rollsman44
Well-known member
Does anyone have any experience with theses 2 systems. I know the Hassy Id MFD and Leica is FF
Thanks Just looking for pros and cons Thanks
Thanks Just looking for pros and cons Thanks
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!
Leica SL2 VS Hasselblad X1D2 with Native lenses
- Thread starter rollsman44
- Start date
Mexecutioner
Well-known member
Didn't you already own these 2 systems before Dennis?
rollsman44
Well-known member
I did and still do. Need to sell one system TY
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'e used both, but what does my experience matter? Which do you like better? For me, the 21mm is the X1D's main advantage and the 24-90 and 90-280 are the SL2's. Both have superb intermediate primes. It then comes down to preferences in look and handling, and that you can tell for yourself.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
Can only add that the Leica APO SL lenses are as optically perfect as it gets – every single one of them is sharp to the edges wide open without a single aberration even against harsh sun light. It is a differentiating aspect of the SL system to sport such a set of high-performance primes. I don't have any experience with the X system, but there is a video on youtube where all lenses are discussed incl. optical characteristics and it seems that the X lenses are not consistent across the range and with edge softness on some lenses. This is not a problem per see, but if you take an SL2 with an APO SL 50 you will have a very high-quality system with exceptional enlargement headroom.
As always try before you buy ...
As always try before you buy ...
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
the math photographer does this exact test on his YouTube channel . they are very different systems ..look at fitness for use to decide.
KC_2020
Active member
With all due respect, there is always a guy with a video on YouTube finding fault with [insert camera brand here]. There will also be a guy with a video telling you [insert camera brand here] is undeniably the best.
I would suggest that Vieri Bottazzini would be a very credible reference. He's a member and posts here. He was a Leica ambassador and is now affiliated with Phase One.
Spoiler alert. In this article he explains why he moved from the Leica SL to the Hasselblad X1D II before finally choosing the XT.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
TBH my SL lenses, 16-35, 24-90, 90-280mm and 35mm APO are literally stunning.
Now, are the Hasselblad lenses comparable? I don't know, but my 907x and 65P are pretty darned good, and the XCD 35-70 is known as being the best lens Hasselblad has ever made.
Now, are the Hasselblad lenses comparable? I don't know, but my 907x and 65P are pretty darned good, and the XCD 35-70 is known as being the best lens Hasselblad has ever made.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
With all respect as well, commenting on your knee-jerk comment that it is a trite thing for me to cite a youtube based X lens evaluation: I am not referring to opinions here, but to a systematic evaluation of the X system lenses and their optical quality via samples on a technical chart; that is very good content from a youtuber and a valid reference and not some random dude's musings and I was referring to the varying quality of the lenses in the Hassy line which is evident. I am not citing the opinion of the Youtuber.
The X lenses are contract manufactured lenses made in Asia based on a certain cost budget and profitability requirement. The ability to iretate development / invest in quality in that scenario is totally different than what Leica is able to do with their in-house optics team which works hand in hand with the mechanical engineering department which in turn builds custom machinery to mass-produce the APO SL line at tolerances which are a whole notch above anything else in 35mm land. This is not to say the X lenses aren't great in real life, it is just not at the level of the Leica APO SL primes.
And so sorry I am to mention it, Vieri is a nice member of this forum, but he is also constantly being sponsored by all manufacturers and then for discounts writes articles about products ... I know from the European sales head of Phase One that they offer special discounts to brand ambassadors organizing workshops and which can drive sales, especially during these difficult times for the bespoke photography segment. Which is fair.
And the Leica Akademie is known to be a good source for cheaper lenses - you can get them at half price if you have connections ... and you get paid ofc.
So even if you say to a manufacturer "I want no intervention in the outcome" it is clear that you are biased if your aim is to save money ... and there's no revolutionary finding in him saying that the highest resolution back in the market combined with the Rodenstock HR optics beats the X system which is priced at a fraction of the latter - I am sorry, this is clear and known. And the SL system to date doesn't really have an UWA APO prime, but only a zoom and on top of that "only" has 47 MPX or 187 MPX in multishot (quality vs. AI uprez TBD ...) which is ofc not the same as shooting 150 MPX natively with Rodies (which can then be AI scaled). The situation will be even more different once you have the SL3 next year and then also the APO SL 21 and 24 lenses ...
On the XT - is the dream of every landscape photographer to own an XT or Alpa and he clearly over time migrated to that price segment and not sure it wasn't anything else that just saving up for that bracket over the years that led to a journey across the X system incl. the fact that the XT form factor was a novelty as even the STC is a lut bulkier than the XT (and TC doesn't have shift) -> 10-15k vs. 70K USD for a lens plus body combo and really it is to be expected that you'd want to work with this system to produce the highest quality landscape output - if you can afford it.
I also personally happen to own multiple systems incl. M, SL, S, P1 XT (all except 23mm), XF (most lenses) and have used the RF system from Canon briefly. I feel very confident from experience in the assessment that the APO SL optics are one step above the rest in 35mm land and most probably smoke the X lenses in resolving power and optical correction. The only lenses which are a match for them are the Otus lenses, the aforementioned Rodenstock HR lenses and some designs in the XF line (35, 45, 80 MK II, 120, 240) and the S lenses come close. Finally, it is a long established fact that the Rodenstock HR lenses are the go-to tool in the high-end fine art world ... the leading fine art photographers have been shooting technical cameras with Rodenstock / SK lenses for the last 20 years ... for a reason.
Here's the x lens video - my points are mainly that a) try before you buy, b) x lenses vary more across the range and c) Apo SL are extremely uniform, completely free of aberrations and have extreme resolving power - you see it immediately if you use them.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
@Paul Spinnler - not 100% what your point was, but my Rodie Alpa lenses smoke everything with my IQ4150, and my Leica SL2 system is as sharp as you could ever imagine. My Fujifilm GFX100s system with Fuji native primes and zooms is also superb.
I own a 907x with 65mm P lens but sorely tempted by the legendary 35-70 X lens.
I own a 907x with 65mm P lens but sorely tempted by the legendary 35-70 X lens.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
As anyone who has tried to optimize a function of several variables has learned, optimizing for a single variable is pretty close to useless. The photographic experience is mind bogglingly NOT lens-quality constrained. Yes, that's a gross generalization, and there ARE photographers who need to squeeze every pixel of information from the scene and are so good at everything else that resolution is what limits them. I believe that that number is vanishingly small. At a Phase One booth at a big show, I heard someone walk away and say "If they'd told me how well it tethered, I might have been interested."
The Fuji GF 23mm is sharper in the corners than the Leica S 24mm. But it has worse flair. But neither of those matter. It's the *systems* that make me pick up one or the other. What matters is if you LIKE the experience and the output. I loved the look from a tech cam and Schneider lenses. But for most of my photography, the experience was too awkward. Of the thousand or so images I took with the X1D, fifteen hundred with the Fuji GFX 100, fifteen hundred with Phase One, fifteen thousand with the Leica S, and ten thousand taken with other FF Leicas, not one of them suffered visibly from lens quality. I cannot say the same for the many thousands taken with each of Canon, Sony, or Olympus.
I managed a quant group at a large bank (I then managed managers of quant groups, which sucked, but that's another story). I would tell every new brilliant hire that our job was to make a good telescope mirror. Polishing one tiny section over and over to make it better wouldn't improve the overall performance if some other part of the mirror was still rough or misshapen.
Ok, enough rant. It's all good. Get what you like.
The Fuji GF 23mm is sharper in the corners than the Leica S 24mm. But it has worse flair. But neither of those matter. It's the *systems* that make me pick up one or the other. What matters is if you LIKE the experience and the output. I loved the look from a tech cam and Schneider lenses. But for most of my photography, the experience was too awkward. Of the thousand or so images I took with the X1D, fifteen hundred with the Fuji GFX 100, fifteen hundred with Phase One, fifteen thousand with the Leica S, and ten thousand taken with other FF Leicas, not one of them suffered visibly from lens quality. I cannot say the same for the many thousands taken with each of Canon, Sony, or Olympus.
I managed a quant group at a large bank (I then managed managers of quant groups, which sucked, but that's another story). I would tell every new brilliant hire that our job was to make a good telescope mirror. Polishing one tiny section over and over to make it better wouldn't improve the overall performance if some other part of the mirror was still rough or misshapen.
Ok, enough rant. It's all good. Get what you like.
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Quantitative vs qualitative really is something that we'll never solve. I like my Leica (M & SL), Fuji GFX and Phase One on technical cameras.
None of them makes sense. But I like using them.
None of them makes sense. But I like using them.
rollsman44
Well-known member
I can appreciate that
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
Isn't that a tautology? The brighter the quant, the more likely they're calculating how to undermine/replace you?
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
No, I was upfront abut how delighted I would be for one of them to replace me.Isn't that a tautology? The brighter the quant, the more likely they're calculating how to undermine/replace you?
KC_2020
Active member
Actually after 30+ years working with the best cameras and optics available I've stopped being reactive to anyone's comments. My knees are perfectly still, shutter release in-hand. Opinions are all valid and like Apertures, we all have one, or more.
But you are.
KC_2020
Active member
Agreed.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I've owned and used extensively the Leica SL with both 24-90 and 90-270 mm lenses. And I currently own and use the Hasselblad 907x with 21, 45P, 65, 90 mm lenses. Both are excellent systems, both make superb photographs, both are somewhat large and heavy for "walkabout" kinds of shooting.
I'm happy I sold off the Leica SL system as, after I retired, I just didn't really need that kind of camera any more; it was great when I was doing assignment work and such.
The Hasselblad system I enjoy more for when its larger sensor is a huge plus, and the fact that I can swap the back over to my Hasselblad 500CM bodies extends the lifespan and utility of the whole system ... But I honestly don't shoot with any of that gear all that often and sometimes debate whether it's worth having all that money locked up in it.
If I decide that the Hasselblad is really not worth it for me, now, I could sell the whole kit and buy a Leica M11 body with the new Visoflex EVF accessory. This would net having one set of lenses that I can use on four different cameras (M4-2, CL, Pixii, M11 bodies; 10 Leica M mount lenses from 10mm to 135mm, 8 Leica R lenses from 15mm to 180mm, plus doubler, bellows, extension tubes, other accessories). And the currently ridiculously overstuffed equipment cabinet would have a small modicum of empty space in it. Hmmm.
I post this just as a way of saying, "You have to decide what works best for you, and only you can do it." I still have to make these decisions myself, for myself. Good luck!
G
I'm happy I sold off the Leica SL system as, after I retired, I just didn't really need that kind of camera any more; it was great when I was doing assignment work and such.
The Hasselblad system I enjoy more for when its larger sensor is a huge plus, and the fact that I can swap the back over to my Hasselblad 500CM bodies extends the lifespan and utility of the whole system ... But I honestly don't shoot with any of that gear all that often and sometimes debate whether it's worth having all that money locked up in it.
If I decide that the Hasselblad is really not worth it for me, now, I could sell the whole kit and buy a Leica M11 body with the new Visoflex EVF accessory. This would net having one set of lenses that I can use on four different cameras (M4-2, CL, Pixii, M11 bodies; 10 Leica M mount lenses from 10mm to 135mm, 8 Leica R lenses from 15mm to 180mm, plus doubler, bellows, extension tubes, other accessories). And the currently ridiculously overstuffed equipment cabinet would have a small modicum of empty space in it. Hmmm.
I post this just as a way of saying, "You have to decide what works best for you, and only you can do it." I still have to make these decisions myself, for myself. Good luck!
G
vieri
Well-known member
I absolutely resent both your comment and the implication of it, Paul. Being an Ambassador for any brand never stopped me from writing what I thought of any of the equipment I review, pros, cons and everything in between.
Being an Ambassador for brands of course comes with benefits, that goes without saying. But, let's not forget that it's not something that falls from the sky. It's something you need to earn with the quality of your work, of course, but besides that, one of the things high-end brands value the most is integrity. No high-end brands such as Leica or Phase One ever asked me to write puff pieces about their equipment, which is something I would never do anyway and that would devalue both the brand's and my good name.
I put endless hours into creating my lens reviews, which is something I do for free, I don't "write articles about products for discounts". The dozens of images I provide my readers with, tell the unabridged truth about the optical qualities of each lens I test. If you took the time to read my reviews, you will see what I mean.
I don't have to write articles, I choose to. E.g., ALL my Hasselblad reviews have been written without me having any kind of relationship with the brand. E.g., my huge filter review has been written while not being an Ambassador for any filter brand. E.g., Nitecore sent me a free Hasselblad charger to review, and the result of the compared review I did with the Hasselblad dual charger was 100% in favour of the Hasselblad. And so on.
So, please refrain from this kind of comments in the future, it's beneath a forum member like you. Thank you.
Last edited: