Leica M11 and Hasselblad X1 Rendering Similarity

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

So what do you use now, your cellphone?

 

M system (3 cameras, 9 lenses), TL2 (2 lenses), SL (1 lens), 1 R lens, 1 Petzval, SWC.  The SL is a user (not worth selling), so I kept one SL zoom.

Things got a bit out of hand …

Edit - oh, yes.  I do use my cellphone, and I have an Insta r-one

Edited February 24, 2022 by IkarusJohn

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, John Smith said:

I compared the 007 and 70mm side by side with the SL and 50LUX and it was hard to see any difference.

I did that comparison too with those same cameras & lenses, photographing an identical scene, and printed both to c 40” wide to review. I came to the conclusion that the output looked very similar indeed, and even more so when relatively  opening up the SL lens a bit more.

In the past I’ve thought a given system is better versus another (when considering images from the 2 systems in isolation), but it’s only by direct comparable shooting of an identical scene and printing to the same size for review that I’ve discovered the differences can be much more subtle than I’d imagined.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[tom0511]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Jon Warwick:

I did that comparison too with those same cameras & lenses, photographing an identical scene, and printed both to c 40” wide to review. I came to the conclusion that the output looked very similar indeed, and even more so when relatively  opening up the SL lens a bit more.

In the past I’ve thought a given system is better versus another (when considering images from the 2 systems in isolation), but it’s only by direct comparable shooting of an identical scene and printing to the same size for review that I’ve discovered the differences can be much more subtle than I’d imagined.

And here I agree the 50Lux is the one (IMO) lens which "creates" this near "MF-Look". I believe the smooth transitions to background are important here. Its also the reason why I kept the 50Lux after adding the 50 Summicron (maybe the more "perfect" lens, but I prefer the Lux except size)

[John Smith]

15 hours ago, tom0511 said:

And here I agree the 50Lux is the one (IMO) lens which "creates" this near "MF-Look". I believe the smooth transitions to background are important here. Its also the reason why I kept the 50Lux after adding the 50 Summicron (maybe the more "perfect" lens, but I prefer the Lux except size)

Funny, Leica Cine seems to emphasize the M look (and the S) over the Summicrons.

 

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 February 25, 2022 by John Smith

[opera207]

I think they don't have similar rendering.

X1D2 pictures are more saturate, deeper.

while m11 colors are more lively.

 

[hdmesa]

On 2/24/2022 at 2:06 PM, setuporg said:

So it's in the eye of the beholder -- the S forum has a consensus that the MF look is distinct and unattainable with FF dimensions.  The large lenses gather light differently.  The 75noct and 90lux might approach that, I haven't tried.  But then you can have 5 S lenses for each of those.

Having used 6x7/645 film back in the day, GFX 50/100, and full frame, IMO ^that statement is complete nonsense. And since it's in the eye of the beholder, obviously I cannot be proven wrong 😂

In all seriousness, this highlights the fallacy many have of thinking they have found some sort of exclusive magic in their gear. 

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 22 Stunden schrieb John Smith:

Funny, Leica Cine seems to emphasize the M look (and the S) over the Summicrons.

 

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!

I can fully understand that for example the Noctilux or some other M lenses might produce the look more attractive for Cine lenses. Specially with there bokeh and shallow DOF. And many (including me) also love the rendering of S lenses being very sharp without showing a clinical look.

I assume it also depends what you shoot. For example I really like the 28/1.4 for people images, but I would not call it the perfect landscape lens.

Edited February 26, 2022 by tom0511

[FlashGordonPhotography]

So, I've started doing some direct comparisons between my X1D and my M11. Mostly I've only had a look at low ISO's (64/100-400). I'm comparing them as closely as possible but within the normal software and lenses I would use. So mostly I'm using the APO50 on the M11 and 65mm 2.8 on the Hasselblad and processing in LR Classic (latest version).

So far:

1. The extra detail is there in the M11 files. Neither has a sharpness benifit over the other.

2. The X1D files have a bit more contrast out of camera and the M11 shots have about a half stop more exposure on average.

3. White balance is different but colours are REMARKABLY similar. We have potential flooding here today so no blue sky but reds, yellos and greens are very close after WB correction. You'd be hard pressed to see any real world difference. I really love the X1D colours. SO this is a huge thing for me.

4 At the same settings (ISO and exposure) the highlight recovery is very similar. The M11 may have a *slight* edge.

5. At the same settings the X1D is noticably better in the shadows when pushed hard. If I lower the M11 ISO a stop the X1D is still slightly better. Slightly. 400 and below I'd choose either. Above 400 I gravitate toward the X1D.

6. AT ISO 64 the M11 files are really really good. Close enough to the X1D to be irrelevant. The differences in shadows do grow with turning up the ISO.

7. I have yet to test the M11 with long exposures (longer than 1/4 second). The weather is not co-operating to have the M11 out in the rain for several minutes. Image degredation in long exposures due to heat is important to me so I will be checking this one when I can.

The question was, is the M11 having some rendering similarities to the X1D? So far I'd have to say, yes.

I have said before that I though the M11 had some secret sauce. I've said the same about the X1D. Seems I have a type.....

Gordon

[Franka373]

Would the X1D  change your thinking on colors if the Hasselblad is processed with Phocus?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, Franka373 said:

Would the X1D  change your thinking on colors if the Hasselblad is processed with Phocus?

Yes and no. Lightroom is whare I spend 90% of my time. I do use Phocus for the *special* files as an initial processor and then send them to Lightroom for file management and printing. I do think the files are a bit more robust in Phocus and the profiles for the camera and lenses are really really good. However, it's kind of chasing the last 5%, if you know what I mean. Even in a Lighroom workflow the X1D files are special. I prefer them to my GFX and they're *slightly* *better* than my 645Z. Sometimes I start with a file in LR with the intent to judge its potential and then start again in Phocus and I just don't.

Also I don't even have Phocus on my 2nd laptop, which is how I precess images when I travel or am sitting on the couch. If I'm going to spend the time in Phocus then I want the screen and colour management that makes it worth while. these days as I travel and work less I'm relying on my 2nd laptop more than my main rig. Convenience over perfection and all that.

I still prefer the files from the X1D, regardless. It's just that the M11 files are by some margin, the closest I've seen from a small sensor. The M11 is the first camera where I haven't felt like I was missing out if I leave the larger sensors at home. Considering a camera and a couple of lenses is about a kilo that's pretty impressive. About 50% lighter than the X1D and the two lightest lenses for it.

Gordon

 

[LBJ2]

13 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

So, I've started doing some direct comparisons between my X1D and my M11. Mostly I've only had a look at low ISO's (64/100-400). I'm comparing them as closely as possible but within the normal software and lenses I would use. So mostly I'm using the APO50 on the M11 and 65mm 2.8 on the Hasselblad and processing in LR Classic (latest version).

So far:

1. The extra detail is there in the M11 files. Neither has a sharpness benifit over the other.

2. The X1D files have a bit more contrast out of camera and the M11 shots have about a half stop more exposure on average.

3. White balance is different but colours are REMARKABLY similar. We have potential flooding here today so no blue sky but reds, yellos and greens are very close after WB correction. You'd be hard pressed to see any real world difference. I really love the X1D colours. SO this is a huge thing for me.

4 At the same settings (ISO and exposure) the highlight recovery is very similar. The M11 may have a *slight* edge.

5. At the same settings the X1D is noticably better in the shadows when pushed hard. If I lower the M11 ISO a stop the X1D is still slightly better. Slightly. 400 and below I'd choose either. Above 400 I gravitate toward the X1D.

6. AT ISO 64 the M11 files are really really good. Close enough to the X1D to be irrelevant. The differences in shadows do grow with turning up the ISO.

7. I have yet to test the M11 with long exposures (longer than 1/4 second). The weather is not co-operating to have the M11 out in the rain for several minutes. Image degredation in long exposures due to heat is important to me so I will be checking this one when I can.

The question was, is the M11 having some rendering similarities to the X1D? So far I'd have to say, yes.

I have said before that I though the M11 had some secret sauce. I've said the same about the X1D. Seems I have a type.....

Gordon

This is very interesting. Please post some comparison photos when you get a chance. 

[jplomley]

On 2/24/2022 at 4:58 PM, Jon Warwick said:

I did that comparison too with those same cameras & lenses, photographing an identical scene, and printed both to c 40” wide to review. I came to the conclusion that the output looked very similar indeed, and even more so when relatively  opening up the SL lens a bit more.

In the past I’ve thought a given system is better versus another (when considering images from the 2 systems in isolation), but it’s only by direct comparable shooting of an identical scene and printing to the same size for review that I’ve discovered the differences can be much more subtle than I’d imagined.

"In the past I’ve thought a given system is better versus another (when considering images from the 2 systems in isolation), but it’s only by direct comparable shooting of an identical scene and printing to the same size for review that I’ve discovered the differences can be much more subtle than I’d imagined."

Sensor and lens resolution, regardless of how fine, will always be limited by the printer resolution, in turn limited by the droplet size from the print-head and the degree of droplet spreading on the media. I've done similar comparisons and have come to the same conclusion that the print normalizes the subtleties we observe when pixel peeping at 100%.   

[Olaf_ZG]

17 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

7. I have yet to test the M11 with long exposures (longer than 1/4 second). The weather is not co-operating to have the M11 out in the rain for several minutes. Image degredation in long exposures due to heat is important to me so I will be checking this one when I can.

I am so curious about this. My LE is between 4-15 minutes and it would be great if the m11 could handle this. It would mean that I could consolidate systems and have so much less to carry around…

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I am so curious about this. My LE is between 4-15 minutes and it would be great if the m11 could handle this. It would mean that I could consolidate systems and have so much less to carry around…

This is my test. Very impressed with long exposure on M11:

The original file is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/h0uhj64ztep7d7o/L1000376.DNG?dl=0

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by SrMi

[Olaf_ZG]

@SrMi I saw that one, but want more proof. Changing systems will mean investments and a learning curve and I want to be sure.

At the moment I am very happy with the gfx except for weight and being an additional system….

[Jon Warwick]

5 hours ago, jplomley said:

"In the past I’ve thought a given system is better versus another (when considering images from the 2 systems in isolation), but it’s only by direct comparable shooting of an identical scene and printing to the same size for review that I’ve discovered the differences can be much more subtle than I’d imagined."

Sensor and lens resolution, regardless of how fine, will always be limited by the printer resolution, in turn limited by the droplet size from the print-head and the degree of droplet spreading on the media. I've done similar comparisons and have come to the same conclusion that the print normalizes the subtleties we observe when pixel peeping at 100%.   

A very good point. And I also find things like grain (whether added in post processing, or from actual film itself) is much less noticeable — and often much more beautiful — in the final print compared to on-screen.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

This is very interesting. Please post some comparison photos when you get a chance. 

Maybe. I don't normally find that posting *comparison* shots translates well to a computer screen. The differences I'm seeing are subtle. Comparisons usually are. Some won't be as picky as me. SOme screens will be biased in colour space or gamut or profile. Also their relevant to my workflow. I don't know if C1 will render the files differently. (Hence the good question about Phocus above). I'd also encourage others to do their own comparisons based on how they shoot. It's not likely, for example, I'll do anyhing over 1600ISO because I don't give a rats arse how the M11 does at 12500. My ultimate goal is to do prints at A1 or larger. My tests and observations will be biased towards that, which is irrelevant if you're goal is to output to Instagram.

Plus they're REALLY bad images. How many photos of a hedge does anyone really need to see.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

3 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I am so curious about this. My LE is between 4-15 minutes and it would be great if the m11 could handle this. It would mean that I could consolidate systems and have so much less to carry around…

It is the MAIN reason I have the M11. The weather here just isn't co-operating. (We're getting around 80mm a DAY here for the last week!) It's high on my priority list.

The X1D implementation of long exposures is nearly perfect as it can show the meter reading even at an hour exposure and it has a programmable timer release. Plus the files are simply epic. It'll be a big ask to get close. But if I could get to 4 minutes with no LENR it'd be good for about 80% of my long exposure shooting.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, jplomley said:

"In the past I’ve thought a given system is better versus another (when considering images from the 2 systems in isolation), but it’s only by direct comparable shooting of an identical scene and printing to the same size for review that I’ve discovered the differences can be much more subtle than I’d imagined."

Sensor and lens resolution, regardless of how fine, will always be limited by the printer resolution, in turn limited by the droplet size from the print-head and the degree of droplet spreading on the media. I've done similar comparisons and have come to the same conclusion that the print normalizes the subtleties we observe when pixel peeping at 100%.   

Agreed, which is why I always advocate that people do their own testing  and they do those comparisons at the OUTPUT level, not the input one or a normalised one.

One thing I find that shows more in print than on screen is banding. I hate banding....

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

26 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It is the MAIN reason I have the M11. The weather here just isn't co-operating. (We're getting around 80mm a DAY here for the last week!) It's high on my priority list.

The X1D implementation of long exposures is nearly perfect as it can show the meter reading even at an hour exposure and it has a programmable timer release. Plus the files are simply epic. It'll be a big ask to get close. But if I could get to 4 minutes with no LENR it'd be good for about 80% of my long exposure shooting.

Gordon

X1D long exposure has two advantages when compared to M11:

1) a visible count-down

2) a button to stop exposure

I asked Leica for both items.