Q2/Q3 or Hasselblad X2D? Which do you choose?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, howiebrou said:

I just sold my M10-P Safari because it just wasn't getting much use, eyes getting tired etc. Now I need to consider what to do with my M lenses. My initial thought is SL3 as I used to use the M lenses on a SL and it worked great. But looking at the SL3 made me look wider and come across the X2D. Wow. It is a lot more comfortable to hold than a SL3 imho. I should get mine in November and will try the M lenses with adaptor on it then and see if it works okay although the shop had a M lens to try with the demo. I guess there must be quite a few Leica shooters crossing the pond. If it works I won't need the SL3 which is good then all I need to do is pack a m lens or two together with the X2D lenses instead of carrying an extra body. Time will tell.

Some M lenses (especially longer ones) may work with X2D, but SL3 is a better match for M lenses than X2D. 

[Advertisement]

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

[howiebrou]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

Some M lenses (especially longer ones) may work with X2D, but SL3 is a better match for M lenses than X2D. 

Yes, you're probably right re better sensor size match etc. But if I manage to get decent results from my 50mm+ M lenses on the X2D it will be hard to justify buying a SL3 just for my 21mm lens since I intend to get the 25V Hasselblad lens anyway which has a similar coverage.

Edited October 24, 2024 by howiebrou

[Smogg]

1 hour ago, howiebrou said:

Yes, you're probably right re better sensor size match etc. But if I manage to get decent results from my 50mm+ M lenses on the X2D it will be hard to justify buying a SL3 just for my 21mm lens since I intend to get the 25V Hasselblad lens anyway which has a similar coverage.

The X2D is great with the new compact V series lenses (this includes sharpness/resolution/color/UI/grip/weight/size). I sincerely doubt you will be happy with the result with non-native lenses. Not to mention you will be limited by the electronic shutter and get a terrible rolling shutter.

[Mahesh]

Not sure how many people really need these many megapixels. I could make space and sometimes feel tempted by hasselblad but no. It just feels not necessary for me. Wish they bring this x2d with 50 MP or less. I would buy that immediately.

[Smogg]

27 minutes ago, Mahesh said:

Not sure how many people really need these many megapixels. I could make space and sometimes feel tempted by hasselblad but no. It just feels not necessary for me. Wish they bring this x2d with 50 MP or less. I would buy that immediately.

Megapixels are the least important reason I bought the X2D. I was only interested in color and usability.

[Mahesh]

Just now, Smogg said:

Megapixels are the least important reason I bought the X2D. I was only interested in color and usability.

Yup..that's exactly what I'm saying.. I like the colour, handling, body but can't be asked to make more space for Mega files. I have the latest Mac so shouldn't be an issue processing but still...

I might rent one and see how I get on.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

42 minutes ago, Mahesh said:

Not sure how many people really need these many megapixels. I could make space and sometimes feel tempted by hasselblad but no. It just feels not necessary for me. Wish they bring this x2d with 50 MP or less. I would buy that immediately.

More megapixels means better IQ after processing and downscaling.

[Likaleica]

23 hours ago, howiebrou said:

I just sold my M10-P Safari because it just wasn't getting much use, eyes getting tired etc. Now I need to consider what to do with my M lenses. My initial thought is SL3 as I used to use the M lenses on a SL and it worked great. But looking at the SL3 made me look wider and come across the X2D. Wow. It is a lot more comfortable to hold than a SL3 imho. I should get mine in November and will try the M lenses with adaptor on it then and see if it works okay although the shop had a M lens to try with the demo. I guess there must be quite a few Leica shooters crossing the pond. If it works I won't need the SL3 which is good then all I need to do is pack a m lens or two together with the X2D lenses instead of carrying an extra body. Time will tell.

Some M lenses work great on the X2D, achieving a very surreal, dreamy look.  The only thing is that the X2D does not have a built in shutter, so you have to use the electronic shutter, which produces a lot of artifact.  Be prepared to discard at least half of your images if there is any motion in the subject.  And you must remain very still at slower shutter speeds using the electronic shutter.  The image stabilization works great with native lenses, but doesn't help with the rolling shutter artifact.

[Likaleica]

15 hours ago, Smogg said:

Megapixels are the least important reason I bought the X2D. I was only interested in color and usability.

and the 16 bit depth with smooth, uniform subjects that have a gradation.  Clear sky is the place where I notice it most.  Even with 14 bit cameras, the gradation can go digital looking.  

[bags27]

The electronic shutter on the X2D (and 907x 100c) has quicker read time than the original X1D and 50c. Yes, there can be rolling shutter. But, even with my older 50c, I very, very rarely have had a problem. Obviously, if you shoot things in motion a lot and want to use non-native lenses, this would be a concern, even a dealbreaker. But there are offsetting advantages to the Blads even with non-native lenses that are, for many folks, compensatory. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Likaleica said:

Some M lenses work great on the X2D, achieving a very surreal, dreamy look.  The only thing is that the X2D does not have a built in shutter, so you have to use the electronic shutter, which produces a lot of artifact.  Be prepared to discard at least half of your images if there is any motion in the subject.  And you must remain very still at slower shutter speeds using the electronic shutter.  The image stabilization works great with native lenses, but doesn't help with the rolling shutter artifact.

Image stabilization helps a lot with rolling shutter as long as the subject is relatively static.  IBIS stabilizes the camera which is the main source of rolling shutter with static scenes.

Also make sure to use 14 bits with electronic shutter (faster readout).

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Likaleica said:

and the 16 bit depth with smooth, uniform subjects that have a gradation.  Clear sky is the place where I notice it most.  Even with 14 bit cameras, the gradation can go digital looking.  

That is not true. 16-bits are not about gradation, bits are about noise, and 16 bits are overkill in X2D and GFX cameras.  Use 14-bits instead.

[frame-it]

19 minutes ago, SrMi said:

That is not true. 16-bits are not about gradation, bits are about noise, and 16 bits are overkill in X2D and GFX cameras.  Use 14-bits instead.

????????????

if its real 14 bit it doesn't expand the range, it gives a smoother gradation of data from the darkest to lightest details of the image, and with real 16bit even more so.

the difference between 14 and 16 will mostly not be visible to the naked eye unless one does some extreme editing with the curves

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, frame-it said:

????????????

if its real 14 bit it doesn't expand the range, it gives a smoother gradation of data from the darkest to lightest details of the image, and with real 16bit even more so.

the difference between 14 and 16 will mostly not be visible to the naked eye unless one does some extreme editing with the curves

If the lowest two bits in the 16-bit data contain mainly noise, how can you see a difference between 14 and 16 bits? Jim Kasson has tested 14 vs. 16 bits and has not seen any relevant difference. I have tested it and saw no benefits from 16 bits. What remains is the Hasselblad and Fuji propaganda. Some people still shoot with 16 bits, hoping that future tools could use them, but that hope is in vain if there is no additional information in the 16 bits.

[Smogg]

16 bits can only make sense if you plan to raise the exposure by 5-6 stops in post-processing and only in deep shadows. I shoot exclusively using 14 bits

[Likaleica]

59 minutes ago, SrMi said:

That is not true. 16-bits are not about gradation, bits are about noise, and 16 bits are overkill in X2D and GFX cameras.  Use 14-bits instead.

I can see the difference on certain monitors, and yes it was with pushing sliders.  However, I don't think it would visibly translate to a print.  I've made identical exposures with X1D and SL2 of skies and clearly seen the difference on the monitor.

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Likaleica said:

I can see the difference on certain monitors, and yes it was with pushing sliders.  However, I don't think it would visibly translate to a print.  I've made identical exposures with X1D and SL2 of skies and clearly seen the difference on the monitor.

By comparing two different cameras with two different sensor sizes, you introduce too many variables into the comparison.

By the way, both X1D and SL2 have 14-bit sensors. X1D artificially expands the sensor's 14 bits into 16 bits.

[Likaleica]

10 hours ago, SrMi said:

By the way, both X1D and SL2 have 14-bit sensors. X1D artificially expands the sensor's 14 bits into 16 bits.

Did not know that.  Well, that shoots that theory!

Some misleading advertising by Hasselblad (DJI).  

Edited October 25, 2024 by Likaleica

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The X1D stores a 14 bit file in. a 16 bit wrapper. Nothing is *expanded*. The extra 2 bits basically contain no information.

And the extra 2 bits in the X2D does make a difference. In the real world, rather than a bench, there’s extra pliability in the 16 bit files. The measurable DR may be the same but the usable DR is different because the noise in the lower end of the file becomes more evident more quickly when pushed hard artificially. It is only extremely occasionally you’ll see it as you need to beat the file unconscious basically. But it’s there and I’ve seen it in side by side shooting.

I have much respect for Jim Kasson but the lab and real world don’t always work the same way. Same as MYF charts.

Gordon

[SrMi]

19 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The X1D stores a 14 bit file in. a 16 bit wrapper. Nothing is *expanded*. The extra 2 bits basically contain no information.

To the best of my knowledge, the trailing two bits are not padded but contain information computed in the camera.

20 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

And the extra 2 bits in the X2D does make a difference. In the real world, rather than a bench, there’s extra pliability in the 16 bit files.

I doubt that. The bit size in the post is the same and the lowest two bits contain mainly noise. You must push darks a lot to see a tiny bit of difference.

22 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have much respect for Jim Kasson but the lab and real world don’t always work the same way.

As you, Jim saw a tiny bit of difference in noise when doing extreme lifting of shadows. In practice, the difference is irrelevant, aka “beat the file unconscious” 🤣. I do not understand to which part the “but” refers to.