Hasselblad X1D (II) SENSOR vs Leica SL2 SENSOR | Clear Winner

This is an in-depth comparison of the Hasselblad X1D (II) sensor and the Leica SL2 sensor, in other words, a comparison between medium format and full frame sensors in professional cameras.
Correction: in the 2nd part of the video on high ISO images I always talk about ISO 12'800. De-facto, that was the ISO on the X1DII but on the Leica SL2 the ISO was 12'500 - kind of the same order of magnitude but slightly lower.
The video is a follow-up to the two following videos on my channel:
Hasselblad and Leica travel & street combo Part I:
• Hasselblad X1D(II) + X...
Hasselblad and Leica travel & street combo Part II:
• Leica SL2 + Sigma 45 v...
Watch in 4K to avoid video compression artefacts.

[@tojalehto]

This is the best MF vs FF comparison I've seen so far. Please do GFX100 vs X1D-ii image quality comparison next!

[@x3thelast]

As a professional photographer, I absolutely LOVE my X1D ii. It has been THE single best investment in all of my photography gear. It’s the best tool for my specific style of photography where everything is slowly paced and very much planned out and composed. The final images are impressive even straight out of the camera. Btw the 26 downvotes are probably from 26 salty Leica owners. Lol

[@Zetaphotography]

What is your professional website for your work

[@annenominous7220]

Using the leica SL 35 f2 would massively improve the leica performance. I love that lens, and it is far superior to the sigma lens. However, I have no doubt the large sensor is superior, but there are many reviews stating that build quality is subpar for the Hassy. Overall, I am sticking with Leica, the look and feel of the camera in hand, along with the very nice function and fully competitive picture quality (using Leica lenses) at any reasonable print size (for me up to 3 feet by 2 feet) is worth the extra money for the Leica system. However, if Hassy comes out with an improved Mark III version with faster processing and better focus, and improved build quality well, then we are up for a reconsideration! Thank you for your EXCELLENT youtube channel.

[@GermanAutoNut]

Here are my thoughts as someone that owns Leica M9, Leica M10 Monochrom - Leica SL, Hasselblad X1D MkII, and PhaseOne iQ4150 - The glass makes a SIGNIFICANT difference in noise when Pixel Peeping. The most noticeable for me was with the PhaseOne XF with XF 55mm lens with the iQ4150 back moving to the PhaseOne XT with the Rodenstock 50mm lens. The Glass made a HUGE difference. The sharpness was considerable - so to shoot the Leica SL2 with Sigma Glass 'vs' the Hasselblad with it's NATIVE (Hasselblad) lens - I don't think is a FAIR comparison. Everything behind the MATH and science of this exercise is spot on - but again - I don't think you can compare NATIVE GLASS of Hasselblad - compared to "Generic" glass of the Sigma Lens. The sensor on the Leica SL2 is not designed or engineered to produce the best picture with glass that cost 1/5 the price. There's a reason why Leica glass is SO EXPENSIVE. It is that much better. Just my 2 cents - would love t o see this test again - with the Summilux or Summicron 50mm lens compared to the Hasselblad XCD 45. (compact or non-compact lens). I think the results would be considerably different.

[@Thehugomac]

Finally, Thank You. You really should have Leica glass on the SL2. You can't compare Sensors with an inferior lens on one of the Cameras. Please do test again with 50mm Summilux f1.4 M or SL lens.

[@johnwatson4695]

Sensor noise is sensor noise and that's an end to it.

[@jeffreywrightphotography]

@@johnwatson4695 Sensor noise is going to be affected by how much light makes its way to the sensor, which can't be determined by a lenses f-stop. If you don't have a way to measure the light transmission capabilities of a lens you aren't comparing a sensors noise properties properly. I have no idea which of these two lenses has better light transmission but if forced to guess I'd say it's probably the Hasselblad. It would have been a fairer test to either use a lens that could be adapted to both cameras and test them both with that same lens or to at least use comparable quality lenses to see what the best you can get out of the sensor would be.

[@lout1587]

Thank for the time and energy you expended to make this comparison and the clear explanation.

[@Xingqiwu387]

Excellent comparison and analysis. The Hasselblad images are simply stunningly good! Wow.

[@petergregory7199]

Informative analysis. The colour rendidition of the Hasselblad is beyond reasonable. It’s fantastic! Just for completeness, could you compare the SL2 performance with a prime Leica lens verses the Sigma? I couldn’t use my old SL2 with any other make of lens. It would have been heresy!

[@khalifaalmehairbi4987]

Hi don’t u think if u would’ve used an apo summicron 50mm instead of sigma 35 in ur comparison could be the same

[@tor2919]

What strikes me is how much nicer the Hasselblad colours are.

[@rudigerwolf9626]

First, thank-you for this comparison. As an SL2 owner who is also thinking of switching to medium format, this has been very helpful! Second, it does seem that the method used puts the SL2 quality at a bit of a disadvantage. Here are a couple of observations which I truly believe will not change the image quality assessment - medium will be better than full frame - but might make the difference a bit more real world: 1. Sigma lens on SL2, Hasselblad lens on H1D - that seems a bit unfair. How about a Leica lens on the Leica? 2. It makes sense to keep the ISO the same. In the real world, wouldn't I then also shoot each camera at the same aperture. F/8 vs F/6.3 is a 2/3 stop more light in the X1D sensor. Add 4 seconds more exposure (7%), and the method gives the XCD roughly 75% stop more light than the SL2. That explains why you need to boost the exposure slider in Lightroom to get similar images. Might just as well have increased the SL2 ISO to 200 in the original image capture. If I understand full frame to medium frame equivalency, the amount of light at f/8 is the same in each format - it is depth of field that varies. So leaving the F-stop the same should still yield a fair comparison. So my suggestion is use the same ISO, F-stop, shutter speed and equivalent quality lenses. That seems like a fair comparison. And if you want to keep everything the same, including depth of field, then increase the F-stop and the ISO on the medium format to match the equivalency slide you showed at the beginning of the video where true equivalence (full vs medium) is F/8 to F/10 and ISO 400 to ISO 640. That equivalency table and the setting used to compare quality are dramatically different, and that just does not really seem appropriate. All that having been said, I still believe the full frame SL2 will not have the better image quality. But I suspect the difference will not be as large as the video suggests. And Thank-you again. I know equivalency is controversial. I also appreciate your videos and the time you take to make them. They are terrific and appreciated.

[@petermendelson5839]

Having gone from a X1D to the SL2 and then back to a 907x, I can attest to there being a noticeable difference in sensor quality. You give up certain things - flexibility, speed, etc, but for me it’s worth it.

[@TwentyTenPhotography]

That’s very interesting, after many years using APS-C I’m ready to skip full frame. I have a hard time making a decision between the X1Dii and 907x. Mainly I wonder if I can live w/o viewfinder. Otherwise I love the design and concept of the 907x. Would be great if you could describe your experience a bit.

[@petermendelson5839]

@@TwentyTenPhotography I think the EVF of the X1DII may be a bit more practical, but I like to shoot from low perspectives and the flip lcd screen is great for that. I got the grip for the 907x which is great too, but the OVF doesn't seem that useful to me. I have to say, the 907x feels a bit more fragile than the X1D and I worry more about damaging it since it doesn't handle the same way. Unless you like to shoot at waist level or lower a lot, I might go for the X1DII (I would love to have both!).

[@TwentyTenPhotography]

@@petermendelson5839 thanks for your response! One reason I think about the 907x is exactly that, to change things and use other perspectives more. How is the LCD on bright days/ in the sun?

[@petermendelson5839]

@@TwentyTenPhotography I bought a Hoodman Loupe for when it's super sunny out but I haven't felt the need to use it yet (but I haven't had the 907x for very long either and it's Winter so the sun isn't too bad)

[@TwentyTenPhotography]

@@petermendelson5839 Thank‘s very much! Really appreciate it.

[@norberttolle6646]

I've done this test over and over for years. Hasselblad sensors versus Nikon D800, D850, Z7. Always with the same result. The Hasselblad has never been a fast camera at all times. You don't necessarily have to use it for sports photos. There are other cameras for that. But in the end the photo remains in convincing quality. And that's what counts.

[@GKhanKutar]

Thank you for the video!!! Now I would like to see comparison video between X1DII vs Phase 1 or GFX100 vs Phase 1 :)

[@vikmanphotography7984]

I'm honestly more curious about "budget" modern medium format vs older digital backs. Thinking specifically about a PhaseOne P65+ compared to either the hasselblad/Fuji 50mp cameras (which both use the same Sony sensor)

[@tristanzand]

Would be interesting to compare the blad to an S3.

[@rudyhaddad88]

I would beg to differ since the S3 is much heavier, bigger and more expensive than the X1Dii

[@rendyonline]

@@rudyhaddad88 the weight, size and price of S3 comes from the fact it's a non-mirrorless, which is of no effect on image quality... so features aside, sensor/IQ wise would be worth comparing still.

[@rudyhaddad88]

@@rendyonline you’re right on the size but not the rest. Weight can be the same for DSLRs since you can have the same number of shot with a smaller battery. The EVF in a mirrorless camera eats up your battery hence the need for a bigger one. The price difference doesn’t have much to do with the fact that it is a DSLR since a pentaprism doesn’t cost a fortune, otherwise Pentax would be the most expensive cameras.

[@nelsonclub7722]

I would say it would be an interesting comparison - but heres some thoughts. i had both the H5D 50c and the X1D - which became the H6. Not many people realise that the smaller H650c uses a crop sensor (1.3) whereas the the H6100 does not (it does albeit so tiny as nakes littel difference). Now price for price the H6100 is more expensive than the S models from Leica if you consider the CS lenses (central shutter) but you can go for the cheaper ones which make it a focal plane camera with a reduced X -sync shutter speed owing to the fact that tha CS lenses allow X-sync at all speeds is possible. However whilst both cameras use a prism (SLR) and astonishing lenses - you can use the hasselblad HC lenses on a Leica - but not the other way around/ The Leica is weather sealed the Hass is not. Just comparing the H650d to the Leica S - the Hass has it for colour depth - the Leica has it for portability even though its still huge for a DSLR - much bigger than my old GFX50s - which I didn't like. Hass worked very hard to produce consistency across the range - but I have found that not all Leicas are the same. Comparing my old H5 50c to a Leica S - is on a par image detail wise - but I prefer the Hass for colour. The best way of comparing cameras to me is a simple one - I take an Aubergine, a Banana, an Orange and an apple - a bowl of fruit essentially - natural but diffused lighting and optimal F- stop on a standard lens. Does the non adjusted printed, (yes printed) picture look like what you can see in front of you? Leica will produce some colours which is fine if you like that sort of thing - Hass will produce an image identical to what is in front of you - that's all I care about - detail and colour - the rest is arbitrary among systems. - I have to say also the Hass is slightly easier to use menu wise and everything else on both the X and the H systems. Finally the S system vs the X1DII? Sorry but the Hass still wins - price is one thing you could buy nearly 3 X's fo 1 S), but its just as I have reiterated above regarding colour - I am very lucky in that (until recently due to COVID) my Hass and Leica dealer allows me to borrow both - its why when all was said and done I ended up with the H6100 for my commercial work - its just better - and the X system for muck about - and yet despite all of that I preferred the feel of the Leica - the viewfinder on the S has to be seen to be believed for a handheld DSLR - but detail and colour please.

[@tristanzand]

@@rudyhaddad88 I would be interested mainly because of the similar sensor size, that’s the whole point of medium format digital imho

[@deiviuds]

Wow! Subberb comparison! I would love to see it compared with the fuji 100mp sensor

[@DidierMOULINPhotography]

Hello. Very well done, your comparison is the best and most interesting I have seen until now. Guess what, after it I put my SL2 on sale !!!

[@georgetur3511]

Based on your explanation of the equivalent correction factor at the beginning of the video I would think that the hasselblad would be shooting at an aperture of f10 rather than f6.3 to give it the same depth of field as the Leica at f8.

[@Bayonet1809]

Exactly, especially since the exposure time in these samples is of little importance to the scene. The depth of field should be kept constant here, and the sensor performance compared at base ISO for the best case scenario for each camera. The conclusions here are only relevant for a scene where a fast shutter speed is important and depth of field less important (such as astro), although in such a scene a wider aperture lens would solve any issues equally as well.

[@jean-claudemuller3199]

For this type of only far subject parts, depth of field has no importance and you just choose the best aperture of you system not taking care of format, and as you are on a tripod with a static subject exposure time doesn't matter too. One have to distinguish, physical correct comparable shooting parameters, and practical applicable parameters to your image.

[@msscreenwriter]

Is the slight vignetting in the first SL2 image due to the lens, or the sensor? It seems like the outer edges are cooler than the center in that image.

[@harvgreenberg3031]

Superb review and analysis. As someone considering both cameras, this was exceedingly helpful.

[@matthewfarag]

What did you go for? sl2 vs x1dii is tough

[@harvgreenberg3031]

@@matthewfarag X1D2

[@genobambino]

It’s seems to me the differences are largely due to noise from lowlight exposures. It’d be interesting to see if the distinctions are as clear in broad daylight.

[@Jack-qn6vy]

Your videos are clear, and a nice balance of tech talk and practicality. Good job! Was wondering if the Hassy 907x sensor is the same as the X1DII and if not, how it would compare to the SL2 or SL2s.

[@mahdimanesh4221]

It is the same sensor.

[@colingentile]

Thank you SO MUCH for this level of commitment ! That's what I wanted to watch. :-)) Have you done the same thing between GFX50SII vs GFX100S ? Take good care of you ! So glad I found your video !

[@derrickdu]

You create fantastic topics! I keep coming back to review your videos. Keep up the good work,

[@ottomellar6774]

I only meant to watch the first minute, but found the whole thing fascinating. The talking speed is "just right". I still need to understand why the two were not set to the same ISO, why effective focal length factor of 0.79 squared would cause that to be set differently.

[@carlseibert9015]

Whoa! I hate to be the bearer of bad news here, but you made a fundamental error right at the beginning that invalidated everything thereafter. Actually, at least a couple of errors, but one was egregious. It was agonizing to watch you apply precise calculations to a just-plain-wrong premise. I have to admit that I couldn't watch all the way through. Crop factor has nothing to do with the exposure triangle! f/8 at /1250 and ISO 100 is exactly the same exposure regardless of whether the sensor is micro four thirds digital or an 11x14 piece of film. Were it not this way, the world would devolve into chaos. There could be no concept of ISO and thus no way to couple exposure meters to film or sensor sensitivity. When people talk about "equivalent" f-stops and ISOs across different sensor sizes, they are talking about depth of field and high-ISO noise, respectively. Mind you, the "equivalence" they talk about is based on subjective use case assumptions, which are in turn often based on nothing more than coincidence. But that's another story. You conducted your test with one camera exposing a third to half stop more than the other. Come on, man, one of the pictures in the first segment of your video is a half stop brighter than the other! Moreover, you tied the cameras' sensors to two different lenses, one expensive and matched to the camera and one a third party budget affair. That's just not going to work. While it truly is a nice idea to try to limit variables and objectively isolate one element of the many that go into the ultimately subjective judgment of which tool is better suited for a given use case, at the end of the day, we have to remember that the decision is driven by the use case and personal taste. One could make the case that a 35mm rangefinder and an 8x10 view camera are built for different use cases and one would be abysmal for the other's intended use. But one could also point to great photographers who have used the former for landscapes and the latter for portraits.

[@mathphotographer]

Hi Carl, many thanks for your long comment and thoughts. I am very well aware that the topic had been discussed in the community quite controversial but before you finally conclude have a look at that video I am currently making and which I announced on medium format vs full frame light triangle. All the best and we speak again when that video is posted.

[@jacobh5817]

Thanks Carl, you took the words right out of my...keyboard. The only variable where crop factor impacts aperture is depth-of-field. Not for exposure. Next to that, the sliders in Lightroom for shadow, highlight, texture et cetera are relative to the camera profile. So you cannot copy a value from one camera to another and expect the exact same result. In terms of low light performance a comparison between the X1D and the SL2-S is more meaningful. High-res sensors like in the SL2 are not meant for low light performance. End of last year we did some side-by-side tests in the studio with a GFX50S (same sensor as the X1D), an A7RIV, SL2 and a Z7(II). Under 'normal' circumstances with top class lenses all were very similar in image quality, with the Z7 having the edge. This was of course in a controlled environment with shutter speeds of 1/250th or so at base ISO. So, not comparable to the long exposure and low light shots Mathphotographer did.

[@scloop8365]

Crop factor does not apply to the exposure triangle. If it did, every external meter would have a setting for sensor size.

[@inter-linked]

Summary version - for those short on time. As expected, the larger sensor produces less noise. Something we’ve all known for many years.

[@calvinchann1996]

If you used a Hasselblad lens on the X1D why not a Leica lens on the Leica SL2? You have the APO SL 35mm.

[@nowisthetime6093]

DXO hasn't tested the latest fuji cameras. Be interesting to see how their GFX 50/100 sensors compares to the other brands.

[@silvestrocrino3256]

The GXF50 uses the same Sony sensor as the X1D ...basic ISO and Dynamic Range performance would be similar...with colors slightly better on the Hassy due to their color processing.

[@Paul-jb6rk]

Some free advice: Stop visiting DXO.

[@nowisthetime6093]

@@Paul-jb6rk I'll visit what i want. No advice required. 😊👍

[@williaminbody205]

DXO tests can’t account for Xtrans. They are a comparison of cmos, and color arrays are not all equal, and can’t really be compared....so dxo doesn’t really make a comparison of anything....but it’s interesting, and nothing else....

[@nowisthetime6093]

@@williaminbody205 X-trans are fuji's apsc cameras. GFX are cmos sensors. Would be of interest just to see how they fare just.

[@bassamhassan1119]

Have you ever tried a camera with Foveon X3 sensor ? I was told in ISO 100 it's better than any sensor

[@GuamPhotography]

Thanks for the video!! this video makes me miss my X1D !! Ultimate Image Quality!!

[@donchu2587]

I’ve actually watched a few of your X1D vids (particularly the 45mm comparison vid, great vid), what did you move on to?

[@ivanfinch9875]

Would this experiment not have been fairer by using Leica’s own 35mm SL lens over a third party lens? After all the Hasselblad used it’s own brand lens. There’s a reason Leica’s glass is so expensive. Secondly setting the cameras to the same iso and exposure value would also be a must do. iso 200 is the same regardless of camera choice! If you wanted the depth of field to be the same, just shut the X1 down a half a stop and increase the exposure a half a stop.

[@silvestrocrino3256]

By setting the SL2 at f8 and the X1D at f6.3...and in each case exposing just a little bit longer...are you not letting twice the light hit that bigger sensor? Why not set both to f8?

[@Paul-jb6rk]

To match exposures he needed to push the SL2 by about 0.6 stops more than the blad which is precisely the difference between f/6.3 on the blad and f/8 on the Leica. In other words yes the Leica had a half stop disadvantage. The blad would still have won because of the larger sensor but not a great or realistic method IMHO as the noise generated by sensor heating is nowhere near the noise from unmatched exposure.

[@massimoercolani8096]

Why the 35mm sigma was closed to f/8, and the hasselblad to 6.3? I probably would have done the opposite. The dof in medium (ff+) format is shallow than 35mm.

[@below90hz]

What does that matter in a landscape photo? Pretty much everything is in the focal plane regardless.

[@massimoercolani8096]

@@below90hz probably nothing. Maybe a better result from the lens.

[@below90hz]

@@massimoercolani8096 lens? Maybe. Sensor? No. Which is a bummer since I own an S1R and experienced a little buyer's remorse when I saw how much better the hassy was. But then I remembered the 100 features my camera has that the hassy doesn't and consoled myself.

[@joeneti]

I agree for an f8 on X1Dii and 6.3 for SL2 I love my X1d but it would make SL2 a better result and fair compete

[@pepetrueno8722]

I like the idea of comparing both

[@piruzinho9]

Good review. Who makes the sensor for the SL2?

[@bunyaadi]

Really useful analysis. Not the usual youtube sponsored nonsense.

[@zoltankaparthy9095]

Reminds me how glad I am that I bought the X2D and not the M-11.

[@frankluo230]

SL2 uses Panasonic sensor which is slightly inferior to the cutting edge Sony sensor. If you do the same comparison using Z7 representing full frame it wouldn't be that much behind. Even better still, I think the 61mp full frame sensor is the equiv of 100mp 44x33 sensor in a smaller cut. So GFX100s vs A7RIV or Sigma FP-L would yield almost identical result in noise to signal ratio or pixel density. The only advantage would be overall dynamic range.

[@Pembers357]

I always understood that whilst a particular aperture would give a different depth of field when comparing full-frame to medium format, the light being let in would be the same. So f4 is f4 in terms of the amount of light being let in, even though f4 gives a shallower depth of field (f4 x0.79 = f3.16) on medium format. So why do you need to adjust ISO by a similar 0.79 factor? Grateful if you could explain it in simple language for a simple soul like me, Math. Thank you!

[@mathphotographer]

Hi Andrew, I am working on a follow-up video where I compare the light triangles for the two sensors. Hopefully this will answer your question - the answer is a bit complicated, to be honest, but understandable. Stay tuned on my channel and in the next weeks I will try better to explain this in a new video :)

[@Stone1108]

What an excellent comparison, thank you. 👏

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks!

[@zenjitsuman]

I own the latest Olympus OM mk3, great camera, can hand hold a 400mm tele. However compare its 20mp sensor to SL2 and it loses big. I also own the Sony A9, compare its AF and low light high ISO to the SL2 and the SL2 loses big. So when I want to shoot tele for sports, the Sony A9 is what I grab first and for low light too. The Olympus is second choice. Now you compare The Hassy to the SL2, which has decent AF and a great 5.7 MP EVF. But for me the Hassy has not got the Option of buying affordable line of glass like what I have for my SL2. I have a Milvus 50mm 1.4, Sigma 85mm 1.4, Sigma zooms the 14- 24mm 2.8, the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 45mm 2.8. A these excellent sharp lenses for less than the Leica 24-90mm variable zoom. I have an excellent kit with great ergos, that using IBIS and ISO 3200 or less gives me 47mp of great colors and sharp details. You can't do that with Hassy. Oh I forgot I have 8 Leica M lenses that the sensor on the SL2 was designed to get the most from

[@jaimeduncan6167]

Great job, it's imposible to make everyone happy. I see a problem with editing one camera to be the best it could posible be and then copy pasting to the other. Cleary it set the second (that should have required different edition_) at a huge disadvantage. Let takes capture one and a Nikon and Canon pictures. I edit for the Canon removing the magenta cast then apply the same edition to the Nikon exacerbating the red cast. Same problem if I do it the other way around the Canon will have an even worse magenta cast. That is why most people either edit each photo to the best or do not edit at all. Still this is the best comparison I have seen, and I am sure I could not do better, it's easy to improve but not to come with all your considerations and setup.

[@elderinmoi1571]

Using the Leica 35 summicron instead would make a visible difference. Pixel is not a Pixel. There are good and better pixels. You should have experienced that when you zoomed in 200% on an image. I understand that you don’t compare lenses but sensors but still you are looking at the result of the sensor and the lens combined so using best glass helps. Not saying that the result would differ dramatically. Sure the mf camera would still win.

[@hilbu]

If this review using the Leica APO 50mm F2 with the SL2, the result will be even sharper. Sigma art lens is great but Leica APO is another level especially in sharpness.

[@Pezinokrm]

Good review as usual. 👍could you do a review of the Leica S3?

[@pierrelavie656]

why the sigma lenses on the Leica and not a Leica lens?

[@Paul-jb6rk]

He wanted something compact but with auto focus. But yeah if he’s testing the sensor performance why not hit them both with the best available glass? Kinda doesn’t make a whole lotta sense...

[@donchu2587]

Another great and informative video, much appreciated.

[@trastevere2007]

Best reviewer out there atmo.

[@NikCan66]

Brilliant video yet again 👏

[@marcusoutdoors4999]

It would be great to do a similar comparison with the Sony A1 as this is a next generation sensor

[@mathphotographer]

Good proposal, thanks. I am not sure if I get an Alpha 1 into my hands. What I will get on Monday is the new Fuji GFX 100s, but that sensor is around for a year or so and the Alpha 1 sensor is newer.

[@preeteshpatel3962]

Another great review playa.

[@thomaslarsen5057]

You should do the test with the Leica SL Summicron 2.0 lens really...

[@RickAstroman]

Great video.

[@tscott6843]

This really isn't a good comparison with a Hassy lens on the Hassy and a Sigma on the Leica.

[@mathphotographer]

The observations in the images which show that the medium format sensor is a bit superior to the full frame sensor (e.g., @12:08) do not at all depend on the lens ;)

[@tscott6843]

@@mathphotographer agree it doesn’t all depend on the lens. However, this is a comparison and the cameras should both have same brand lens or both not.

[@mathphotographer]

@@tscott6843 Fully agree, Scott. And usually I try to follow that principle. Aligned.

[@GeorgijusPavlovas]

A mistake was made during the shooting. Should have been at the same shutter speed and ISO f6.3 for Leica and f8 for Hasselblad. You have the opposite.

[@rendyonline]

Different shutter speed would've yield different noise output - longer shutter = hotter sensor = more noise. For this test, I agree on compromising aperture values as this is not a test of bokeh or DOF.. but rather noise and image quality. That said, it's rather fascinating to see that even at larger aperture (smaller f/), the Hassy still giving sharper image nonetheless.

[@barrydoyle7686]

Leave it to the experts, mate.

[@GeorgijusPavlovas]

@@rendyonline I suggested the same shutter speed and ISO for both cameras.

[@rendyonline]

@@GeorgijusPavlovas ah my bad, I misread your post

[@GeorgijusPavlovas]

@@rendyonline And yet, the thesis "longer shutter = hotter sensor" is valid only for cameras that start exposure from a closed shutter (DSLR). The sensor on mirrorless cameras gets warm even during framing. "the Hassy still giving sharper image" Both cameras have approximately the same megapixel and do not have a low pass filter. Attach a Sigma lens to Hasselblad and the difference with Leica won't be as noticeable. Perhaps not even noticeable. Both cameras are great. But Leica had no luck with lens in this test :) And further. Both Hasselblad and Leica do not comply with the OETF international standard. ISO100 for Hasselblad is not equal to ISO100 for Leica. :)

[@leica_sl2]

@13:13 Motion blur/Movment on the LEICA SL2 ? Do you agree?

[@idrismansoor6462]

I really really need to start using my X1DII 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@Bayonet1809]

If I disagree with your method, then how can I agree that your outcome is clear or incontrovertible? That is illogical. If there are issues with your method (and there are), then your conclusions are called into doubt.

[@asamxs]

this is reason that why are more mega pixel is the important ?

[@marcusoutdoors4999]

I do think that the sensor in the SL2 is inferior, however the test is flawed. In terms of area, the medium format sensor is 1.8 times bigger. So at the same aperture it will capture 1.8 times more light. However you gave the SL an aperture of F8 and the MF sensor an aperture of F6.3, so a further 66% more light into the MF sensor. As the shutter speeds were essentially the same, the larger pixels on the MF camera were receiving approximately 1.5 stops more light or approximately 250% more light per pixel. A more fair comparison would have been to set the SL at F6.3 and the MF camera at F8. The MF camera would still have won though.

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks for your thoughts, Markus. I am working on a follow-up video which will explain the equivalence of the light triangle parameters between the two cameras. This should make things much clearer. Why I chose the parameters as I did in the video I tried to explain but realized it needs a bit more effort to better stimulate the discussion. I am sure you are aware that "equivalence" between different sensor sizes is one of the most controversial topics in photography. The MF sensor wins, no matter how we parametrize the settings, that's for sure :)

[@marcusoutdoors4999]

@@mathphotographer Yes, of course you are right bigger is better when it comes to quality. And yes... more videos on this equivalence will be interesting indeed. I am extremely jealous that you can get your hands on such excellent equipment and it is hugely appreciated that you share your thoughts and experience.

[@NRecob]

This video esp things like 12:09 is why I bought a Hasselblad X1D II instead of a Leica SL2.....

[@Leicashootr]

The best camera is always the camera that’s in your hands

[@ralph95vip]

Your comparison is not very fair for full frame. 1. 35mm dg dn is a contempary lens. It isn't is the same ballpark as the 45mm hasselblad. Use 35mm f2 summicron or at least 35 mm 1.2 art. 2. F8 crippled it's performance, medium format at f 6.3 is more like a f 5 in full frame, not an f8, which means you purposefully crippled sl2 apeature by 1.3 stops, which is quite a lot. It means iso can be lowered to 3200 or so if you keep the shutter speed the same. 3. If you have to compare by holding iso constant, at least do it right. At medium format iso full frame equivalent is the square of the crop factor. Meaning iso 12800 in full frame is equivalent to iso 21000 in medium format

[@elikabban7551]

Please use a Leica lens on the SL2 and redo the same comparison.

[@-_--le3zk]

Your voice is soo similar to hybrid shooter :D

[@hennievangalen1603]

And after all this peeping, lets talk about the elephant in the room: System Weight.

[@fredjuengling631]

SL2-835g (w/o battery) + 325g for Sigma 35mm f2 DG Dn lens= 1160g; X1D II w/ 45mm f4 lens= 1086g. Pretty similar elephants.

[@Thehugomac]

To be fair don't you think the SL2 should have a 50mm Summilux f1.4 on it? You're comparing the Hasselblad body and lens with a Leica and cheaper Sigma lens. Just doesn't seem fair IMHO.

[@mathphotographer]

I think you are making a fair comment here, however, the direction of travel in terms of noise, grain, etc., and which sensor is a bit better, will not change with a different or better lens on the SL2. I will post soon another video on both cameras with the XCD 45mm f/3.5 and the Apo-Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 where I discuss the light triange equivalence, then the lenses will be a better match. Thanks for pointing out.

[@ntouched]

He used the lowest priced Hasselblad Lens ($1099). So I don't think the lenses would have made much of a difference......

[@guillaumesandmayer7053]

I'm probably just parroting has been said below but the real discrepancy here is that we're comparing a very decent all round hybrid stills/full framer versus a slow stills medium format juggernaut. Yes, the Hassy shoots video but who would buy it for that. No one. I'm trying to imagine someone weighing up the two with a degree of difficulty. If you shoot both still and moving images in equal measure - Leica it is - but now we're a hardcore slow poncey stills only shooter are we? Hassy' time...

[@mathphotographer]

Ha! :) Spot-on comment, and the new Hasselblad X2D has eliminated video capabilities ones and for all :)

[@Paul-jb6rk]

Neither of those two cameras are that discrete IMHO.

[@sabamacx]

A well-to-do Swiss guy living in Zurich talking about his discrete medium format cameras for street shooting, lol :^)

[@friendofarca6550]

as many other test on KZbin this one is also flawed on a basic level. the apertures settings are not equivalent ( diffraction) with the x1d at 6.3 the leica should have been shot at 4 +1/3 and not at 8 resulting in better overall sharpness and detail. but the more important point is do the same iso settings from different brands lead to the same exposure - histogram ? there is a reason why he had to push the exposure with the leica more. do understand better how this files hand been exposed we would need to see the histogram before any adjustments !

[@riswanc]

thanks good video, an excuse to get the X1D hahahah

[@АлександрБобир-и4н]

чем больше размер матрицы тем меньше глубина резкости

[@DJ369-Miami]

Du hättest GAR nichts in Lightroom machen sollen. Echt!

[@kyung-bokkim1959]

김경복 사진가 검색 바랍니다.

[@stuartfeen9236]

Math, You are, as always, amazing, Where did you get your PhD in math?

[@mathphotographer]

Many thanks, Stuart. PhD in Germany, then PostDoc in the Ivy League in the US. Helps in photography for a deeper understanding if you have some affinity to numbers and equations :) Being in pro photography now for about 12 years and love shooting my cameras.