TonyP Loc: New Zealand

I'm intrigued by your question.
The Leica with a 35mm lens seems to cost about $8000-$$9000.
The Hasselblad about the same without a lens.

That's serious money.

Many years ago, I used both. The Leica was used mainly in mobile situations while the Hasselblad was confined to the studio, mainly.
Image quality is mainly the job of the lens, not entirely of course now we are in the digital age.

What is your intended use of the camera?
The question just seems a little naive to me, for someone intending to spend this sort of money.

Sorry I haven't been able to answer your question tho.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Original Zeiss lenses are as good as Leica lenses.

Bayou

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Apples and oranges. The Hassy is MF, the Leica FF. It's not so much a question of lens quality, but lens selection. You have a much wider range of possibilities with the Leica. OTOH there are good reasons to go with MF if you wish to isolate background, etc.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The biggest difference between the two camera's is your level of expertise. Are you a good photographer? If you are the differences between the two camera's is mute.
Pro golfers can get great results no matter what manufactured club they are using.
I have shoot Hasselblad, Kowa, Canon, Nikon, Leica, Sony, Topcon, Olympus, Mamiya, and many other camera's for years. I can get great results from any of them.
So, how are your skills, if your skills are good, do not compare image quality, find out which suits your needs the best. Image quality is up to the photographer, not either of these camera's.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

They are completely different beasts, and comparison should no be (only) based on IQ.

Handling is completely different, also the M11 is a rangefinder style, while the X2D is not.

Camera and lens size and weight are much bigger on the Hasselblad side...

Because of being medium format, the X2D will achieve morev subject separation than the M11.

It is much easier to carry the Leica around than the Hasselblad...

Sensor redout is 14 bit in the Leica, and 16 bit in the X2D, di you'll have better RAWs to work with in the case if the Hasselblad...

Think the M11 as a Lambo and the X2D as an 18 wheeler... Both excellent, but suited for different tasks.

Jack56 Loc: Florida

Strange as it may seem, the Hasselblad X2D does not have a histogram. Perhaps it will be included in a firmware update.

n4jee Loc: New Bern, NC

I have owned both Hasselblad 500c and Leica M3 cameras. The reason for using a medium format camera in the film days was to get a larger negative that gave a finer print (or slide) when printing any given size print (or projecting.) The comparison you are asking for is like comparing a full frame 35mm to an APS-C camera. And the reasons for choosing one over the other are the same.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Up to a point, Bill. But only up to a point. I used to shoot medium format slides (film) for landscapes. Beat 35mm like a dead horse. No comparison IMHO!
I would kill to have that 100mp Hasselblad. Of course, I would also need a new computer to handle those huge files. And a new bank account to afford those new lenses!

uhaas2009

I believe that hasselblad h2 a leave shutter. I saw some studio shuts on the back of h1 what looked incredible without PP

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Since you talk in other posts about ditching your Nikon D850 in favor of Leica to save size and weight, it's hard to envision how the slightly larger and heavier Hasselblad lenses are going to work for you. (Turns out that its sensor isn't really that much larger in the overall scheme of things, though.) Do you think that the 4:3 aspect ratio of the Hasselblad will work for you, or are you going to be cropping all the time and giving up a bunch of those 100 MP?

What do you shoot? Do you really want to be dealing with those big raw files from the Hasselblad? They will probably be approaching 200MB each. I know that I love my D850, but for some things, its 95MB raw files are just a nuisance. I take the D500 instead.

If you just want a new big dollar "super camera," I'd encourage you to buy whichever one looks like it will be more fun. Otherwise it sounds like a little more study and thought might be appropriate. As far as image quality, consider that a "contact print" from the Leica is going to be something like 28x42. For the Hasselblad, it will be maybe 36x50. Depending on the picture control options available in each camera, it is difficult to see how there would be much meaningful difference.

BebuLamar

Actually for body only the X2D body is slightly lighter than the D850. Not much about 50g.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

If you are a true photographer with either of these cameras, and not a rich elite want-a-be, you are absolutely correct. The comment that the resolution is less with the medium format camera is not true. The lens designs come from Hasselblad Germany and are made to their specs in Japan where they have a reverence for quality. The last I heard the Hasselblad bodies were still being made in Germany, but that could have changed too.

Judge Roy Bean Loc: Louisiana

Low bid on a government contract?



I know both are excellent and both out of my price range.

Canisdirus

Don't get hung up on lenses...modern ones have equaled quite a bit out in that regard.

I looked at both seriously before deciding on Sony...just not in my wildlife wheelhouse.

Hasselblad has the better sensor...better.