Leica S 006 and Hasselblad X2D II

[sincurves]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Last week saw the launch of the Hasselblad X2D II - an absolute amazing camera. I picked it up on launch day and took it out to test, and let me tell you it was a lot of fun. I used the old HC lenses via adapter and they work perfectly - albeit extremely slow to focus. Even the HC300mm performed well handheld. Coming back to look at the files in Lightroom you notice the new HDR functionality which is impressive. I would think it is useful for photographers who publish on HDR devices. Still - I may be getting old, but there is something about the files that makes them feel less appealing than earlier Leica S and Hasselblad H cameras. Having spent the afternoon trying to find out why, I ended up concluding the noise pattern (if that is what you call it) is sharper and has more contrast than the older sensors for my liking. Whether it has any significance when printing, that's is the next test for me.

I used my Leica S 006, Leica SL and Hasselblad H6D-100C to compare with the new camera. The 12-13 year old Leica S 006 needs a good amount of light and will be outperformed in many areas by the latest tech - but it still rules in terms of pure IQ, in my opinion. This is not to take anything away from the X2D II, it will be/is massively successful and right for many users. It sure is a good time to be a photographer with plenty of options around. Now - where is the S4?

[LocalHero1953]

I'm curious how you looked at the HB images in Lightroom? My understanding was that only Phocus could convert HB raws. Did you then export as TIFFs?

[irenedp]

I know that newer cameras have image stabilisation but in my view it is not perfect.  The GFX 100 files -at least those of the first version- had not as good IQ as the original GFX 50.I shoot now with a Cambo camera with an IQ4 back which has 150 Mp. The quality is perfect. The S3 quality on a tripod is excellent. Ultimately I think that particularly at slow shutter speeds the image stabilisation software does not match the steadiness of a tripod, and that would explain why an S2 or an S006 -or 7- may have an advantage when shot handheld. I certainly have to use higher shutter speeds with the S3 than the S2 -obviously the S3 has no stabilisation at all-.

Edited September 6 by irenedp

[sincurves]

23 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm curious how you looked at the HB images in Lightroom? My understanding was that only Phocus could convert HB raws. Did you then export as TIFFs?

Lightroom handles the Hasselblad raw files (fff) quite well. I use LR to review and cull. I use Phocus for editing of keepers and export to TIFF for final edit and prints in either LR or PS.

[ben446]

When post processing, can you turn down the sharpening and vivid / saturation on the X2D (II) files to reduce that hyper real look?

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm curious how you looked at the HB images in Lightroom? My understanding was that only Phocus could convert HB raws. Did you then export as TIFFs?

LR handles; if not I wouldn’t bother renting the X2Dii at some point to compare to my SL2 files and LR to ImagePrint workflow.  Don’t want to mess with Phocus, regardless of potential IQ benefits. There are enough variables to consider and control already from shot to final print and display.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 6.9.2025 um 15:49 schrieb ben446:

When post processing, can you turn down the sharpening and vivid / saturation on the X2D (II) files to reduce that hyper real look?

Interesting - I also find the files from the x2d to look hyperreal sometimes. Overall I love that colors, but then it looks almost better than the reality did, but for some reasaon it doesnt look artificial like iphone images or AI/KI.

So is it something to adore from Hasselblad or is it too much?

[Tirpitz666]

I have an used X1D II on order just because every time I look at a (decently taken) pic from a Hassy, I'm floored by the appearance and the colors, especially for protraiture work. And based of what I read/saw, usually it comes straight out of Phocus without too much work, which would be quite the boon of course. A lot of people seem also to prefer the colors that come straight out of the 50MP sensor, so I had to see with my own eyes and then compare with the S006, just for the sake of it 🙂

[davidmknoble]

I’ve used the X2D (1) for about two years now.  I use it on a tripod, but I use capture one (which is incompatible with Hasselblad files unless you export as a TIFF and hack the ‘Hasselblad’ out of the EXIF - too much trouble!  Phocus works really well for the X2D files and while it doesn’t have all the bells and whistles, including horrible dust removal, I am able to keep the full 16-bit color which is incredible.  My workflow is to edit for color and everything except major sharpening.  So, ready to print, and then export to ON1 as a full sized full color TIFF.  Then I apply the dynamic contrast in ON1 and send to Image Print.  

For landscape work, I still prefer the old stock XCD lenses and not the new ones which are terrible in the corners and mostly have such focus shift I could never get them to work properly.  But the older CF lenses work well too because they take the center of the glass and not the full frame.  Especially the old 100 CFi.  I have found the IBIS on the X2D very good if you don’t push it more than a few stops, and the SL3 is equivalent in that regard.  The problem is that I shoot with such long shutters speeds, IBIS is immaterial most of the time.

I’ve looked at the X2D II, but if you don’t have the right lenses some of the interesting features are unavailable.  I’m happy where I am there and I use both that and the S3/S007 for intentional tripod work.

[BWColor]

On 9/6/2025 at 8:49 AM, ben446 said:

When post processing, can you turn down the sharpening and vivid / saturation on the X2D (II) files to reduce that hyper real look?

Ah, the very reason that I shoot these cameras.  As you know, you can reduce resolution, contrast, saturation with any files.  I generally shoot 35mm color film for the not hyper real look and a Portra vs Ektar stock when I don’t want the saturation.

[hoolyproductions]

20 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

For landscape work, I still prefer the old stock XCD lenses and not the new ones which are terrible in the corners and mostly have such focus shift I could never get them to work properly.

I was interested in your criticism of the newer XCD lenses, a point of view I have sometimes seen in other reviews and posts, but not as strongly as yours. I currently use an SL3 and a small set of APOs (or 24-90) for casual landscape work and am very happy with it, but am dealing with occassional GAS for the X2D camera. Does your comment also apply when using the newer XCD lenses stopped down? (personally I am interested in the 55V and the 90V, and planning to rent the camera sometime because it is available locally - in the hope it will dispense with my mild recurring GAS attack ).

Edited October 9 by hoolyproductions

[Stuart Richardson]

Frankly, I would also like to see an example of what you mean... I tend to be a lot more critical of edge to edge lens performance than most people. I think it is because Iceland stresses it so hard, and because I am a printer so it is easy for me to make very large prints. I have avoided the X series because I had such bad experiences with Hasselblad the company, but the camera is intriguing. But if the lenses are as you say, there would truly be no point for me, especially since the SL and S cameras do that so well with their best primes. Field curvature is so hard to compensate for here, since so much of the landscape detail is functionally equidistant at over a few hundred meters to kilometers away. 

[Doc_P]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Stuart Richardson:

Frankly, I would also like to see an example of what you mean... I tend to be a lot more critical of edge to edge lens performance than most people. I think it is because Iceland stresses it so hard, and because I am a printer so it is easy for me to make very large prints. I have avoided the X series because I had such bad experiences with Hasselblad the company, but the camera is intriguing. But if the lenses are as you say, there would truly be no point for me, especially since the SL and S cameras do that so well with their best primes. Field curvature is so hard to compensate for here, since so much of the landscape detail is functionally equidistant at over a few hundred meters to kilometers away. 

Thanks a lot Stuart for this clarification and hoolyproductions for his questions: As intriguing the color pipeline of the Hasselblad is - how does the XD2DII with booth E "prime" zooms as well as with the XCD 4/21  compare

• against the Apocrons 2/28 and 2/75 (edges of the E 35-100), the Apo 2/21 (of course narrow then the XCD 4/21) on the SL3 and
• the S24 on the S3?

 

[davidmknoble]

I don’t have images available where I am right now, but will try to show a few taken by 55V and 35V.  I had the 90v as well but traded them all in for older lenses.  However, I have some comparison MTF’s and I’ll explain them after I show them.

The first comparison is the 55v 2.5 versus the 65 2.8.  The f/5.6 on the 55 still wanders a lot between the sag and tang starting to split at 5mm in heigh and separates a lot at the two lower frequencies - which can make a difference with 100mp especially if you do what they show in instagram, which is zoom way in. In my experience with that lens it was incredible in the center, really good, but the curve meant at f/8 it was still blurry in the corners which didn’t hurt the sky so much but ruined the foreground.  The 65 however, splits a little bit at 10mm, but doesn’t really separate hard until 20mm (which works great with square formats). It reminds me of the Leica M 50mm summicron V at f/5.6. Better, notice at closer focus it is almost APO like, and this lens is ?? About 2018 ?? Don’t remember.

Then look at the 35v 2.5 versus the 45 3.5.  I know the 45 shows at f/8 and not f/5.6, but the sag and tang lines on the 35 just start going all over the place right away.  The 45 is at least a decade old (the pancake 45 f/4 is newer), but the lines are tight even though the 10mm frequency is a hair lower.  This is a great lens.  The old 30mm and 21mm lenses are similar to this one.  I have the 30mm but not the 21.

Most interesting, and relevant here in the S group, is the 35-70 to compare to the S 30-90.  The 35-70, like the S lens, is not as clean wide open and there is falloff at the corners.  But it is really nice the rest of the way up. I use this lens a lot for landscape since I’m stopping down and start about 40-45mm on up.

The point is that the older lenses are just a bit lower at 10mm frequencies, but we’re talking 90-92 versus maybe 94-92.  But the lenses clearly have much less in aberrations especially in the corners, where it counts.  The 35-70 along with the APO 135 are a superb combination for landscape travel, or the 30, 45, 65, and APO 135.  The filter mounts are 67mm for the 45, 65 (think SL?) and the 35-70, 30, and 135 are 77mm.  I only had to get a new 77mm ring for my graduated filer sets and I could use the same with SL, S and XCD.

The difference in age of the lenses compared to the new ones, one would expect an advance in lens design, not just new controls and faster focusing. IMHO.

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!

[davidmknoble]

This is off my ipad, and an iPhone shot.  It’s with the zoom, the wine country filters (polarizer, 2 stop grad) so the polarizer saturated the colors some, and the iPhone did the rest. Hard to see, but that image held up everywhere, even in the corners of the full frame (not just square).  About f/9.5 or /11.

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!

[davidmknoble]

To answer another question, while some don’t like Phocus, it works well with the X2D.  The distortion and light falloff is automatically removed and the full 16-bit color remains.  There is less editing opportunity, only simple grad and radial masks, but it works really well.  The files seem just a hair less malleable than the S007/S3 files, but it is 100mp so they are small.  Using grad filters gets rid of a lot of need to bring up shadows way too much.  Saturation is like any other, you can pull it down for a more old film style, or boost it up like Velvia.  I prefer a somewhat more neutral stance.  I export to TIFF and print with ImagePrint.

[BWColor]

2 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

I don’t have images available where I am right now, but will try to show a few taken by 55V and 35V.  I had the 90v as well but traded them all in for older lenses.  However, I have some comparison MTF’s and I’ll explain them after I show them.

The first comparison is the 55v 2.5 versus the 65 2.8.  The f/5.6 on the 55 still wanders a lot between the sag and tang starting to split at 5mm in heigh and separates a lot at the two lower frequencies - which can make a difference with 100mp especially if you do what they show in instagram, which is zoom way in. In my experience with that lens it was incredible in the center, really good, but the curve meant at f/8 it was still blurry in the corners which didn’t hurt the sky so much but ruined the foreground.  The 65 however, splits a little bit at 10mm, but doesn’t really separate hard until 20mm (which works great with square formats). It reminds me of the Leica M 50mm summicron V at f/5.6. Better, notice at closer focus it is almost APO like, and this lens is ?? About 2018 ?? Don’t remember.

Then look at the 35v 2.5 versus the 45 3.5.  I know the 45 shows at f/8 and not f/5.6, but the sag and tang lines on the 35 just start going all over the place right away.  The 45 is at least a decade old (the pancake 45 f/4 is newer), but the lines are tight even though the 10mm frequency is a hair lower.  This is a great lens.  The old 30mm and 21mm lenses are similar to this one.  I have the 30mm but not the 21.

Most interesting, and relevant here in the S group, is the 35-70 to compare to the S 30-90.  The 35-70, like the S lens, is not as clean wide open and there is falloff at the corners.  But it is really nice the rest of the way up. I use this lens a lot for landscape since I’m stopping down and start about 40-45mm on up.

The point is that the older lenses are just a bit lower at 10mm frequencies, but we’re talking 90-92 versus maybe 94-92.  But the lenses clearly have much less in aberrations especially in the corners, where it counts.  The 35-70 along with the APO 135 are a superb combination for landscape travel, or the 30, 45, 65, and APO 135.  The filter mounts are 67mm for the 45, 65 (think SL?) and the 35-70, 30, and 135 are 77mm.  I only had to get a new 77mm ring for my graduated filer sets and I could use the same with SL, S and XCD.

The difference in age of the lenses compared to the new ones, one would expect an advance in lens design, not just new controls and faster focusing. IMHO.

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!

Thank you for taking the time to post these.  I understand your point regarding the subtle peripheral differences, but in certain pairings there are less subtle differences.  For example, when you compare the 38v to the 45mm the newer lens is a bit faster and the comparisons stopped down are made at different f-stops.  Also, in general the ‘v’ lenses are smaller/lighter.  I have large prints on my wall made with the 38v wide open and they hold up quite well.  Also, my experience is quite limited and my objectives differ from yours.  I only have the 25v, 38v and 90v and other than using studio tripod & copy stand  my X2D (X2Dii) cameras are shot hand held.  I heavily depend upon image stabilization and only use the cameras to document my travels.  On the other hand, you have the skill set, experience and patience to work off the tripod to obtain the absolute best images possible.  Perhaps, you also shoot 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras, whereas I also shoot 35mm, 645 and 6x7 film cameras.  My hope for future lenses rests with a new Hasselblad APO 1:1 macro lens.  I would like a better tool to use when copying those film images.

Lastly, I can’t see myself being able to afford the next generation of Leica medium format camera system and as you see from above, even the Hasselblad exceeds my needs and skill level.  

Edited October 9 by BWColor