Advice on Hasselblad X1D

[GrahamWelland]

TBH if you like Leica, I'd be inclined to go from the M240 to the SL if I were in your position. The X1D may be the new new thing but if you want a similar form factor and 24MP is enough I'd be very tempted to go that way myself.

(Full disclosure - I just went Leica M10/246 again after a hiatus of several years, but my medium format system is IQ3100 with XF & Actus DB+)

 

[Tmuussoni]

Well, I haven't performed any scientific tests, but I tend to use the same rule I use for my D810. Without stabilization, I use 2/focal length. So far so good. I have shot the 45mm as low as 1/30th of a second and the results were useable. You can shoot 1/focal length and also get good results, but your % of keepers will probably drop a bit.

My experience with X1D is based on demo unit, but I think 1/focal length rule works just fine with the X1D. I had no trouble using 1/30 with 45mm lens. So the combination of leaf shutter and excellent grip (better than M 240 for sure) helps out to give pictures without blur. Even if there is slightly more shutter lag.

I think you'd be best served by switching to a Leica SL and using your current Leica lenses on it, or selling everything and just getting a Sony system. The X1D is just a bigger, heavier system and honestly it's overkill for travel snaps and family photos.

As for shallow depth of field, you'll get a shallower DOF at any given aperture with a MF camera than you would a 35mm camera so long as your distance to subject and field of view match. The X1D is a cropped sensor though, so shooting the X1D with the 90mm lens wide open at f/3.2 you'd still get a shallower DOF with a Leica 75mm Summicron at f/2 (the closest field of view match).

Really the most fascinating thing about X1D is it's size.
http://camerasize.com/compare/#639,678
For physical dimensions X1D is really close to SL. But the most remarkable thing is SL is 847 g and X1D at 725 g. In addition, when you factor in the weight of the adapter (M-adapter-L) it's even more. Granted M lenses are smaller, but the weight difference more than balances the equation. Imho. And one has AF, one does not.

I have exactly same setup as OP (M-240) and I admit X1D is really calling me as well. For mostly same reasons. There are times when rangefinder is just not accurate enough (e.g. when using Summilux-M 75). Sadly, there is no way I can afford both systems (X1D & M). So i'm thinking about selling M system and going for the Hasselblad. The demo really made a nice impression to me.

 

[Godfrey]

I've thought about this a lot. The X1D cannot compete with the SL on the basis of responsiveness, speed, and versatility; neither can the M. The X1D and the M compete on applicability due to focal length and field of view options, and the X1D and the SL compete on size and weight.

If you accept the SL size and weight (with an adapted R lens particularly) as comfortable but are comfortable with the M's more constrained capabilities, the X1D is a natural alternative to the M offering the advantage of the larger format. The three lenses offered currently for the X1D are enough for most M-style shooting; unless you really need the larger DoF of the smaller format and want its smaller size, the X1D is a good pick albeit with giving up some of the M's handy feel.

All three would be great complements in a comprehensive kit, but that's a very expensive kit. At least you can share M lenses between the M and SL fairly fluidly.

G

 

[JoshMerwin]

I've thought about this a lot. The X1D cannot compete with the SL on the basis of responsiveness, speed, and versatility; neither can the M. The X1D and the M compete on applicability due to focal length and field of view options, and the X1D and the SL compete on size and weight.
G

Totally Agree G. The SL is the best 35mm I've ever used. I just think that it's too expensive for what it is and the lenses are too big. Especially when compared now to the X1D and GFX. Other than the Leica M range, which has a unique feature set/following, I'm not sure where 35mm sensor size fits into the market anymore, or more specifically where it will fit in over the next two years. The m4/3's cameras are so functional, feature rich, high quality and such a great price point. I've got the GH4, soon to be the GH5 for "normal photography" and a medium format setup for high end, portraits, etc. They are no longer priced out of reach for people. My X1D will expand what I use Medium format for. It will be very interesting to see what Leica does with the 48 mpx cmosis sensor that has global shutter and is a little larger than full frame. It would be perfect for the next SL because it's a big bump is resolution it's got a global shutter for video and that body can use all the cinema lenses. But will they merge the S/SL line? I think one of the reasons that they made the lenses so big is that they always planned on having the next generation being the medium format camera platform with an evf and maybe even keeping the S as an OVF option.

Looking forward to the X1D roadmap that will hopefully be released soon and even moreso to the XH adapter.

 

[Godfrey]

Totally Agree G. The SL is the best 35mm I've ever used. I just think that it's too expensive for what it is and the lenses are too big. Especially when compared now to the X1D and GFX. ...

Umm....? You agreed with me that the SL and the X1D compete on size and weight, but cannot compete on versatility, speed, and responsiveness. And that the X1D and M compete on applicability due to field of view options. But then you say you can't go with the SL for "what it is" compared to the X1D and GFX due to its price and the size of its lenses. HUH?

There's a huge market for 35mm format where speed, responsiveness, and versatility is paramount. That's why 35mm based DSLRs are still the #1 selling professional cameras in the world. The SL competes directly in that market space with a new technology, the all-electronic camera without a floppy mirror. The M does not compete in that space at all. Price is mostly irrelevant: A top line Nikon or Canon body that has the kind of performance the SL body does isn't substantively less expensive, and lenses of similar kind for those cameras aren't substantively smaller or lighter either. NO medium format digital can hope to compete in that space, at all. They just don't have what it takes to do so, which is speed and versatility.

I think too many people are hung up on price whenever the word Leica is mentioned because of the lens prices. Leica lenses are expensive, much more expensive than similar focal length and speed offerings from other manufacturers. A 50mm f/2 lens shouldn't cost $2500, or so the thinking goes, because top-line Nikon or Canon 50mm lenses cost $500. Does the Leica build quality and performance warrant it? I don't know, but I know that nearly everyone who looks at what comes out of a Leica, despite often less than 'state of the art specifications, is impressed by the quality. That's the lenses talking. And yeah, they're too damn expensive.

But so what? I pay the price and let them make me extraordinarily happy when I see my photos. :toocool:

Hasselblads and their lenses also cost a bunch; everyone knows that and assumes it. The X1D is a welcome change from that and a fairly unprecedented one. The Fuji GFX is riding in on the train behind it ... I wonder if the pricing on the GFX would have been where it is if Hasselblad hadn't priced the X1D at this point.

Different cameras, different purposes, different strengths and weaknesses. I am delighted with the SL and don't feel I've overpaid for it, given what I get out of it. Same for the M-D. Perhaps I'll be able to say the same of the X1D some day too.

G

 

[rmatthews]

I think the SL looks like a great camera. My only reason for not going for it was that to use it with AF lenses it becomes much bigger than I'm comfortable with. In all other respects it would have been an ideal switch from my M.

 

[Godfrey]

I think the SL looks like a great camera. My only reason for not going for it was that to use it with AF lenses it becomes much bigger than I'm comfortable with. In all other respects it would have been an ideal switch from my M.

For me, it's an ideal complement to my M, not a replacement. The M's light weight and compact size (including compact lenses) is perfect for travel, casual carrying, street documentary, etc. The SL is a work camera, and the zooms are big lenses ... so are my Focusing Bellows R, tripod, lights, hand-held meter, diffusers, gobos, stands, and all the other paraphernalia I use with a work camera. But if I plop a Summicron-R 35mm f/2 lens onto the SL, it's the same handy size as my Nikon F and Leicaflex SL. An M is useless with a big zoom ... I don't care how good or bad the EVF on the M240 or M10 might be. That's the SL's versatility.

I don't normally carry the SL + SL24-90 or SL90-280 zoom around much. Although I have to say: I went on my walk with it today for the first time in a while and the darn thing seems to have shrunk a bit ... I walked for an hour or more and it didn't even seem to be heavy. I guess carrying the Hasselblad 500 fitted with Sonnar 150 for a day or two gave my musculature a different reference!

But back to the X1D; sorry for the Leica digression.

G

 

[JoshMerwin]

Umm....? You agreed with me that the SL and the X1D compete on size and weight, but cannot compete on versatility, speed, and responsiveness. And that the X1D and M compete on applicability due to field of view options. But then you say you can't go with the SL for "what it is" compared to the X1D and GFX due to its price and the size of its lenses. HUH?

There's a huge market for 35mm format where speed, responsiveness, and versatility is paramount. That's why 35mm based DSLRs are still the #1 selling professional cameras in the world. The SL competes directly in that market space with a new technology, the all-electronic camera without a floppy mirror. The M does not compete in that space at all. Price is mostly irrelevant: A top line Nikon or Canon body that has the kind of performance the SL body does isn't substantively less expensive, and lenses of similar kind for those cameras aren't substantively smaller or lighter either. NO medium format digital can hope to compete in that space, at all. They just don't have what it takes to do so, which is speed and versatility.

I think too many people are hung up on price whenever the word Leica is mentioned because of the lens prices. Leica lenses are expensive, much more expensive than similar focal length and speed offerings from other manufacturers. A 50mm f/2 lens shouldn't cost $2500, or so the thinking goes, because top-line Nikon or Canon 50mm lenses cost $500. Does the Leica build quality and performance warrant it? I don't know, but I know that nearly everyone who looks at what comes out of a Leica, despite often less than 'state of the art specifications, is impressed by the quality. That's the lenses talking. And yeah, they're too damn expensive.

But so what? I pay the price and let them make me extraordinarily happy when I see my photos. :toocool:

Hasselblads and their lenses also cost a bunch; everyone knows that and assumes it. The X1D is a welcome change from that and a fairly unprecedented one. The Fuji GFX is riding in on the train behind it ... I wonder if the pricing on the GFX would have been where it is if Hasselblad hadn't priced the X1D at this point.

Different cameras, different purposes, different strengths and weaknesses. I am delighted with the SL and don't feel I've overpaid for it, given what I get out of it. Same for the M-D. Perhaps I'll be able to say the same of the X1D some day too.

G

I'm out and don't have time to give a long response. Wasn't arguing the other points though. Will respond later more fully. Totally understand your points. Cheers.

 

[JoshMerwin]

Umm....? You agreed with me that the SL and the X1D compete on size and weight, but cannot compete on versatility, speed, and responsiveness. And that the X1D and M compete on applicability due to field of view options. But then you say you can't go with the SL for "what it is" compared to the X1D and GFX due to its price and the size of its lenses. HUH?

There's a huge market for 35mm format where speed, responsiveness, and versatility is paramount. That's why 35mm based DSLRs are still the #1 selling professional cameras in the world. The SL competes directly in that market space with a new technology, the all-electronic camera without a floppy mirror. The M does not compete in that space at all. Price is mostly irrelevant: A top line Nikon or Canon body that has the kind of performance the SL body does isn't substantively less expensive, and lenses of similar kind for those cameras aren't substantively smaller or lighter either. NO medium format digital can hope to compete in that space, at all. They just don't have what it takes to do so, which is speed and versatility.

I think too many people are hung up on price whenever the word Leica is mentioned because of the lens prices. Leica lenses are expensive, much more expensive than similar focal length and speed offerings from other manufacturers. A 50mm f/2 lens shouldn't cost $2500, or so the thinking goes, because top-line Nikon or Canon 50mm lenses cost $500. Does the Leica build quality and performance warrant it? I don't know, but I know that nearly everyone who looks at what comes out of a Leica, despite often less than 'state of the art specifications, is impressed by the quality. That's the lenses talking. And yeah, they're too damn expensive.

But so what? I pay the price and let them make me extraordinarily happy when I see my photos. :toocool:

Hasselblads and their lenses also cost a bunch; everyone knows that and assumes it. The X1D is a welcome change from that and a fairly unprecedented one. The Fuji GFX is riding in on the train behind it ... I wonder if the pricing on the GFX would have been where it is if Hasselblad hadn't priced the X1D at this point.

Different cameras, different purposes, different strengths and weaknesses. I am delighted with the SL and don't feel I've overpaid for it, given what I get out of it. Same for the M-D. Perhaps I'll be able to say the same of the X1D some day too.

G

Let me clarify a bit. I guess I should have just added a 'for me" at the end of that sentence and then started a new paragraph with separate thoughts, I assumed that's how it would be interpreted. My reference in the previous post should have been clearer, for me for what the SL is price-wise compared to both the X1D & GFX doesn't make financial sense. From a lens size perspective, only the X1D's lenses are smaller. I wasn't saying that for you (or someone else) you shouldn't spend the money on it. I did state that I think it's the best 35mm camera that I've used. And I've been very tempted to buy one. But what stopped me has been the price and the lens size for a 35mm sensor camera, more so lens size than price though. That's specifically in relation to what I would use it for, compared to the X1D and the GH4/5 and because of that, how un-often I would end up using it. If they made that camera in the Q body with lenses closer in size to that, I probably would have bought one. Lens size is one of the the same reasons that I much prefer the X1D over the Fuji GFX. And why I would not consider a phase XF camera, as sophisticated as it is (and I'm so glad for their users that they finally created a winner there!), because some of the lenses are enormous. I'm also trying to reduce the amount of gear that I have and have sold all my 35mm gear, except for some lenses that I can use with my GH4 with an adapter.

While 35mm has traditionally been the #1 seller, I think after this year m4/3 will take that over. Between the new Olympus and GH5, all the features that come with those cameras and the high quality optics available from them (some of them from Leica) they are encroaching into that 35mm's space. I realize the sensor size is smaller, but more and more people are replacing their Nikon and Canons with them. I could be completely wrong, this is a prediction by me and certainly is not meant to tell you that you shouldn't love the SL or not be justified in buying it.

Hopefully I was clearer in what I was trying to say, but I probably ended up being more confusing! :facesmack:

 

[Godfrey]

...
Hopefully I was clearer in what I was trying to say, but I probably ended up being more confusing! :facesmack:

Yes, you were clearer. Your original post simply didn't make sense to me the way it was written.

... While 35mm has traditionally been the #1 seller, I think after this year m4/3 will take that over. Between the new Olympus and GH5, all the features that come with those cameras and the high quality optics available from them (some of them from Leica) they are encroaching into that 35mm's space. I realize the sensor size is smaller, but more and more people are replacing their Nikon and Canons with them. I could be completely wrong, this is a prediction by me and certainly is not meant to tell you that you shouldn't love the SL or not be justified in buying it. ...

That's what Olympus and Panasonic have been hoping for for a very long time. I don't see it happening.

I was a big supporter of FourThirds SLR and then Micro-FourThirds cameras. I still am, still have a complete E-M1 kit AND E-1 kit. There is a staunch and steady community of Olympus professional users who swear by them ... I was a member of that community. One of my very favorite lenses in Micro-FourThirds is the Panasonic/Leica Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS: a stunning performer. I sold thousands of dollars worth of photographs made with that lens alone, never mind the Summilux-D and -DG 25mm f/1.4 ASPH (had them both...).

But... Nikon and Canon own a mite better than 85% of the professional camera marketplace. I've seen no indications whatever that they've lost more than a tiny fraction of that market share, other than to trade it off to the other of them. Sony and Olympus share a hefty chunk of the remainder, perhaps 8 or 9 percent. Everyone else—Panasonic, Leica, Pentax, Hasselblad, Phase One, you name it—shares the remaining 7 or 8 percent.

It's hard to switch to a smaller sensor camera when you're a business invested with $40-50,000 worth of Nikon or Canon lenses and bodies and excellent performers like the D750 and D810 are available for comparatively dirt cheap money.

The fact is that nearly all of these companies are in some shakey financial state because the camera equipment sales market has been flat and falling for three years or more. Leica is one of the few financial success stories, for whatever reasons. I'm not a business analyst, but I really don't see the overall map of market share and profits, which translates to number of units in the field in use ultimately, changing in any dramatic way unless one or the other of the big two go under. Which, as bad as things are, I don't think will happen.

That's my take on it from being in the market and working as a photographer off and on for the past decade. I don't think I have any special insight, but I read all the photo dealer news media I get my hands on very carefully. The map of the market is not changing with any rapidity, it's simply been on a long unit sales decline due to pressures of the economy in general and the rise of smartphones with good cameras in them.

G

 

[algrove]

I just do not understand why the SL lenses are so huge in diameter compared to other Leica 24MP sensor cameras. It seems the AF feature in them is how the huge size is justified. Do they use Linear Motors (LM)? Sure trust the gears used inside are better than the ones being replaced in the S lenses.

I know the PO S-K lenses are large, but they do cover a sensor size nearly 2 times the size of the SL's sensor with much higher resolution. Also PO S-K lenses use a worm screw for AF instead of LM.

 

[JoshMerwin]

Yeah,
It's one of the things that I think Hasselblad implemented perfectly on the X1D. The size of the camera and the lenses to fit the larger sensor.

 

[Godfrey]

Well, do note that the X1D lenses produced so far are all relatively modest maximum aperture prime lenses. That's one big reason why they can be compact for medium format lenses.

Exactly why the SL lenses are so large is beyond me ... I'm not a lens designer ... although some of it is certainly styling. But what we've seen so far is relatively fast zooms that are always pretty bulky anyway, and the 'reference' 50mm f/1.4 which is no larger than the competitive Zeiss Otus 50mm. From the photos I've seen, the upcoming f/2 35, 75, and 90 mm primes are more on the order of the R lenses in size. (They have to be a little longer due to the shorter register, actually.)

But these are somewhat minor concerns to me. Yes they're large but not overly so compared to competitive lenses, and based on the strip down documented by LensRentals.com, they're superbly well made ... where much of the competition is pretty flimsily constructed. I think Leica has gone through a lot of effort on the SL lenses to build them very very well, to hold up under lots of heavy use, and if the styling they chose is somewhat bulky, eh? Worse things are out there.

It remains to be seen where Hasselblad is going with more lenses for the X1D, and whether they'll stick with the relatively small theme ...

G

 

[fotophil]

Well, I haven't performed any scientific tests, but I tend to use the same rule I use for my D810. Without stabilization, I use 2/focal length. So far so good. I have shot the 45mm as low as 1/30th of a second and the results were useable. You can shoot 1/focal length and also get good results, but your % of keepers will probably drop a bit.

Why would the percent keepers decrease with 1/focal length shutter speed compared to 2/focal length shutter speed? I would expect an improvement with the faster shutter speed. Perhaps you are compariing 1/focal length vs. 1/2x focal length?

 

[mkerouac]

Why would the percent keepers decrease with 1/focal length shutter speed compared to 2/focal length shutter speed? I would expect an improvement with the faster shutter speed. Perhaps you are compariing 1/focal length vs. 1/2x focal length?

Sorry. I was saying that with a 90mm lens you would get more keepers with a 1/200th shutter speed vs a 1/100th shutter speed. So a shutter speed of 1/(2x focal length). This is only a general rule that I use with high resolution cameras and it applies mostly to telephoto because they are harder to handhold. But for critical sharpness on the X1D, I would be comfortable with 1/(2x focal length). Not saying you won't get sharp with a lot slower shutter speed, just reducing the risk of handheld blur.