The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

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

Paratom

Well-known member
I am interested in the 135 xcd, but I cant imagine using some big manual focus lens around. Would probably rather use a fast ff camera and tele lens, with nice fast AF.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I am interested in the 135 xcd, but I cant imagine using some big manual focus lens around. Would probably rather use a fast ff camera and tele lens, with nice fast AF.
The 250/5.6 is a good deal lighter than the XCD 135+1.7x, but point taken. I wish I had something this long in Iceland, where breaks in the clouds could light up a snow-field in the distance on the side of a mountain. The 135 by itself, given that it is f/2.8, looks like it would be a pretty good portrait lens for head shots. If I had to carry the 120 or the 135, I'd choose the 120 for its macro capability.
 

SrMphoto

Active member
The 250/5.6 is a good deal lighter than the XCD 135+1.7x, but point taken. I wish I had something this long in Iceland, where breaks in the clouds could light up a snow-field in the distance on the side of a mountain. The 135 by itself, given that it is f/2.8, looks like it would be a pretty good portrait lens for head shots. If I had to carry the 120 or the 135, I'd choose the 120 for its macro capability.
However, the 120 does not accept the teleconverter (120 vs. 135x1.7=230).
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
However, the 120 does not accept the teleconverter (120 vs. 135x1.7=230).
Yes, I'd rather not carry the 1.7x. It's not a light piece - heavier than either of the XCD 45's. It's all tradeoffs, and we all have our own utility functions, and we don't optimize with our heads. :cool:
 
I recently sold my 120 macro and 135 with TC on FM forum, been sitting in the closet for quite sometime. My longest lens now is 80/1.9.. and that's not even consider as long..LOL
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Welp, I said I was going to get some portraits with the 120 and 135, so I visited my illustrious brother-in-law in his studio. But I made a very serious miscalculation. See, if I get a portrait photographer to try out the X2D + lenses, then who is he going to use as a subject? Got it in one...

The lighting was godawful. Backlit and dark. Soup gets better light in my living room at night. We were going to shoot with proper lights, but never got around to it. (Actually, we never got out of our chairs. We're such a lively bunch!) These are uncropped. Color "as shot". All post-processing, some levels and minor tweaks, by me.

X2D, XCD 120/3.5, 1/80, ISO 6400.


XCD 135/2.8, 1/125, ISO 6400


There were more, but they were even less flattering. :eek:

Since Mark usually shoots with a Leica S(007) and the S 120/2.5, he preferred the 135 for its wider aperture. He liked the handling with both lenses. The built in eye-test for setting the EVF was a big hit.
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
And you thought I was done. Hah!

Inspired by @Ed Hurst , I picked up a Pentax 67 55-100/4.5 zoom. Stellar optics! So here is a good "mount it on a tripod and shoot at f/11" zoom. Not, heavy. Really sharp. I took the same (boring) picture with it on the Leica S3 at 55mm, 70mm, and 100mm. On the X2D at the same, and then for fun, the S3 with the S70/2.5 at f/11.

They look basically indistinguishable! The default processing is slightly different concerning white balance and sharpening, but it was quite easy to get them close.

Here are the full frame shots at 70mm f/11. Focus was far enough so that the buildings were sharp. Manual hyperfocal focusing!

Leica S3 with P67 55-100 1/12 sec, ISO 100 (2 second delay, Gitzo 5, Acratech pan head) Oh, I left the Leica S3 profile in place to get the surreal red coat. Maybe it WAS that color.... Maybe...


100% crop at the lower left.


Leica S3 with S70 - same exposure


100% crop at the lower left.


Hasselblad X2D with P67 55-100 1/10 sec, ISO 100


100% crop at the lower left.


I could go on, but you get the idea.

I did notice more color fringing in the Hassy images, but a little fringe slider got rid of it. The Leica seemed strangely immune (except at f/2.5 against the bright sky).

Best,

Matt
 

Ai_Print

Active member
Inspired by @Ed Hurst , I picked up a Pentax 67 55-100/4.5 zoom. Stellar optics! So here is a good "mount it on a tripod and shoot at f/11" zoom. Not, heavy. Really sharp. I took the same (boring) picture with it on the Leica S3 at 55mm, 70mm, and 100mm. On the X2D at the same, and then for fun, the S3 with the S70/2.5 at f/11.
Interesting option, what focal length were these shot at and how much does IQ / corner sharpness vary in the zoom range?
Also, what size are the front filter threads?
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Interesting option, what focal length were these shot at and how much does IQ / corner sharpness vary in the zoom range?
Also, what size are the front filter threads?
These were all at 70mm so I could compare to the Leica S70. I guess I can do 90 and 100 to compare those focal lengths with Hassy and Leica primes. (I don’t have the XCD 65.) Since it’s a 67 lens, you never get near the corners on a 44x33 sensor 😎. I wanted to just shoot as one might rather than doing a resolution test. But Ed shoots this lens on a GFX 100s(?).
But it has a lovely “detailed without crunchy” rendering which can be sharpened as desired.
 
Last edited:

nazdravanul

New member
At 11mm the x2d images are dulled from diffraction. f 5.6 is the optimum aperture for that sensor pixel pitch, assuming the lens is also optimised for f 5.6. In practice f8 is the practical compromise. At f11 you definitely do not have 100mp of detail.

Them sharpening needs to be different, in order to max out the specific sensor output.

Without properly accounting for (at least) those 2 variables I don’t think you are lookimg at the correct images.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
The filter is 95mm. It’s not heavy, but it widens at the front.

As for optimal f-stops, I am NOT testing lenses. I’m seeing how these things work in practice. Insufficient DoF will be worse for an image than only 35 MP of resolution. I dunno. I don’t focus stack in a situation like this.

Disclaimer: I have never printed larger than 40" on the long edge. The 37.5 MP Leica S models were completely sufficient for that task. Of the advantages of the X2D, MP is not in the top three. Speed, IBIS, and internal storage are all more important *for me*. I would gladly trade half the pixels for faster ES readout!
 
Last edited:

nazdravanul

New member
[QUOTE="MGrayson, post: 877189, member: 8824"

As for optimal f-stops, I am NOT testing lenses. I’m seeing how these things work in practice. Insufficient DoF will be worse for an image than only 35 MP of resolution. I dunno. I don’t focus stack in a situation like this.
[/QUOTE]

Diffraction is not only a lens problem but also a sensor problem! On your 100 MP sensor, with a good resolving lens, stopping down past f5.6 should / will result in dulling down the finer details. This is not about depth of field - that will keep increasing. But with more and more blurred details within the field of focus. F11 degrades sharpness & microcontrast badly, on your 100 MP sensor, within the plane of focus, with the same (good resolving lens).
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Let me rephrase. I am well aware of the effects of diffraction at different apertures, wavelengths, and sensors. We can even argue about how much demosaicing affects the calculation. But if those effects are not what is limiting the impact and usefulness of the image, then I don't care. I'm not saying that you or anyone else shouldn't care. I just find other things matter more to me as to whether or not a capture is satisfying.

This is something of a Zen Koan, but I always stress that it is suboptimal to optimize.
 

Ai_Print

Active member
I find my most used lens in medium format is at maximum sharpness and micro contrast at F8 and that is my Hassselblad 100mm 3.5 CFI.

For me, 100% of the point of the X2D is the 100MP in resolution and with ski area clients and wealthy home owners who often want to display images in the range of 4'-10' feet, it really does make a difference. To me, one of the most rewarding aspects of large format printing for these uses is that with an incredible image, one can take the entire 72" wide print in as a moment in time and then be able to keep walking closer to it right up to reading distance and to have it keep giving you more and more. That just blows people's minds.

I recently took delivery of a Fotodiox tilt-shift adapter for my V lenses on the X2D. So far it seems as though it will help keep me out of the F16+ range and that ought to help retain overall sharpness and micro contrast. My only quibble with it is the too small and therefore somewhat delicate tilt axis lock screw. It really needs to be cranked down on a lens like the 180 CFI so I will have to be patient and careful with it.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I find my most used lens in medium format is at maximum sharpness and micro contrast at F8 and that is my Hassselblad 100mm 3.5 CFI.

For me, 100% of the point of the X2D is the 100MP in resolution and with ski area clients and wealthy home owners who often want to display images in the range of 4'-10' feet, it really does make a difference. To me, one of the most rewarding aspects of large format printing for these uses is that with an incredible image, one can take the entire 72" wide print in as a moment in time and then be able to keep walking closer to it right up to reading distance and to have it keep giving you more and more. That just blows people's minds.

I recently took delivery of a Fotodiox tilt-shift adapter for my V lenses on the X2D. So far it seems as though it will help keep me out of the F16+ range and that ought to help retain overall sharpness and micro contrast. My only quibble with it is the too small and therefore somewhat delicate tilt axis lock screw. It really needs to be cranked down on a lens like the 180 CFI so I will have to be patient and careful with it.
Exactly!
Everyone has different constraints on what makes an image work for them.
 

nazdravanul

New member
All I know is on my GFX 100, f11 looks significantly worse, in terms of microcontrast and finer detail, compared to f8, on all my lenses. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s not an issue for you, well, that is 100% legit. But then it’s a shame about those 100 MPs :)
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
All I know is on my GFX 100, f11 looks significantly worse, in terms of microcontrast and finer detail, compared to f8, on all my lenses. That’s all I’m saying. If that’s not an issue for you, well, that is 100% legit. But then it’s a shame about those 100 MPs :)
I did some tests and you are correct. The corners improve as you stop down and everything is equally unsharp at f/11. At 55mm, the center outresolves the sensor - strong Moiré - even wide open. That is fading at f/8 and gone at f/11. F/16 is mush. Of course, we’re talking mush at 300%.

But I really don’t care about the MP. Weird, I know. I had the GFX100 (not a big or heavy camera compared to the S). The longer lenses in that system are amazing! After a year, I switched back to the 37.5 MP S(007) - largely because of the S24/3.5 and S120/2.5. I started this thread to see, with the introduction of the X2D, if I could really see a difference between the Leica and Hassy systems as I would use them. The answers have been uniformly surprising.
 
Last edited:
Top