Leica SL3 vs Hasselblad X2D II price, reasonability and real use

[pgh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Admittedly I do no sports (anymore), or wildlife, but I actually think that the x2d has a pretty wide range of uses. While I’ve used better, I haven’t found the AF lacking. I shoot portraits, landscape and I guess what you would call a sort of slow documentary work - but that includes dynamic situations at times. I also only use a limited of 2-3 prime lenses for every system I use. For all of this the x2d feels actually more versatile than the SL2, which I do think is a great camera. On paper it may not look like it but in practice it is. And if I could get the workflow down better I could definitely imagine it being an only camera system (but I won’t get rid of my Ms). 

Edited September 2 by pgh

[Advertisement]

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

[intermediatic]

I bought an SL-2 and a fairly large kit of lenses but as the wait to move to the SL-3 wore on, I bought a GFX100S and a Sony A7RV/A7CR, the latter for faster, less important shots. Seeing as how I stopped using the SL-2, I sold it off. Because I was so enamored with the 907x 100c, I bought one and now I wound up with an X2D2 fully paid by the proceeds from the GFX 100S and a large number of lenses. I just don’t use the Fuji anymore with the Hasselblads in my stable. I still have the 907x 100c, but that’s a curious animal, not something I can really use much albeit a complete joy when I can. The most impractical camera I own, but the most fun.

Now I have an X2D2. It is a great camera. The lenses are generally excellent, with a build that exceeds the SL line. It’s strong industrial design, beautiful and functional. The X2D2 feels better in my hands than the SL-2 did and doesn’t feel any bigger. The IBIS is unreal. The UX interface and iOS app are as good as Leica’s, if not better, although the app is missing cloud sync. I don’t find the software I bear at all, I generally import, batch convert  using the nature preset, and send the fff files to Lightroom. Sure, it’s one more step, but it’s easy. The X2D2 allows you to tilt the screen out like the 907x 100c and pull it away from the body so the viewfinder doesn’t block it, which makes shooting much more easy. 

I haven’t tried the latest round of IBIS at night, but I have hopes that this camera can do as well as the Q3 with that. I will take it and one of a Q3, M11, or A7CR (quick and dirty, small  and not that much fun to use, but it works) on my next trip. I am sure it will be the Hasselblad, but not sure which of the others I take.

Worth mentioning that I mainly shoot landscapes and buildings. Some street photography but not much. I find it overdone.

But I have to say, I truly dislike 4:3. It is an ungainly proportion. I much prefer square or 3:2. Both are far more appealing to my eye.

Edited September 2 by intermediatic

[Olaf_ZG]

8 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

And regardless of which you choose most of your photos will still suck.

Gordon

Thank you for that sincere reminder…

[hansvons]

12 hours ago, pgh said:

it has the most cumbersome back end process that puts me off of using it more often than I'd like to admit. 

The main reason why HB is not on my radar. A proper, open workflow is essential. And like you, I can’t ditch C1 just because a camera isn’t compatible. That’s the wrong way round.

I must admit though that I’m intrigued by HB’s colour. But Leica does what I need it to do. And, luckily, I don’t suffer from GAS because I know, as @FlashGordonPhotography pointed out, my images will keep sucking regardless of what camera I buy.

Side note: two years ago, I turned myself into an avid gym goer. My glutes have now 100% more strength despite entering retirement age (muscle building is possible at any age). The ability to bend down repetitively any time on a shooting day has a much bigger impact on my photography than any gear remotely could provide.  

[jaapv]

20 hours ago, CptSlevin said:

Photo better represents the difference than figures and jaapv's 3d modeling.
I saw X2D II in hand of a friend already and Q3 / Q3 43 in my hand.

All I can say that Q3 no longer looks to me as compact camera at all

I suggest that you come down to earth. Maybe your friend has giant hands. It is not my modeling. Camerasize is reliable and accurate  

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

21 hours ago, BWColor said:

Other than vignetting, what optical qualities were sacrificed to make these (38V & 55V) lenses more compact?  Pretty much the same question regarding 25v and 90v.  I’m new to these lenses and Hasselblad as of a bit over one year ago, so don’t have the perspective to compare to previous lenses.

Some corner performance at wider apertures for the 38 and 55. The 90 is better than the older version. There’s no direct comparison for the 25 but it’s close enough to both the 30 and 21 for it not to be an issue when shot at the same aperture.

The 45P and 65 (especially the latter) are extremely sharp to the corners. The 80 is also quite spectacular. It has one of the best lens draws I’ve ever used but it’s just too slow AF wise. The 120 is the sharpest lens in the line up (and slowest AF) followed closely by the 135 and 65. Despite its optical performance I don’t get on with the 65. It’s bulky and heavy and slow. And for my usage of a fast-ish prime I don’t generally need epic corners. If I did I can shoot at f8 where both the 38 and 55 sharpen up nicely or I’ll use the old 35-75 which is an epic landscape lens.

I’ve sold dozens of A0 prints from the 55V. I’m not concerned about some wide open corners at all. At f8 I have detail for days. I see a case for having the older lenses form landscape shooters who print big. But if you packed the 30, 65 and 90 it’s weigh more than the 35-75 zoom, which is so good a stop down it’d be difficult to see any improvement at all.

I really like the way the 38 and 55 behave. Some vignetting wide open and they sharpen up nicely at mid apertures. The 55 has a really nice draw. I have enough clinical lenses already. If I needed that I’d just use the SL APO’s.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, intermediatic said:

I bought an SL-2 and a fairly large kit of lenses but as the wait to move to the SL-3 wore on, I bought a GFX100S and a Sony A7RV/A7CR, the latter for faster, less important shots. Seeing as how I stopped using the SL-2, I sold it off. Because I was so enamored with the 907x 100c, I bought one and now I wound up with an X2D2 fully paid by the proceeds from the GFX 100S and a large number of lenses. I just don’t use the Fuji anymore with the Hasselblads in my stable. I still have the 907x 100c, but that’s a curious animal, not something I can really use much albeit a complete joy when I can. The most impractical camera I own, but the most fun.

Now I have an X2D2. It is a great camera. The lenses are generally excellent, with a build that exceeds the SL line. It’s strong industrial design, beautiful and functional. The X2D2 feels better in my hands than the SL-2 did and doesn’t feel any bigger. The IBIS is unreal. The UX interface and iOS app are as good as Leica’s, if not better, although the app is missing cloud sync. I don’t find the software I bear at all, I generally import, batch convert  using the nature preset, and send the fff files to Lightroom. Sure, it’s one more step, but it’s easy. The X2D2 allows you to tilt the screen out like the 907x 100c and pull it away from the body so the viewfinder doesn’t block it, which makes shooting much more easy. 

I haven’t tried the latest round of IBIS at night, but I have hopes that this camera can do as well as the Q3 with that. I will take it and one of a Q3, M11, or A7CR (quick and dirty, small  and not that much fun to use, but it works) on my next trip. I am sure it will be the Hasselblad, but not sure which of the others I take.

Worth mentioning that I mainly shoot landscapes and buildings. Some street photography but not much. I find it overdone.

But I have to say, I truly dislike 4:3. It is an ungainly proportion. I much prefer square or 3:2. Both are far more appealing to my eye.

My issue with Phocus Mobile is simple. They have zero Android support, which is actually pathetic.

Gordon

[mirrorless]

The lack of Capture One support just brought me a huge relief not to think about the Hasselblad system anymore but to invest in new glas such as the 21mm APO SL… C1 is my bread and butter software since many years and I will stick to it. Funny, that this relative little problem saved me from spending a fortune for a new system.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Some corner performance at wider apertures for the 38 and 55. The 90 is better than the older version. There’s no direct comparison for the 25 but it’s close enough to both the 30 and 21 for it not to be an issue when shot at the same aperture.

The 45P and 65 (especially the latter) are extremely sharp to the corners. The 80 is also quite spectacular. It has one of the best lens draws I’ve ever used but it’s just too slow AF wise. The 120 is the sharpest lens in the line up (and slowest AF) followed closely by the 135 and 65. Despite its optical performance I don’t get on with the 65. It’s bulky and heavy and slow. And for my usage of a fast-ish prime I don’t generally need epic corners. If I did I can shoot at f8 where both the 38 and 55 sharpen up nicely or I’ll use the old 35-75 which is an epic landscape lens.

I’ve sold dozens of A0 prints from the 55V. I’m not concerned about some wide open corners at all. At f8 I have detail for days. I see a case for having the older lenses form landscape shooters who print big. But if you packed the 30, 65 and 90 it’s weigh more than the 35-75 zoom, which is so good a stop down it’d be difficult to see any improvement at all.

I really like the way the 38 and 55 behave. Some vignetting wide open and they sharpen up nicely at mid apertures. The 55 has a really nice draw. I have enough clinical lenses already. If I needed that I’d just use the SL APO’s.

Gordon

If buying new, what would be the reason to buy the 35-75 rather than the new 35-100, which is faster, a half pound lighter and less expensive.  Early reports regarding IQ are not surprisingly very positive.

[SrMi]

36 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

If buying new, what would be the reason to buy the 35-75 rather than the new 35-100, which is faster, a half pound lighter and less expensive.  Early reports regarding IQ are not surprisingly very positive.

Which reports are you referring to?

This one is positive:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/lenses/hasselblad-xcd-35-100e-review

[Jeff S]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Which reports are you referring to?

This one is positive:

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/lenses/hasselblad-xcd-35-100e-review

They’re all positive, not surprisingly.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

22 hours ago, Jeff S said:

If buying new, what would be the reason to buy the 35-75 rather than the new 35-100, which is faster, a half pound lighter and less expensive.  Early reports regarding IQ are not surprisingly very positive.

I can’t answer that yet as I don’t have the lens yet. Was supposed to be this week but I don’t think I’ll see mine for a couple of weeks yet. Then I will test against the old lens and the Fuji 45-100.

All I’ll say for now is the 35-75 is a stunning lens. It might become a cheaper alternative on the used market for those that shoot landscapes etc. If the new lens is as good that’s great news but I remain skeptical they’ll make something lighter, longer and better than the 35-75. For my use the improved AF and AFC are more useful. For pure landscape shooter the 35-75 and a 90mm 3.2 would make a potent kit.

Gordon

[o2mpx]

Having multiple systems can be an ongoing challenge which system to use particularly their overlapping areas (definitely not complaining as we’re fortunate to have such a high grade problem).

Addressing the title of this thread, at one time having a full complement of XCD legacy lenses (21/45/90/135/35-75) and the 2 Leica zooms (16-35/24-90) was duplicative. Made the decision to anchor around the X2D, added the 28p and the 20-35 with the 35-100 on order. Keeping the legacy lenses as they still seem better in the corners than the new ranges (side note: for some reason perhaps there’s no reviewer owning the legacy plus the update XCD lenses as there’s not been detailed comparisons that I’m aware of). Using the SL3 with M lenses only without owning any L Mount lenses for times when a lighter carry kit is needed. 

Again just an opinion of one, the HB colors are better than Leica’s. Phocus is an additional burden for the few selected images, exporting TIFF’s before final LR edits just compounds the edit workflow; most go straight into LR (side note: again have not seen a direct image comparison of native HNCS through Phocus vs DNG through LR). 

With landscapes sharpness and resolution, the APO35 M on the SL3 is perhaps equal but not better to the HB; perhaps the APO SL lenses will be better, but likely unless it’s an APO lens, IQ still goes to the HB. 

The latest HB pricing is a problem for Leica SL and perhaps upcoming S platform prices. The SL might have a slight edge with portability and lens ranges, but when Leica has a MF system likely it will be higher priced than HB. Will not upgrade to the X2DII given landscapes is all I shoot and adding the 35-100 instead will add to versatility. The SL3 despite only slightly changed, turned out to be better in user experience than the SL2 and again, within only my usage patterns, provides a lighter carry set (with M lenses not native L mounts).

If forced to choose only 1 system, Leica SL3 and a complement of APO SL and M lenses likely will be my choice. It’ll be more expensive than HB set, but with more range coverage, lighter carry and less bulky than a set of legacy and new XCD lenses. 

Edited September 4 by o2mpx

[jaapv]

Regarding colours, given the malleability of RGB files in general, I have a strong suspicion that Phocus has the better raw conversion. 

[LocalHero1953]

Speaking as an ignoramus, I assume that there are different varieties of Bayer filter: the red, green and blue filters can be designed to allow certain wavelength ranges through, and those ranges must overlap to a greater or lesser extent. After all, you can't record the full colours of a scene from just the 700, 550 and 475 nm response. The full visible light spectrum has to be detected. Perhaps HB has just chosen its Bayer filter colours better than Leica's - e.g. perhaps its blue filter detects more of the cyan range than Leica's does. 

[hansvons]

49 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Speaking as an ignoramus, I assume that there are different varieties of Bayer filter:

Myself also being an ignoramus, I’d assume that the Bayer filter is part of the sensor production as it must be made at pixel scale, adding to the further assumption that the Bayer filter is identical whether Sony or Leica use that particular sensor, and the difference is in the "colour science" of the camera manufacturers. Maybe I’m absolutely wrong. 

[LocalHero1953]

My thought was that if Leica can specify custom microlenses, then they could specify the CFA (after all, they can specify not having a CFA for monochrome).
Let's hope someone here can tell us - I'm always amazed by the range of expertise available.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Speaking as an ignoramus, I assume that there are different varieties of Bayer filter: the red, green and blue filters can be designed to allow certain wavelength ranges through, and those ranges must overlap to a greater or lesser extent. After all, you can't record the full colours of a scene from just the 700, 550 and 475 nm response. The full visible light spectrum has to be detected. Perhaps HB has just chosen its Bayer filter colours better than Leica's - e.g. perhaps its blue filter detects more of the cyan range than Leica's does. 

That is correct and the  Bayer filter certainly makes a difference. The crossover points, the tonal curve, etc. But all can be influenced by the digital pipeline  afterwards. Most of us are able to tweak colour to our taste in postprocessing, especially by moving into LAB. The end difference can be minimal. No, I think Hasselblads digital expertise makes the difference , not the sensor on its own. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Myself also being an ignoramus, I’d assume that the Bayer filter is part of the sensor production as it must be made at pixel scale, adding to the further assumption that the Bayer filter is identical whether Sony or Leica use that particular sensor, and the difference is in the "colour science" of the camera manufacturers. Maybe I’m absolutely wrong. 

AFAIK, Sony can produce different CFAs for different customers, or even omit it (monochrom). We know that they can produce different toppings (glass thickness, OSPDAF).

[jaapv]

I’m sure they can and I would be surprised if Leica would not avail themselves of this choice. But I do know that Leica had to move to a small designer and unknown maker for the M 240 as Sony was unable ( or unwilling) to meet Leica’s specifications.