Hasselblad X1D(II) vs Leica SL(2): Field of View, Depth of Field, Exposure and Equivalence

[@petera1033]

Outstanding summary and extremely well presented - high information to noise ratio - thank you I now have a reference video to pass on to people who are climbing the learning curve. Pete

[@derrickdu]

Omg, you didn’t give us any WARNING that we had to do math homework. Thanks for doing the work.

[@mathphotographer]

Sorry :) Math did the math :) Sometimes it helps to be able to figure out some basic formulas, things become much clearer.

[@dustinjenkins8215]

This is an absolutely perfect video.

[@mathphotographer]

Many thanks!

[@Interbeing_CDN]

Excellent explanation, and although it was math heavy, you presented in a very understandable way. Thanks for sharing!

[@mathphotographer]

Glad it was helpful!

[@rolandrick]

I love ❤ your mathematical contributions. Thanks for your 87 minutes of math lecture 🤗. - I studied mechanical engineering and my favourite classes always were mathematics and physics. - Besides: in one of your videos you explained the distribution of shadows and highlights but I can't remember which one of the videos that was. For sure you can help me.

[@LucyS565]

I totally agree, once we understand the rules and principals and the technical basics, in the end, the image itself is created by the photographer and his/her taste. Well done Math!

[@mathphotographer]

Thank you Lucy. It's the photo that counts, not what we adjusted in the camera or lens to get there. Photography is a form of expression, art, emotions and a moment that lasted for a short amount of time and never comes back.

[@LucyS565]

@@mathphotographer Well said!

[@preeteshpatel3962]

great video playa. i have both systems so its really helpful. thank you!

[@Peter-df1br]

Wow! A lot of data for me to absorb. Great effort!

[@mathphotographer]

Thank you Peter.

[@jonase5457]

Thank you, that was interesting. There are implications of these calculations for how and when you get the "Medium Format Look" but that is an idea for part 2.

[@mathphotographer]

Indeed! Spot-on comment.

[@FMSAir]

When is decided that dfar is infinity?

[@rsharma5901]

Great information - Thank you on reaffirming the fundamentals!! Question: @1:21:41 - @1:22:26, but your subject is not in motion. Why wouldn't you keep the same ISO value between the two pictures (to equate the noise between the two pictures), and have corresponding different values for the shutter speed (as you, or the subject is not in motion)? Also maybe for a future video, if you can go into the parameters on the formation of starlights when the aperture is has less light coming to the sensor?

[@mathphotographer]

Good proposal on your point on starlights, thx. On your point on shutter speed: yes, if the scene is still/static, you can adjust shutter speed for equivalence. But most of the time a scene is not completely still/static so the general recommendation is to go for ISO adjustment. But your thought is spot-on, in particular in light of what I said at the end of the video: we are not slaves of "techniques" like an exposure triangle, we want to shoot nice photos, and whatever looks good in the photo is good enough for me.

[@stargator4945]

Perhaps the t values are more different than the f values of both lenses so 1/50 might be the right thing looking at the histogram.

[@Stickybutton]

Your opening images show different images. Which image represents the actual scene?

[@majedanani939]

Awesome video❤

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks Majed.

[@NickRainsPhotography]

Great lecture. I would like to know why you use the diagonals to determine crop factor, rather than the horizontal (or vertical) dimensions. Using the diagonal does not eliminate the difference in aspect ratios (which must be important when it comes to magnification factors) and you cannot use the correct pixel pitch either. Or, possibly more meaningful, use the diagonal of the Hasselblad sensor cropped to a 3:2 ratio. It seems to me that this is a difference between the sensors that is not fully taken into account.

[@noeggi]

Hast du gesehen, dass du bei Leica Australia im neusten Video über DOF (Episode 4) bei 13:00 erwähnt wirst? 🤓

[@vladimirboevvisuals8032]

Love your videos! Thank you ❤️

[@mathphotographer]

Thx!

[@bobsykes]

This is excellent. Thank you. Since you like lens data sheets (and both Leica and Hasselblad provide actually measured MTF charts) perhaps a follow up video could be how to interpret how a given resolution on the MTF chart, say these excellent lenses that provide around 90% contrast at a frequency of 40 lines/mm over much of the frame, translates into sharpness, and in particular how you can estimate the worst measured MTF performance that will not be blurrier than the 2-times pixel pitch limit of these two sensor sizes. Again, thank you for the incredible time and effort you put into this.

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks Bob for your very nice feedback. Good proposal, will consider to go into that topic.

[@simil-kung5610]

I would love to see a comparison between the X2D and the SL3 when it comes out (probably in a couple of months)

[@NikCan66]

Always brilliant 👏

[@mathphotographer]

Thank you NikCan.

[@PeterFranklinFoxfireRealEstate]

I use a Nikon D850 with a 16-24, f2.8 extra wide angle lens, for real estate/architectural photography. It works great, but I was wondering if I should make a switch to the Hasselblad X1D(II), and if so, what would be the lens you would recommend that I could exceed what I already have on the D850? Or would I be better off to go with the Leica SL(2) and go with a lens equal to what I have? What lens would you recommend for the Leica and/or the Hasselblad?

[@mathphotographer]

Wow - these questions need a bit of time and are not easy to answer, likely also will have elements of subjectivity. If you go for the Leica SL2, the Leica 24-90mm (on my channel) is the most versatile lens. If you are primarily a prime lens shooter, the Apo-Summicron-SL lenses are the best choice for the SL2. On the Hasselblad system, if you wanna go for one lens only, take the XCD 3,5-4,5/35-75 lens which is the most versatile lens on that system. A review of that lens will come in the next weeks on my channel. Having said that and similar to Leica, the best of the best you only get with prime lenses. And for Hasselblad the 45 and 45p are good choices, for portraits the 80, etc.

[@augustodaeira]

Thank you so much for this video!

[@GillesQuennevilleGQ]

Thank you ! This is fantastic. Lot of work and so clear.

[@mathphotographer]

Thx!

[@LawpickingLocksmith]

Thanks for all the good research! I only have an FHD monitor but to my eyes the Leica is far more pleasing! From a deceased estate I could have inherited a bunch of old film Hasselblads. I guess they are all in the bin now.

[@ermematematik3493]

I think the result of this rewiev is mostly due to the lenses used. If you compare the immage quality at full apperature in the beginning of the video , the Leica (at F=2.8) is better than the Hasselblad (at F=3.5) but, when you look at immages from the Hasselblad stopped down to F=5.6, it is far superior regarding both resolution and contrast. I dont know how the Leica would have turned out at 5.6, but the Summicron 35 SL is supposed to be at, or near the maximum already at full opening. Also the Hasselblad 45/3.5 is one of the older and weaker lenses in the series.

[@poulbannowmork6607]

The crop factor size should be 43.8x29.2! That is the max 3:2 format you would get within the censor and maximum pixels. That means using full frame lenses (with adaptor) you would not get any corner problems!! I tried with leica and nikon lenses and it works perfectly (electronic shutter of course)

[@mathphotographer]

Good point, thanks for sharing!

[@photoworldcreations8753]

This was quite a lengthy video, but very thoroughly made. Thank you, very informative. Nice how you also point out in the end that while crop-factors should be taken into account for most aspects, not exposure. For exposure f/2.8 is f/2.8, whether on a long or wide lens, large or small sensor. Btw, I like the image of the SL2 a lot more than of the Hasselblad. Sharper, better contrast, better quality out-of-focus areas, more detail. Is that your experience as well when comparing two systems? Would that be mainly lens differences?

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks for your nice comment. On your question: hard to say. I shoot extensively with both systems and sometimes I think Hasselblad is sharper and sometimes I subjectively think Leica is sharper. I think it depends on a lot of factors what system takes the lead in a particular shooting situation. I love the Leica look in general, on SL as well as on M lenses and sensors. But I also love the color rendering of Hasselblad under certain light conditions. I think both systems are absolutely top-notch.

[@naduncan100]

As always very enjoyable but why did you not use the same ASA , Leica 100 and Hasselblad 200, I would say that is quite significant for this form of experiment !

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks Neil, appreciate your feedback. I think in the last part of the video I explain why I decided for these particular ISO values.

[@naduncan100]

Many thanks for your response it is greatly appreciated.

[@gordw6402]

Thank you for all your work. It would be interesting to see the Leica images taken at 1/40 and 1/50 shutter speed, you mention at the end of this video.

[@mathphotographer]

Nuance of difference in brightness, not too much of a difference. Subjective decision as I mentioned in the video.

[@SneakyJoeRu]

Right off the bat right image looks sharper with details. Coloring difference is not so apparent

[@N9olan]

ISO is not part of the exposure triangle. This is awesome sauce, thank you so much for this video!

[@jean-claudemuller3199]

Coc standards of 33 mu for FF worked pretty well in the film era but are completely outdated today. 5 l/mm is a mean value for people tat are medically considered not having visual trouble. In reality many people have a much better visual ability. This ability depends also on lighting and contrast. A thin black hair that has say 0.03 mm on a white tablecloth in bright sunlight can be seen at 1 meter distance by many people Hasselblad has based his dof calculations on pixel pitch. You choose the focus bracketing between 5 levels: 1X pitch extra small 3/2X pitch small 2X pitch medium 4X pitch large 6X pitch extra large

[@mathphotographer]

Thanks for that, appreciate your comment. Visual acuity is subjective as said, a bit of facts, a bit of your own eyes abilities and a bit of ambition. Great data on Hasselblad, I think that data is also somewhere in the manual which is available for download.

[@cheffrodo3266]

22:29

[@cheffrodo3266]

45:04

[@theteslasheep7321]

I like the left side picture

[@mathphotographer]

:)

[@cheffrodo3266]

37:43

[@poulbannowmork6607]

Additional that means that you will get a 46.1 3:2 file.

[@gulutaalan8845]

Comment written before seeing the explanation. I guessed well cause Hassy has a bit better DOF than Leica.

[@mathphotographer]

:)

[@videorezensent]

Not only color differences, the left image is softer and bokeh is a bit busier.

[@sabamacx]

For me, I thought the image on the right was the Leica, and only because the out of focus areas were "nicer" technically (smoother, no loca).

[@mathphotographer]

Thx!

[@jeffreyb.1657]

The hasselblad seems to be a much better option...better looking images from the things I look for...and in the end, that is what matters. Both cost too much.

[@tt__shin]

I can now conclude why you have so much money: probably an engineer

[@mathphotographer]

Haha, lol :) Thanks for that comment. The formulas are basic enough to be figured out by me and hopefully many others :) Liked your comment!

[@wtorresify]

In taking a picture for me its still compisition

[@noeggi]

rechts ist Hassi :) .... verdammt ich lag falsch :) PS ich denke ich habe das APO R 100mm Macro von deinem Video auf welches ich schon vorher ein Auge warf. Gestern in Zürich abgeholt 👌🏻

[@mathphotographer]

Haha :) Thanks for participating in the quiz! Great you got your lens in Zurich, happy shooting!