepers per se but the technology certainly helps at times  .

Edited June 30, 2021 by Michael Markey