Hasselblad X1D II 50C Medium Format with 45mm f/4 P Lens Kit Closeout Sale - Worth Considering to compliment my SL2-S gear?

[lencap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Greetings!

I've written in the past about my Leica journey, from M film bodies to the SL2-S with many others in between.  I've happily stopped at the current SL2-S/50mm F/2 ASPH kit, which I bought taking advantage of Leica's bundle pricing along with an added voucher discount.  My first love, like many others, is the M body line of cameras, but my senior citizen eyesight doesn't allow me to focus M lenses with any precision or accuracy.  That's the reason for the SL line, and I also find the design/haptics wonderful.  But I've never gotten over my second love - Hasselblad.

There is a current "close out" of the Hasselblad X1D II 50C camera bundle including the XCD 45mm F/4 P lens offered at $4,200, an impressive $2,600 discount from the most recent pricing.  That's a bit less than I paid for the Leica SL2-S 50mm F/2 kit I recently bought.  I'm not planning on selling the Leica kit, I enjoy the haptics and images too much to abandon Leica after finally getting a setup that works well for me.  I know the Leica Q3 is the most likely companion to the SL2-S, both for size and quality reasons, but I've owned the Q 116 for many years and never got along with the 28mm focal length.  Over 6 decades of shooting the 50mm focal length is by far my "go to" choice, 35 is second, 28 a distant third, and the rest telephoto vacation shots.

Instead, I'm interested in adding the Hasselblad kit as a companion to the Leica kit.  The 45mm XCD F/4.0 is about a 35mm F/3.2 equivalent lens.  That's a useful difference for me, in a form factor not much different in size from the Leica SL2-S.  I can crop the Hasselblad image, if needed, and still maintain high resolution.  In a way it's a bit like the Q3 (yes, it's far larger and bulkier), allowing me to produce a lovely image when cropped with great detail and color, relying on a single focal length lens.  It's also significantly lighter than the Leica SL combo, a plus when shooting all day or traveling (arthritis forced me to admit that as much as I loved the 24-90 zoom, it was too much of a good thing as far as weight is concerned).

I know this isn't a likely duo on a Leica forum, but of all the cameras I've ever owned only Leica and Hasselblad gave me total enjoyment.  I've had many Nikon kits, and they worked well, but there wasn't a joy to them, or a desire to just hold them or look at them (the F3HP came close).  They were generic tools, and about as inviting as a refrigerator.  They did the job, but didn't push me to create something magical.  I never enjoyed anything more than developing 6x6 Hasselblad B&W film and making an actual physical print.  I never created a Henri Cartier-Bresson image, but I felt as if I had many times.  That's the feeling I want to continue to rekindle.

The nostalgia factor may be part of my Don Quixote Hasselblad quest, but at the highly discounted Hasselblad kit price it seems as if "the universe" is inviting me to take a shot, just like it did with my latest Leica kit. I bought it for the joy of looking at it, and if I actually created an interesting image, all the better.  That's what I'm looking for with the Hasselblad gear.  I realize that for the majority of the time each kit will likely be unused on my desk.  But, like a great toolbox, when you want to do something it's joyful to know that you've got the right tool at hand, and you can just go do what you want to do.

At this stage of my life I only want things around me that bring me joy, a smile to my face, and beg me to use them for the sheer enjoyment of the feeling I get when I use them to create something.  I miss film, but it's not practical for me now, and combining Leica and Hasselblad seems like a way to be done with GAS and rekindle the joy of photography I felt decades ago when my dad let me shoot his rangefinder camera and help him develop the negatives.

So my choice is a bit of apples and oranges, I know.  There's no real synergy there, but rather two different approaches to an enjoyable journey.  So, what say thee?  Should I take the Don Quixote quest to heart, or just be content with what I've got?  

Thanks for your thoughts, as well as the therapy of putting into words the thoughts rattling around in my mind.  The forum is a lot cheaper than visiting a psychiatrist!  Thanks to all!

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by lencap

[IkarusJohn]

I say go for it!

My plan is the X2D and 38V, SL(601) for telephoto and M mount, and my M system.  The idea of the Hasselblad body and one lens is very appealing - goes with my SWC!

[Advertisement]

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

[spydrxx]

If getting the Hassy ticks your box and you can afford it, why not?

[vkdev]

17 minutes ago, lencap said:

At this stage of my life I only want things around me that bring me joy, a smile to my face, and beg me to use them for the sheer enjoyment of the feeling I get when I use them to create something.

you already answered your own question. to hell with a rational choice. life is for enjoyment, not for being rational.

[rmueller]

Go for it, you won't be disappointed. I have the X1DII-50c with two lenses, the XCD 3.5/45 and XCD 1.9/80. I can carry the camera with the 45mm lens all day long, the 45P is even lighter and more compact. The camera feels good in the hand and is easy to operate with no overloaded menus and knobs. 

Regards,

Ralf

[Sandokan]

I have the 907x as the companion to my SL which gives a sufficiently different experience which I love. 

Go for it. 

[robb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an x2d with the 38 and 55 with a 90 and 28 waiting to come in.

I use it primarily for leaf shutter strobe outside and landscape traveling fairly light.  I would not have bought it if it didn’t have ibis…

the sl2 and sl2-s with the apo summicrons though are my main choice for just about everything.  X2d is more of a niche camera for me.  Great images out of both.  

I’d wait til you can stretch to x2d if at all possible.  Sell something you are not using to get there.  It’s an upgrade with capabilities.  

Robb
 

[satijntje]

The X1DII is a great camera, so is the 45p lens.
The new price for the kit now ist about identical to prices for a second hand combo.
I would say, go for it, you still have the option of upgrading later to the X2D, the batteries are identical 🙂
Enjoy!
p.s. although 28mm is not your favourite FL, Hasselblad has now released a new very small and fast focusing 28p mm f4 lens for an attractive price.

[student]

2 hours ago, lencap said:

At this stage of my life I only want things around me that bring me joy, a smile to my face, and beg me to use them for the sheer enjoyment of the feeling I get when I use them to create something.  ... combining Leica and Hasselblad seems like a way to ... rekindle the joy of photography I felt decades ago when my dad let me shoot his rangefinder camera and help him develop the negatives.

Strong reasoning there for getting the Hasselblad kit, I would say. After all, we only live once

[Chris W]

I have an XID2 with the 45p lens. Love it. Picture quality is outstanding. It is ergonomically great and surprisingly light as a carry around camera.

[lencap]

Thanks for the comments and suggestions.  The lack of IBIS is something to consider, as is the higher resolution of the X2d.  However, for my intended use ultimate resolution and technical image quality isn't necessarily the primary goal, it's a "joy of ownership" and haptics experience I'm looking for.  I remember shooting with the 501C/80mm f/2.8 combo.  When you took the shot the camera made a symphony of sound.  It wasn't subtle like a Leica M, it was almost like a shotgun going off.  You also had a delightfully mesmerizing glass screen at waist level as your window to the world.  It was as different as the Leica M rangefinder, a unique and enjoyable respite from everyday life.  If you didn't have a good grip the image was blurred.  The experience was immersive, a total commitment to the joy of photography.  That's what I'm going for - the immersive experience.

Despite years of learning I'm an average photographer, and lately I'm spending more time/energy in composition than working for technical perfection.   I enjoy the SL2-S, but even with the slimmed down menu system and clean design scrolling through 6 pages of menus isn't my idea of perfection.  I realize that the menu options are designed to make the camera a professional tool, but while that is likely true, the M experience was more artistic than technical.  Setting M lenses to hypercritical focus was a great way to "pre-shoot" my subject, and allowed for a high degree of "keepers".  The downside was that the beautiful bokeh and "dreamy" look of wide open glass was missing.  I could get it with the camera's automation tools (autofocus, various aperture/shutter settings), but the joy of composition and spontaneity was missing.

The Hassie's menu appears a bit more "slimmed down" compared to the SL2-S.  I realize that the fewer choices has an impact on the final image creation, but it's a conscious choice to emphasize the "art" aspect of image creation instead of the "technical".  It's a bit like driving a sports car.  My friend's Ferrari 456 Italia is, for me, an almost perfect sports car.  It's amazingly capable, always puts a smile on my face, and does just about anything a non-professional driver would want.  But despite that perfection I enjoy driving his manual transmission 360 convertible.  It's engaging in a way that the technically more capable 456 doesn't provide.  

It's for that reason that despite my infatuation with the Hasselblad, (similar to the Leica in terms of rich history, exceptional quality and more), I also considered returning to film.  The more deliberate work flow, the anticipation of seeing the final print instead of having "instant gratification", and the newly released M6 makes this something that still calls to me.  The issue is the manual focus M lens and my less than stellar eyesight would limit me to images with great depth of field (f/8) when using the hypercritical focus.

Over the years I've vacillated between two image approaches.  One is aligned with Thorsten Overgaard's "shoot wide open all the time on an M body", and Ming Thein's "cinematic excellence" approach with great depth of field augmented by applying PhotoShop skills to get a endlessly deep depth of field look on the final image.  Interestingly, Ming was a Hasselblad ambassador before leaving photography behind and moving to designing and manufacturing watches (the Ming brand is his application of art and technical excellence to watches).  His last product at Hasselblad was the 907x and 45 f/4 P lens combo.  He writes about it on his blog, which is no longer active but remains open.  His video courses were well worth the money (I have almost all of them).  I also have a good amount of Thorsten's teaching tools.  I'm not suggesting that these two approaches are the best available, but the combination of the two captures the span of my photography interest.  One is passion based, the other technical excellence.  Both Leica and Hasselblad fit into both camps, and that's part of my Don Quixote quest - blend two approaches into one fulfilling all encompassing hobby.  

The more I read your comments the more I begin to wonder which brand is which, in terms of the passion/technical span, and the answer is that either brand can approach both ends of the spectrum.  The M seems to be the passion machine (wide open/bokeh kings) and the Hasselblad 907x in the same camp for the "old school" feel and joy.  The more technically capable SL line veers into the technical camp, with a menu system that seemed impossibly complex compared to  to shooting film.  I've watched tutorials, practiced different settings, and the like, but I'm never confident that I have "THE setup" for creating what I want without further fiddling.  Add to that the impossible task of editing with Photoshop or equivalent.  I've wasted hours and hours trying to learn that toolkit, and still find it frustrating and a time drain.  

That's why I tried the Q line - I loved the manual markings on the lens, complete with depth of field lines.  The icing on the cake was the ingenious ability to shift into macro mode with a simple twist of the lens.  It also didn't need a large amount of post work since the 28mm focal length often led to wide depth of field, or the dreamy look of a wide open lens.  If the focal length was 35 or 50 I'd be in heaven.  Sadly the 28 didn't cover my primary subject well - isolated single person candid shooting.

Sorry for the extended post, but my "stream of consciousness" description is cathartic and returns me to a simpler time when the image was the star of the show, not the tool that created the image.  And I still enjoy my Miata RF manual transmission sports car more than my Tesla Model Y, even though I recognize that the combination of the two provides me with the right tool for the job.  That's what I'm trying to achieve when marrying the Hasselblad and Leica brands into my kit.  Still, the thought of a film camera, despite all of the obvious issues still is swirling around in my mind.  A simple Nikon FM may be a cheap drug to see if the film journey is a road with more left for me to explore.

Thanks again for the comments - they are very helpful and clearly are opening up new vistas for me to explore.  The image I posted isn't technically ideal, it was just fun, and one of my earlier SL601 images using the 24-90 zoom.  The reflections, light and spontaneity of the moment would be hard to duplicate with a less technically capable platform, and maybe that's the direction I should be exploring more fully.

 

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 September 7, 2023 by lencap

[IkarusJohn]

Perhaps something to consider is the reality of using the X system:

• the body is a little larger in the hand than the SL(601), but is the best camera in the hand, bar none
• the system is heavier than the comparable SL set up - it’s medium format
• lenses re stellar
• the controls and menu set up is even better than Leica’s
• the image quality is sublime
• everything is a little slower and more considered

With the X2D and V lenses, you also get IBIS, true manual focus (not the vague feeling by wire) and an aperture ring on the lens.  So, set up with one lens, heavy, but not too bad; total control with effectively one layer of menu screen giving direct tap access to everything you need.

The pleasure of Hasselblad ownership?  Absolutely.  Film?  Well, I have two film cameras, and love them.  The simplicity of shooting film is fantastic.  But, I have a stack of exposed films on my desk - can’t really be bothered developing them myself, waiting to drop them off at the photo shop up the road, then I have to scan them, before I then process them.

Meanwhile, I’d rather be out taking photos …

[Jeff S]

Worst case, you buy it and sell it. No need for forum surveys to provide therapy, although many here seem to rely on MTF (My Therapy Forum) analysis.
 

But if you want to experiment first, Lensrentals can provide the lens and both the X1Dii and X2D.

Jeff

[Camaro5]

I've been looking to get back into a medium format camera for landscapes for a while.  I've looked at and considered many of them.  The Fuji GFX50S II, the Hasselblad X1Dii-50C and 907x, and Leica S007 were at the top of the list.  I actually liked the S007 the best but being 8 years old kind of held me back.  I had one of the first X1D Hassy's and besides it being quirky, the images weren't that great and Hasselblad treated me like crap taking almost a year on a repair.  Can't really trust them at this point.  

That left the Fuji GFX50S II.  The images are nice, but compared to what I get on my SL2-S with an SL 35 APO I didn't think it was worth the $4-5K for the minimal improvement in image quality, especially in multi-shot mode.  I also much prefer Leica's colors to Fuji even though their film simulations are nice.  

I do prints up to A3+ (13x19) and at that size, they look really good.  No complaints and I have a hard time believing any of those cameras would be much better.  I suppose if I printed bigger it might be a different story.  At some point I may still consider an S007.  

The X1D II-50C & 45p at $4100 (here) is a good deal and I almost pulled the trigger on it, but previous bad experience with Hasselblad kept me away.  

[Olaf_ZG]

@lencapis this a new offer from HB to clear stock? For that price I surely would buy it, eventhough I told myself not to buy into another system.

 

btw, regarding waistlevel and film, i had similar thoughts and bought my self a rolleiflex. Really enjoying it and real MF. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Olaf_ZG

[lencap]

Your responses continue to bring up very well considered thoughts/opinions.  I've not mentioned it, but I admit to relying upon my iPhone 14 Pro more and more.  I've written in other posts about the image quality surprising me, but it continues to do so.  The 48MP sensor is tiny in size, obviously, and the files are ProRaw and quite robust.  Even more useful in real life use, the Apple ecosystem allows for immediate storage and backup through cloud storage, easy editing on any iOs or OSX platform, and the camera is always in my pocket.  It also cost $1K, and for that price I get a camera, internet access, a large and growing catalog of useful apps for almost any field that I'm interested in.

Third party apps, like Halide, allow the user to open Apple's standard camera controls to provide more flexibility and adjustment.  And that brings up another "pet peeve" of mine.  I have an Apple 27" iMac with a 5K screen with a 5120x2880 resolution, the largest I can find.  That's just under 15MP.  My iPad Pro 12.9 (latest version) with a 2732x2048 screen resolution equivalent to 5.6MP.  The Apple PRO Display, with a cost of $5K, displays 6016X3384 pixels, 20.4MP in total.  That's the highest resolution screen I can find.  So please tell me: "Where exactly am I supposed to view ANY modern camera's full sensor output without pixel binning?"  And if the answer to that is "No Where" can someone please explain the mad rush to moving to a larger and larger sensors?  What true use is a 60MP sensor?  Viewing it requires interpolation, not pixel matching.

My 24MP SL2-S has more resolution than any screen, including Apple's top of the line $5K offering.  Can I really tell the difference among 6 million plus different shades/colors on any device?  That's what made film so appealing.  The limited dynamic range relied upon composition to tell a story.  Now I can take a mediocre image, press a few Photoshop buttons/sliders, and have a dramatic image.  But it's not a true representation of what the sensor captured, it's an interpretaion.  That's not necessarily bad, but somehow I still enjoy looking at Ansel Adams' images in person.  And even then, his film and darkroom techniques were limited as well.  His Zone System realized that and compensated.  Today's tools are far more powerful and accessible.

And that also is part of my confusion.  I own more and more technical gear, capable of great wonders, but I can never actually see what they produce.  Yes, I know this is a bit extreme, but so is $9K for a M11 camera body that DELIBERATELY  gives you the option of engaging pixel binning for the final output!  So, in the grand scheme, if owning Leica (or Hasselblad) is seen as a combination of creativeness and technical capability that can't be fully realized, does that make the hobby any less appealing?  No, not to me, but ignoring the strides that the "disruptors" like Apple that use some forms of AI to process images is also worth considering.

I listen to Peter Karbe wax eloquently about the technical superiority of Lecia APO lenses, and admire the skill and competence it takes to create such marvels.  But does a near perfect MTF chart transfer to a way to actually see pixel for pixel what that output looks like?  I admire Sean Reid's highly knowledgeable and technical reviews, but how many non-photography people actually consider chromatic aberration at 1000% of life size something to ponder?  Do I think less of Ansel Adams image because it doesn't have 17 stops of dynamic resolution?  Is that even possible?  HDR Images tend to suggest yes, it is.  But when you look at the resolution of our screens and lack of looking at an image on an actual photograph, preferably one properly lit and hanging on a wall, I wonder if we're overly fixated on specs.  If so, I'm at least as guilty of it as anyone else.

As I look over the last 6 decades I have boxes of pictures taken years ago, and those boxes are smaller and smaller every year.  I have very few actual pictures, and those that I have are rarely as large as 10x12.  And that's my last "old man, get off my lawn" thorn in my side.  Why does a 35mm camera have a 3:2 format, and yet standard size prints rarely accommodate that size natively?  

OK, rant over, I'm going to take a nap and wait for Jeopardy to come on TV.  Oh, wait, I can't watch it.  Spectrum is fighting with Disney, and they don't broadcast the ABC network programs.  So now even my TV shows are "pixel binning" since I can't watch them!  Now that I think about it, I'm glad I'm old.  Life's changing too quickly, and it seems common sense has often given way to clever marketing.  And don't get me started on Rolex watch prices!

Be well everyone, I'll take my meds now and be quiet for a bit.

Thanks again for the thoughts/opinions/comments; despite all evidence to the contrary they are actually helping me clarify some nagging issues.

Edited September 7, 2023 by lencap

[lencap]

OLAF, I assume Hasselblad is trying to clear stock.  Here's the offer from Adorama, a well known NY based camera store that competes with BHPhoto.

https://www.adorama.com/hsx1dii50ck.html

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, lencap said:

Your responses continue to bring up very well considered thoughts/opinions.  I've not mentioned it, but I admit to relying upon my iPhone 14 Pro more and more.  I've written in other posts about the image quality surprising me, but it continues to do so.  The 48MP sensor is tiny in size, obviously, and the files are ProRaw and quite robust.  Even more useful in real life use, the Apple ecosystem allows for immediate storage and backup through cloud storage, easy editing on any iOs or OSX platform, and the camera is always in my pocket.  It also cost $1K, and for that price I get a camera, internet access, a large and growing catalog of useful apps for almost any field that I'm interested in.

Third party apps, like Halide, allow the user to open Apple's standard camera controls to provide more flexibility and adjustment.  And that brings up another "pet peeve" of mine.  I have an Apple 27" iMac with a 5K screen with a 5120x2880 resolution, the largest I can find.  That's just under 15MP.  My iPad Pro 12.9 (latest version) with a 2732x2048 screen resolution equivalent to 5.6MP.  The Apple PRO Display, with a cost of $5K, displays 6016X3384 pixels, 20.4MP in total.  That's the highest resolution screen I can find.  So please tell me: "Where exactly am I supposed to view ANY modern camera's full sensor output without pixel binning?"  And if the answer to that is "No Where" can someone please explain the mad rush to moving to a larger and larger sensors?  What true use is a 60MP sensor?  Viewing it requires interpolation, not pixel matching.

My 24MP SL2-S has more resolution than any screen, including Apple's top of the line $5K offering.  Can I really tell the difference among 6 million plus different shades/colors on any device?  That's what made film so appealing.  The limited dynamic range relied upon composition to tell a story.  Now I can take a mediocre image, press a few Photoshop buttons/sliders, and have a dramatic image.  But it's not a true representation of what the sensor captured, it's an interpretaion.  That's not necessarily bad, but somehow I still enjoy looking at Ansel Adams' images in person.  And even then, his film and darkroom techniques were limited as well.  His Zone System realized that and compensated.  Today's tools are far more powerful and accessible.

And that also is part of my confusion.  I own more and more technical gear, capable of great wonders, but I can never actually see what they produce.  Yes, I know this is a bit extreme, but so is $9K for a M11 camera body that DELIBERATELY  gives you the option of engaging pixel binning for the final output!  So, in the grand scheme, if owning Leica (or Hasselblad) is seen as a combination of creativeness and technical capability that can't be fully realized, does that make the hobby any less appealing?  No, not to me, but ignoring the strides that the "disruptors" like Apple that use some forms of AI to process images is also worth considering.

I listen to Peter Karbe wax eloquently about the technical superiority of Lecia APO lenses, and admire the skill and competence it takes to create such marvels.  But does a near perfect MTF chart transfer to a way to actually see pixel for pixel what that output looks like?  I admire Sean Reid's highly knowledgeable and technical reviews, but how many non-photography people actually consider chromatic aberration at 1000% of life size something to ponder?  Do I think less of Ansel Adams image because it doesn't have 17 stops of dynamic resolution?  Is that even possible?  HDR Images tend to suggest yes, it is.  But when you look at the resolution of our screens and lack of looking at an image on an actual photograph, preferably one properly lit and hanging on a wall, I wonder if we're overly fixated on specs.  If so, I'm at least as guilty of it as anyone else.

As I look over the last 6 decades I have boxes of pictures taken years ago, and those boxes are smaller and smaller every year.  I have very few actual pictures, and those that I have are rarely as large as 10x12.  And that's my last "old man, get off my lawn" thorn in my side.  Why does a 35mm camera have a 3:2 format, and yet standard size prints rarely accommodate that size natively?  

OK, rant over, I'm going to take a nap and wait for Jeopardy to come on TV.  Oh, wait, I can't watch it.  Spectrum is fighting with Disney, and they don't broadcast the ABC network programs.  So now even my TV shows are "pixel binning" since I can't watch them!  Now that I think about it, I'm glad I'm old.  Life's changing too quickly, and it seems common sense has often given way to clever marketing.  And don't get me started on Rolex watch prices!

Be well everyone, I'll take my meds now and be quiet for a bit.

Thanks again for the thoughts/opinions/comments; despite all evidence to the contrary they are actually helping me clarify some nagging issues.

I think someone left the lencap on... (haha, no harm meant!!)

Edited September 7, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[BernardC]

12 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I listen to Peter Karbe wax eloquently about the technical superiority of Lecia APO lenses, and admire the skill and competence it takes to create such marvels.  But does a near perfect MTF chart transfer to a way to actually see pixel for pixel what that output looks like?

Resolution is only one aspect of lens personality, and it's mostly irrelevant unless you print to meter-plus sizes. However, that "technical superiority" translates to an overall look that transcends resolution. That's why we want the "APO Summicron" look, or the "vintage Summicron" look, or something else. It's all about matching your tools to your vision, just like a painter chooses what brush to use.

Here's a video that explains it much better than I can:

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[didier]

When I read the Joy you feel / anticipate to have with using such tools, I really think you should go for it (even if I can’t give you any advice on Hassy).

A big part of my fidelity to Leica and the M system is the pure enjoyment of using such great tools. I think having fun with my tools makes me a better photographer !