Hasselblad X2D and Leica S3 - Update 2: A difficult focus

[Paratom]

The eyes of your cat look to have more pop/clarity in the Leica image.
I would think that IBIS will be great to keep ISO down which should be a clear advantage for the x2d in lower light or if one wants to stop down.
I believe the Leica lenses could have the edge overall, with some exceptions, like the Hassy 21,30 and 80 for example.
Fact is the Hassy and its lenses are much more portable.

 

[MGrayson]

The eyes of your cat look to have more pop/clarity in the Leica image.
I would think that IBIS will be great to keep ISO down which should be a clear advantage for the x2d in lower light or if one wants to stop down.
I believe the Leica lenses could have the edge overall, with some exceptions, like the Hassy 21,30 and 80 for example.
Fact is the Hassy and its lenses are much more portable.

Leica does well bringing out Yellows. I also prefer the Leica lenses, but I can't deny the practicality (and superb quality) of the XCD optics. I'm saved from the 30 and 80, as those are focal lengths I never use. I had the XCD 30 for a year and it was my least used lens. The 21 used to seem too wide. With 100MP, I don't mind cropping it to a 24 FoV, or just keeping its unique look. A 21, 45, 90 kit is very good "carrying around all day". The 120 and 135 are a bit heavy, although not by Leica S standards .

 

[Photon42]

The compactness of the X system is absolutely great. No comparison to me lugging around the S2 with 24/70/120. Without applying any "advanced measures", I can easily fit my three lens kit into a Wotancraft Pilot 7l. That is, the X2D plus 38, 65, and the HC 100. For a two lens setup, I would either use the 38/65 or the 38 with the HC100 + 0.8 converter.

The new 38 is great to use. Feels speedier than the 1st gen lenses and sometimes the scale comes in handy (not so often for me, though). The X2D with 38 attached feels a little bit like a Texas Q2

 

[jng]

Dammit! I'm an idiot.

What do you do with a flatter file? Increase the contrast! That increases saturation, because LR doesn't have a luminance curve, so desaturate.
So long difficult process on the left. Simple process on the right.

Hi Matt,

I find the color balance on the more simply processed version to be more pleasing as well (the other feels a bit magenta-y to me). So, sometimes simple is best although one needs to know where to find "simple." Bottom line for me is that it's easy to get the files to where I want them to be without too much fuss. So far I've been doing all of my raw processing in Phocus and finishing things off in PS, ginormous tiff files be damned.

One thing I've noticed when processing portraits (shot wide open, of both people and cats): by applying just a touch of clarity in Phocus, the subject seems to pop out from the background.

John

P.S. Soup looks rather bored with all this, but not unhappy.

 

[MGrayson]

Hi Matt,

I find the color balance on the more simply processed version to be more pleasing as well (the other feels a bit magenta-y to me). So, sometimes simple is best although one needs to know where to find "simple." Bottom line for me is that it's easy to get the files to where I want them to be without too much fuss. So far I've been doing all of my raw processing in Phocus and finishing things off in PS, ginormous tiff files be damned.

One thing I've noticed when processing portraits (shot wide open, of both people and cats): by applying just a touch of clarity in Phocus, the subject seems to pop out from the background.

John

P.S. Soup looks rather bored with all this, but not unhappy.

John,

I agree with you about the color casts. One problem is that they always look different on the web. I definitely see the advantage to Phocus in this experiment, even though I didn't post that result. This is processed entirely in Phocus. WB, Levels, Clarity, Vignette.



Matt

 

[jng]

John,

I agree with you about the color casts. One problem is that they always look different on the web. I definitely see the advantage to Phocus in this experiment, even though I didn't post that result. This is processed entirely in Phocus. WB, Levels, Clarity, Vignette.



Matt

I like it. This version feels more three-dimensional to me.

 

[Paratom]

I received my x2d today. I feel that - even though its just 150 grams difference, it foes feel not as compact as the x1d.
Also, not having used xcd system for some months (when I sold my x1dII), the "old" lens feel a little bit clunky and slow. (I tried 45 and 65 today).
So if my initial experiences with the x2d will be positive, I might consider the 55 and eventually the 38, even though this not my plan and I find them quite expensive.
Anyways, now I am looking forward to collect some experience.

 

[MGrayson]

I received my x2d today. I feel that - even though its just 150 grams difference, it foes feel not as compact as the x1d.
Also, not having used xcd system for some months (when I sold my x1dII), the "old" lens feel a little bit clunky and slow. (I tried 45 and 65 today).
So if my initial experiences with the x2d will be positive, I might consider the 55 and eventually the 38, even though this not my plan and I find them quite expensive.
Anyways, now I am looking forward to collect some experience.

The 45 has a harsh shutter sound, but doesn't seem slow (compared to what I'm used to). The 90 and 21 are plenty fast for me. The 120 and 135 hunt a bit, so action isn't their forte.

Before I buy any of the newer lenses, I have to upgrade my storage. These RAW files are big, and processing in Phocus outputs 600MB tiffs. I'm going to a huge (by my standards) array of Copy on Write disks. NOTHING (supposedly) ever gets erased.

 

[Paratom]

The 45 has a harsh shutter sound, but doesn't seem slow (compared to what I'm used to). The 90 and 21 are plenty fast for me. The 120 and 135 hunt a bit, so action isn't their forte.

Before I buy any of the newer lenses, I have to upgrade my storage. These RAW files are big, and processing in Phocus outputs 600MB tiffs. I'm going to a huge (by my standards) array of Copy on Write disks. NOTHING (supposedly) ever gets erased.

The files from the older lenses are not smaller !)
maybe we get losless compression one day.

 

[jng]

I received my x2d today. I feel that - even though its just 150 grams difference, it foes feel not as compact as the x1d.
Also, not having used xcd system for some months (when I sold my x1dII), the "old" lens feel a little bit clunky and slow. (I tried 45 and 65 today).
So if my initial experiences with the x2d will be positive, I might consider the 55 and eventually the 38, even though this not my plan and I find them quite expensive.
Anyways, now I am looking forward to collect some experience.

My older XCD lenses, while certainly not speedy, are a bit more responsive on the X2D compared to my 1st generation X1D. The 55V on the X2D, however, is an entirely different shooting experience. As the value of my 3.5/45 approaches that of an expensive paper weight thanks to the introduction of the 4/45P (and now 55V), I'm undecided about whether to replace my trusty 3.2/90 with the new 2.5/90 or wait to see what other focal lengths may be coming in the newer design. Other than being a little slow in focusing when composing portraits, the current 3.2/90 leaves little to be desired. At the moment it's easier to rationalize adding to the focal length lineup rather than going for an upgrade, although GAS may get the better of me before any new lenses are announced, if and when that ever happens.

As for the handling of the new X2D body, yes it's a bit beefier than the X1D but I find it to be very well-balanced. Overall it works so much more smoothly than the X1D that I don't really notice the added mass. YMMV, of course...

John

 

[KurtKamka]

Love the new XCD lenses (38 and 55). Quiet, snappy and light. I'd echo the comment that it makes for a very nice shooting experience. As a long-time S user, I'm not certain I'd ever go back. The cost of entry to the Leica S system, slow pace of change, etc. don't meet my expectations (maybe I'm just getting older and crankier ... LOL). Love the S lenses ... but I like the colors I get with the X system. The IBIS, moveable screen, 1:1 viewfinder, built-in storage and a few other advances make the system a lot of fun to take everywhere.

 

[sog1927]

The files from the older lenses are not smaller !)
maybe we get losless compression one day.

I don't think he meant to say they were. I think he meant "before I spend any more money on additional lenses, I'm going to have to spend money to get additional storage because the X2D files are so big".

 

[Thomas73]

Dammit! I'm an idiot.

What do you do with a flatter file? Increase the contrast! That increases saturation, because LR doesn't have a luminance curve, so desaturate.
So long difficult process on the left. Simple process on the right.


Remember, this is my target - the lightly processed S3 image. Would probably have used some clarity on the Hassy image, but it would be for fine tuning, not gross contrast differences.


So it really is easy to get close enough. X2D looking good.

Edit: Yes, as you have no doubt guessed, all this is even easier in Phocus because it DOES have a Luma curve, and the resulting WB is better. So aside from generating 600MB tiffs , it's a great workflow. Looks like my 4TB stupidly fast RAID (it matches the speed of internal memory on my old iMac Pro) has to expand. And the backup disks. And ...

Hi Matt,

Thanks a lot for this comparison.

By the way, do you consider LR the "best" post-processing software for Leica S files ?

Did you notice significative improvements between S006 / S007 / S3 ??

Merry Christmas to all !

 

[MGrayson]

Hi Matt,

Thanks a lot for this comparison.

By the way, do you consider LR the "best" post-processing software for Leica S files ?

Did you notice significative improvements between S006 / S007 / S3 ??

Merry Christmas to all !

I'm not sure what the alternatives to LR there are. C1 has historically not supported the S, but that may have changed. I ended up with Adobe because they always support every camera. I like both Leica's own S3 profile and Cobalt's better than the Adobe profiles, but these are just starting points.

As for the three S versions, I have a soft spot for CCD sensors (by which I mean the imaging chain developed to work with CCD sensors). CMOS imaging chains try to preserve DR by making flatter files, so the S(007) output looked a little underwhelming. Still, it was so much more capable at higher ISO and low light, that I ended up using it instead. The S3 profiles look better to me than the S(007), if not as instantly jaw-dropping as the S(006). The even better high ISO and extra pixels make the S3 a superior camera. The flip side of the higher resolution is focus. I can no longer rely on the AF through the OVF and have to do magnified Live View to be sure of a sharp result.

 

[hcubell]

My older XCD lenses, while certainly not speedy, are a bit more responsive on the X2D compared to my 1st generation X1D. The 55V on the X2D, however, is an entirely different shooting experience. As the value of my 3.5/45 approaches that of an expensive paper weight thanks to the introduction of the 4/45P (and now 55V), I'm undecided about whether to replace my trusty 3.2/90 with the new 2.5/90 or wait to see what other focal lengths may be coming in the newer design. Other than being a little slow in focusing when composing portraits, the current 3.2/90 leaves little to be desired. At the moment it's easier to rationalize adding to the focal length lineup rather than going for an upgrade, although GAS may get the better of me before any new lenses are announced, if and when that ever happens.

As for the handling of the new X2D body, yes it's a bit beefier than the X1D but I find it to be very well-balanced. Overall it works so much more smoothly than the X1D that I don't really notice the added mass. YMMV, of course...

John

There are significant differences in how well AF works on the X2D with the older XCD lenses. The AF with the XCD 35-75 zoom on the X2D in particular is greatly improved compared to the X1D. I do not have either the new 38 or 55 to compare, but I have read reports that the AF performance on the zoom is close. OTOH, the AF performance of the XCD 135mm lens has not improved. Accurate but slow.
For anyone interested in the 38 or 55, be prepared for a wait. B&H is now projecting next deliveries in March, 2023.

 

[MGrayson]

There are significant differences in how well AF works on the X2D with the older XCD lenses. The AF with the XCD 35-75 zoom on the X2D in particular is greatly improved compared to the X1D. I do not have either the new 38 or 55 to compare, but I have read reports that the AF performance on the zoom is close. OTOH, the AF performance of the XCD 135mm lens has not improved. Accurate but slow.
For anyone interested in the 38 or 55, be prepared for a wait. B&H is now projecting next deliveries in March, 2023.

Good god. I can actually test this. I got a very cheap X1D (not even mark II) to get familiar with the interface in advance of the X2D. I know that the X1DII is a faster camera, but it will be interesting. My proposed methodology is to take high-speed video of the LCD while focusing. I have only old XCD lenses, though.

 

[MGrayson]

Focus time in changing from 15' to 30' measured with my slo-mo video technique. All times in seconds.

X1D mark I
21 - 0.5
45 - 0.4
90 - 0.5
120 - 0.5 (didn't hunt)
135 - 2.2 (hunted!)

X2D
21 - 0.4
45 - 0.25
90 - 0.4
120 - 0.5
135 - 0.6 (didn't hunt. It hunts about one in five times.)

So I see a bit (20%) of improvement (except the 45, which gets a lot faster). Now you'll notice the absence of error bars. I did one trial each, except for trying to make the 135 hunt, and then I didn't time them because they'd all be over 2 seconds. I'm also not checking for how much more or less hunting there is with the new camera.

 

[jng]

Focus time in changing from 15' to 30' measured with my slo-mo video technique. All times in seconds.

X1D mark I
21 - 0.5
45 - 0.4
90 - 0.5
120 - 0.5 (didn't hunt)
135 - 2.2 (hunted!)

X2D
21 - 0.4
45 - 0.25
90 - 0.4
120 - 0.5
135 - 0.6 (didn't hunt. It hunts about one in five times.)

So I see a bit (20%) of improvement (except the 45, which gets a lot faster). Now you'll notice the absence of error bars. I did one trial each, except for trying to make the 135 hunt, and then I didn't time them because they'd all be over 2 seconds. I'm also not checking for how much more or less hunting there is with the new camera.

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the analysis. Not to be too picky (call me the proverbial "reviewer 3"), but...
- we need replicates!
- did you rack the lenses to infinity (or some common starting point) before initiating each trial?

John

 

[jng]

There are significant differences in how well AF works on the X2D with the older XCD lenses. The AF with the XCD 35-75 zoom on the X2D in particular is greatly improved compared to the X1D. I do not have either the new 38 or 55 to compare, but I have read reports that the AF performance on the zoom is close. OTOH, the AF performance of the XCD 135mm lens has not improved. Accurate but slow.
For anyone interested in the 38 or 55, be prepared for a wait. B&H is now projecting next deliveries in March, 2023.

I would be very interested to see a direct comparison between the 35-75 zoom and either of the newer XCD-V lenses. The autofocus performance of my 55V is simply in a different world than with my first-generation XCD lenses (21, 30, 45 (not the P), and 90). I think I mentioned this a while back, but the first time I used the 55 on the X2D it was so quiet and quick that I had to double-check that it focused and the shutter fired. Also absent is the feeling of the camera lurching when focusing, as it appears that the mass of lens elements being moved is much reduced.

John

 

[MGrayson]

Hi Matt,

Thanks for the analysis. Not to be too picky (call me the proverbial "reviewer 3"), but...
- we need replicates!
- did you rack the lenses to infinity (or some common starting point) before initiating each trial?

John

I had two targets, one 15' away and the other 30' away. It being wind-chill well below zero, I had to do this indoors. Focus started at 15' and moved to 30'. Each test was a pain - holding an iPhone in one hand and focusing the camera with the other! And scrolling through the video to find the start and stop times of the focus (gasp!). There's a reason I became a Mathematician and not a Scientist. I'm lazy!

And surely someone like Jim Kasson has done this. Or what's his name. Or that other guy.