BernardC

Faster readout, which means less rolling shutter effect (eg: vertical lines look slanted when you pan) The SL2-s' 6,000x4,000 resolution is closer to UHD (3840 x 2160), so there is less interpolation needed. The APS-C "crop" 4K mode is 1:1 (no interpolation), full-frame is 3:2. The SL2-s has less noise in shadows because each pixel is bigger. The camera should stay cooler because it has less processing to do. This can lead to lower noise during long takes, and lower battery consumption.

At least there's a plugin for BRAW in Premiere and FCP. I haven't used either of those NLEs in years, but I imagine that they create proxies, so any performance hit should be temporary.

Here's what I found on PtP: Clear as mud? As I said earlier, PtP use their own definition of dynamic range which is different from industry standards, or even from what you might see by looking at raw files. That's fine: their site, their choice. I find that PtP's numbers are only somewhat informative if you look at the maximum value on their curves. Everything below that isn't. For instance, they claim that the SL3 has less than 6 stops of "PDR" at EI 6400. That surprises me, but it should be easy enough to test with a calibrated step wedge. 6 stops is less than the reflective range of a glossy black and white print.

I don't think that Leica would have added a timecode input on the SL3 if they didn't have a better video camera in the works. I vote for BlackMagic RAW over ProRes RAW. BMR provides a better workflow in post-production, plus Blackmagic is an L-mount partner, so Leica would benefit from better compatibility within the system. There are a few use cases for 8K. The one I see most often is for single-camera interviews in vlogs. You can have one frame that covers two people, and then punch-in to a single person to improve the pacing. It's also useful for CGI/effects shots, where a matte created in 8K will almost always look better than one created in 4K.

My point is: take two shots at 1/100 F:5.6. The only difference between the two shots is that the camera is set to EI 100 for one, and EI 200 for the other. According to PtP's graph, the EI 200 shot will have a full stop less DR! In other words, all the ISO setting does is give you less DR. PtP doesn't mention if this disappearing DR is from the highlights, shadows, or evenly distributed between the two.

PtP measures dynamic range in a different way from anyone else (Arriflex, Leica, CineD, etc). I'm not sure why that is, you'll need to ask them. It's easy enough to test. Set your camera to manual exposure and shoot a frame at EI 100. Shoot a second frame at EI 200 with the same manual exposure setting (aperture and shutter speed). Open both frames in your favourite raw converter, match the exposure. PtP's chart suggest that the second frame will have a stop less DR. That's not what I see when I do it, or what others have reported. Both frames are the same once normalized to the same exposure. If you think about it, PtP's numbers don't make much sense. If you have 11 stops of DR at EI 100, and only 10 at EI 200, where does that stop go? Why would you ever shoot at EI 200 if the only difference is that you get a stop less DR than at 100? By that logic, the DR at 100 should contain everything that is in the EI 200 shot, plus more. The bump at EI 400 in the chart is probably related to the dual-gain architecture.

Essentially yes, however it is distributed differently. EI 100 will have 2 stops more "shadow DR" than 400, and EI 400 has two stops more "highlight DR" than 100. There are reasons to prefer one EI over another. Many people choose the lowest possible EI, and then protect for highlights ("expose to the right") because highlights usually have a hard maximum, whereas shadows can get deeper and deeper. That's what people are really saying when they tell you to shoot at "base ISO." That's what people did for slide film, they spot-metered the brightest part of the image (or incident-metered the key light) to make sure that they weren't blowing the highlights. Shadows fell into place from there. The downside to this technique is that your exposures will vary from shot to shot (because the brightest highlight varies). That's fine if you want to produce one image, but it's a bother if you want to deliver multiple images (eg: event/wedding, or video), because each shot needs to be processed individually. In that case it's better to pick a middle EI, like 400, knowing that you probably won't blow any highlights but your shadows will be noisier. You can then apply your basic corrections/look to a whole group of shots instead of tweaking each one. That's a huge time saving if you have thousands of images from one event.

I don't think the SL bodies are "technically not a match" for other brands. If I was to describe my ideal 35mm camera, it would look a lot more like an SL than a Z9. The big Japanese brands either sell cameras with every feature, at the expense of usability, or they sell crippled cameras, missing the most basic things (decent EVF optics for example). On the other hand, SL bodies have great colour, no low-pass filter, better viewfinders, better lens compatibility, and an unbeatable UI. They also have the best native lens choice, outside of 5-figure super telephotos (if I needed those I would get an R3, no hesitation). Is that really less advanced? Cost isn't even an issue at this point. You can spend just as much on a Canon/Nikon/Sony system; I've met many photographers who have.

I think you are both arguing the same point, using different language. The reason why ISO 64 looks like old slide film is because it behaves like old slide film: you are at the threshold of blowing-out highlights. Hans didn't counsel against proper exposure. He said that the sensor is invariant in each of its gain stages. Depending on the specific camera, the "base" gain is applied between minimum ISO and approximately 1200, and the next gain stage kicks-in above that. Knowing that, you still need to expose correctly, but your exposure decision mostly affects the distribution of dynamic range above or below middle grey. For instance, at ISO 64 there's very little latitude in highlights, but you can lift the shadows by five or more stops. On the other hand, at ISO 800, your highlights have lots of slack, but the shadows are "noisy" (which is another way of saying that you have less shadow range). Long story short: you need to match your exposure to your subject brightness range, which is what Ansel Adams recommended with the zone system decades ago. There are two main ways of doing this: you can shoot at the lowest ISO that won't blow your highlights (AKA "expose to the right"), of you can pick a middle ISO and trust that there's enough DR in both highlights and shadows. Those are two different ways of approaching the same issue, and that issue is the sensor's exposure invariance.

I think that you are mostly on the right track. The S4 will be very similar to the SL3 in terms of its technical architecture. It will use a version/evolution of the Leica/Panasonic processor seen in the S5ii and SL3. That's not to say that it will have a slow readout, which depends on the sensor. Leica might use a version of Sony's ubiquitous medium format sensor (Fuji GFX100, Hasselblad X2D), or they might procure a custom sensor. They've done both in the past. The S2 and S-006 used Kodak sensors that were relatively common, but the S-007 and S3 used bespoke sensors. We'll find out next year, hopefully. We'll find-out about the price at the same time. I think it will be lower than the S3, maybe even similar to an M. They want to sell in higher numbers (the S was mostly marketed to high-end professionals), and the market is more competitive. The camera itself should be cheaper to build, but that doesn't directly affect price. The real question is whether or not it will be "worth it." It's likely that the S4 will have approximately twice the number of pixels as the SL3. That sounds like a big difference, but it isn't in most cases. To me it all comes down to the lenses. The S lenses are amazing, and unique in the market. If the S4 lineup is just as good, it will be worth getting the body. The S4 will be compatible with S lenses, so people on this forum will want it just for that.

Blackmagic announced a new cine camera with L-Mount option at NAB today: https://www.newsshooter.com/2024/04/14/blackmagic-design-pyxis-6k-camera-first-look/ This fills a gap for cine shooters. We have lots of L-mount hybrid cameras, but this reasonably-priced ($2,995 USD) option is great for bigger productions.

That's true of every camera brand, except possibly PhaseOne. As the old saying goes: "90% of professionals use Hasselblad, 90% of Hasselblads are sold to amateurs." I heard that when I was a teenager, and the first part probably wasn't true: Hasselblad was commonly used by pros, but they didn't have a 90% market share. Nevertheless, the gist is true: even so-called "professional" systems are mostly sold to amateurs. Leica is in the same boat as everyone else. This was confirmed to me when I was doing weddings. Guests almost always brought more "professional" gear than paid photographers did! There's always an uncle or two with full pro Canon/Nikon kits and all the 5-figure lenses, who want to interrupt you and ask basic questions. Worse case, they try to shoot during the ceremony and block everyone's view (which is a no-no for professionals). These "uncles" are always different, but the working pros are the same every week, so it's easy enough to figure-out that there's a whole lot of pro kit out there sold to hobbyists.

It affects one quality: resolution. That's only a problem if you want to print big. The SL manual says that APS-C resolution is 3936 x 2624. That should print well on A3 (roughly 12x16 inch), with the usual caveats: focus, exposure, content, etc. Using the "full" 24MP resolution would let you go up a size, so A2 or 16x24 inch. It's not enough of a difference to change your vacation plans. Use the CL if you think you might want to print large, otherwise pick whichever one you enjoy the most.

You need to do your research with all M mount lenses, not just Leica. For ZM, the two 50s and the two 85s are OK, everything else can cause issues. For Voigtlander it's easier to tell: any lens that is also available in Sony mount or Z mount should be fine. There's probably a thread about each VM lens in this forum, so you don't need to look far for answers.

It's hit and miss. The current ASPH Summicron 28 is a retrofocus-type design, so it will be better on digital. Older 28mm M lenses don't fare as well. You need to test/research every M lens in your bag to see if it works with a Z (or Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, etc.). My point was that they all work seamlessly with SL-series bodies, except for a few exceptions like Super Angulons. It's a worry-free solution for M shooters. I meant no disrespect to the Zf, Nikon makes fine cameras.