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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Writing down my thoughts here helps me clear my mind. I don’t have many people around who care about cameras 😎 so writing here is like having a discussion with myself…

Anyway, last week I went for a long walk in the forest with the x1dii. Today I did a long walk with the 907x. Next to photographing I did some serious thinking and analysis.

The 907x is like a M: a great camera, with great haptics, a joy to use. 
The x1d is like a SL: big, chunky, but it gets the job done. 
 

To me, the current set I have with the SL is perfect for portraits, events and with the 100macro, super for the flowers in the garden. It’s weather proof. For this, the x2dii will not provide me with anything better.

The x1dii is superb for long exposures, from a tripod. 50mp is sufficient as I will not crop, rather use primes for long exposures and the xcd135 is sufficient for my needs. X2dii will not offer much more, except for its tiltable screen.

So, I should forget about the x2dii: no advantage for me. Maybe a 907x 100c then? It is said there might be a new release, so this is sth to wait for. Meanwhile, I am astonished that I repeatedly managed to get handheld 1s shots with a 50mp sensor … no ibis. But for now, 50mp will do.

So, no upgrade. 

I’m not going to feed your GAS, or justify my own purchase decisions, but I would like to add to your mental conversation.

I was an enthusiastic 503cx user back in the 1980s.  I had three of their best Zeiss lenses - 50-80-150 - and I traveled with it through Asia (I was living in Hong Kong at the time).  I caried a Tenba baskpack, with filters, a Gossen Spot meter, grey cards, a tripod … I had a blast with it.  Some of the images I’m most pleased with were with that camera.  I then sold it when I had been back in NZ for a while as I wasn’t using it and I was clearing the decks for digital (I’d just bought my M9).  Part of me missed the camera, but with kids it wasn’t really feasible - someone else should enjoy it.

Then came the X1D, and I was fascinated.  I followed the reviews, and when the X1D II came I jumped back in.  Lovely camera, and I quickly acummulated the 21 - 45P - 80 -135 (plus converter).  I was very happy, until my niece’s wedding - I spent the entire afternoon fighting the camera.  The AF wouldn’t fix on what I wanted and the manual focus by wire simply didn’t work for me (not direct enough), and the black out after each shot was just too long.  I re-assessed the system and sold the lot.  I was very happy with everything but my ability to actually use the camera for what I wanted.  It needed to do more than sit on a tripod.

The X2D, with IBIS and the V lenses lured me back into the water, and the camera now does for me what it should have done in the first place.  I am being more cautious, having only the 38V at this stage (the other lenses would overlap into my M system, and my SL(601) covers mid-zoom and telephoto).  I took just the X2D and 38V with me to Europe for a few weeks and really enjoyed just having one lens and having to think harder about what I was dong.

At some point, I will look at the 20-35E zoom or the 21V and perhaps the 135 (again).  I don’t need 100MP, but then I don’t mind it either - IBIS makes a difference.  While I was waiting for my 38V to be replaced (the leaf shutter failed, which is unusual), Hasselblad lent me an XCD 80/1.9, a lens I had enjoyed when I owned it.  Now it seemed unreasonably heavy and slow.  I already have an 0.95 Noctilux, 75 Summilux  and have had the 50 Summilux-SL and saw no point in holding onto the 80/1.9.  I guess it all depends on which system you are using.  For me, the 50 Summilux-SL was the best of the bunch, but I like the Noctilux so that is what I kept.  I was also selling down my SL system in favour of my M system.

I hope this adds a different perspective to your musings.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Do we all have our fantasy cameras? Cameras we would love to have, but have no real need for? The TL2 was once this for me: I bought it twice because it was beautiful and seductive, and sold it twice because it was impractical. At the moment the Sigma BF is that fantasy for me, for the same reasons. The R2D2 X2Dii could easily become my latest dream camera but with the added discouragement of having to buy unnecessary lenses as well.

I’m still wondering why I bought the GFX RF. Absolutely beautiful camera but why?? Also I do lust after the 907x 100C. I have the 50C. There’s no use case for it for me over what I have. But I want it. It’s about the only HB camera I have resisted. I really hope they don’t upgrade with either IBIS or weather sealing gaskets between the back and camera. That would be a problem.

I have no such thoughts about the M11 Safari. It’s a keeper.

Bizzarely, the X2D2 is a practical upgrade for me.

Gordon

[Ne314satel]

18 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Do we all have our fantasy cameras? Cameras we would love to have, but have no real need for? The TL2 was once this for me: I bought it twice because it was beautiful and seductive, and sold it twice because it was impractical. At the moment the Sigma BF is that fantasy for me, for the same reasons. The R2D2 X2Dii could easily become my latest dream camera but with the added discouragement of having to buy unnecessary lenses as well.

For 15 years I considered the M9-P to be the perfect camera. Now I'm still waiting for my silver M11 after color correction (it took 4 weeks instead of the promised 2). If the color correction is good, then as long as my eyes can see, I'm quite happy with the M system for street shooting. But I like the color with the x2d. But I saw a slightly different color with the x2d2 (I want a direct, honest comparison). If my children give me grandchildren, I will definitely buy an x2d2 - with age, I can't keep up with the little ones with M lenses))

[tom0511]

I don't have the x2dii but the x2d and sl3/sl3-s ...

some thoughts...

-sl system much shorter blackout when taking an image, makes it feel more responsive

-much much more lenses for SL system, from SL mount from various brands, tele zooms up to adapted lenses which you can use better because of the shutter in the body.

-still a little bit smaller

-lenses IMO show nicer bokeh and less vignetting

x2d(II)

-better color science

-better color science

-for me-feels even more stable in the hand

-flash synch

-color science

-4:3 vs 3:2 I prefer first for portraits and second for landscape, still you always can crop in each camera to each format and still have many pixels left

...The Leica S2 had continuous AF 10 years ago

[BernardC]

In short, it's your classic 35mm vs. medium format trade-off.

The smaller format gives you more responsiveness, more flexibility, and a larger array of lenses. The bigger format feels more substantial, and has a small edge in image quality.

The next step is large format, if you feel that medium format is too responsive and flexible!

[pgh]

On 9/19/2025 at 1:58 PM, BernardC said:

In short, it's your classic 35mm vs. medium format trade-off.

The smaller format gives you more responsiveness, more flexibility, and a larger array of lenses. The bigger format feels more substantial, and has a small edge in image quality.

The next step is large format, if you feel that medium format is too responsive and flexible!

The image quality difference in digital (or an SL3 vs an X2D) is so marginal compared to 35mm format now. They were much further apart with film but would have never been the case 10-15 years ago even with digital. The functionality tradeoff is also much closer in digital (than it was with film) with Hasselblad’s latest release, though too. Honestly, at this point, for most photographic applications and most photographers, the IQ difference is marginal enough now that there’s a good chance it’s not even the top consideration when deciding between the 2 systems. I think the biggest considerations that point to an X2d2 are something like Hasselblad’s color, the leaf shutters, perhaps the “look” of 4:3 and the lenses, and ergonomics - and then maybe that little extra bit of resolution and depth. For many those will be more than enough to be swayed this way. But the advantages to Leica are plenty - starting with workflow (no Phocus, no Lightroom (with a loss of HNCS)! and then the flexibility you mention. 

As a Hassy X2D and SL2 owner I’m still on the fence about which system to fortify for jobs I can’t use my M’s on, and which camera to sell. 

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, pgh said:

he image quality difference in digital (or an SL3 vs an X2D) is so marginal compared to 35mm format now. They were much further apart with film but would have never been the case 10-15 years ago even with digital. 

That's partly because today's medium format sensors are only 1.6x the area 35mm sensors, and most film medium format cameras were in the 2.8x to 4x range.

Also, "sharpness" isn't a limitation for most photographers, even if they think it is. You can easily print a 1x1.5m image from a full-frame sensor that is sharp enough to hang on a gallery wall. Your images will be judged on a range of other factors before anybody notices sharpness. Even if they do mention sharpness, it's probably based on your technique rather than the camera format.

[pgh]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

That's partly because today's medium format sensors are only 1.6x the area 35mm sensors, and most film medium format cameras were in the 2.8x to 4x range.

Also, "sharpness" isn't a limitation for most photographers, even if they think it is. You can easily print a 1x1.5m image from a full-frame sensor that is sharp enough to hang on a gallery wall. Your images will be judged on a range of other factors before anybody notices sharpness. Even if they do mention sharpness, it's probably based on your technique rather than the camera format.

Yes, agreed on all points. 
as I am making a2 sized prints from iso 3200 pictures on the m10 for display, and while pixel peeping reveals a slight deficiency in fine detail - something not far from when I’ve printed 6x6 frames of Fuji 160 in the darkroom at 16” square, I’ll be surprised if any viewer gives it a second thought. It is more than sufficient. 

Edited September 21 by pgh

[tom0511]

Am 21.9.2025 um 14:21 schrieb BernardC:

That's partly because today's medium format sensors are only 1.6x the area 35mm sensors, and most film medium format cameras were in the 2.8x to 4x range.

Also, "sharpness" isn't a limitation for most photographers, even if they think it is. You can easily print a 1x1.5m image from a full-frame sensor that is sharp enough to hang on a gallery wall. Your images will be judged on a range of other factors before anybody notices sharpness. Even if they do mention sharpness, it's probably based on your technique rather than the camera format.

To me it's not sharpness or resolution. Where the MF excels is still 2 things IMO:

a) color and tonalizy

b) sharpness falloff

But to my eyes it also depends on the lenses. For example the 50/1.4 SL creates a look which is very close to MF...but its also as big as the 70S.

I am still also quite undecided between all this gear, certainly I would like to reduce overall.