What is your professional website for your work

Thanks!

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

What did you go for? sl2 vs x1dii is tough

@@matthewfarag X1D2

It is the same sensor.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

@@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!).

@@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?

@@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)

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

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.

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

@@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.

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

@@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.

@@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.

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.

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

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 :)

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.

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.

Some free advice: Stop visiting DXO.

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

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

@@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.

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

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...

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 :)

@@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.

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.

Leave it to the experts, mate.

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

@@GeorgijusPavlovas ah my bad, I misread your post

@@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. :)

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.

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

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

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

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 ;)

@@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.

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

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

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.