-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Similar Content
-
By Koen_NLFrom 1600 ASA upwards, my images from the Q2 start showing aspherical horizontal lines. I am not sure this is classic 'banding' or rather some other issue. Does anyone else experience this? I enclose a well exposed sample (taken at 3.200 ASA) and the same at +1 and +2 exposure. Check out the top right quadrant.
In the next post, I enclose an image at 50.000 ASA in order to see the aspherical shape of the lines.
3.200ASA - 1/60 - f1.7 - 28mm - normal exposure
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 3.200ASA - 1/60 - f1.7 - 28mm - +1 stop in Lightroom
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 3.200ASA - 1/60 - f1.7 - 28mm - +2 stops in Lightroom
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! -
By jonoslackHi There
Several people have asked me about this, and so it seemed to be worth doing it!
All the files were originally shot on DNG - the sharpening and noise reduction sliders in Lightroom were all zeroed. The SL2 files were opened in Photoshop and the Image size reduced without any noise reduction help. They were then exported as 100% jpg quality 12 jpg files. I've then done an XY comparison zoomed in to approximately 100% and taken a screen shot. I'll put this on to the Review thread as well, but I thought it was worth putting it up as a separate thread.
As you would expect - downsizing the SL2 images does help with the noise - but even so, at higher ISO there is still at least a stop difference. In each case the SL2-S is on the left. To me this is a little like angels dancing on the heads of pins, and it's also open to methodology questions - and anyway, why would you not use noise reduction?)
First of all, the Scene:
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
100 ISO:
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 400 ISO
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 1600 ISO
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 6,400 ISO
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 12,500 ISO
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 25,000 ISO
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! 50,000 ISO
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finally 100,000 on the SL2-S and 50,000 on the SL2
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden!
-
By bgbI purchased a Q end of last year, liked it so much that I sold my Nikon DSLR, Lumix FZ-2500 and Fuji XE-T3. I then purchased the CL with the 18-56mm lens a few months later. Now with adapters to use my Rokinon wide-angles, and 7 Artisan lenses I find myself using the Leica CL way more than the Q. There's no doubt that the IQ of photos from the Q, a full-frame camera, are better than the Leica CL, t's a fantastic camera and lens with macro capability.. But I'm thinking of selling it add more lenses for the CL (or at least pay it off 😎). Anyone else face this situation? BTW, with all that's going on in the world at this time, I'm fully aware that this is no big deal, but it keeps my mind off the other cataclysmic issues we're experiencing. All opinions welcome, any recommendation for lenses?...thanks. I am currently waiting for arrival of the TTArtisan 35mm F1.4 lens to ship. Be Well everyone. -
By Holger1RESERVIERT Verkaufe gebrauchte Edel-Kompaktkamera Leica Q (Typ 116). Die Kamera hat kaum Gebrauchsspuren. Das Display und das Objektiv sind frei von Kratzern. Sie diente mir als Zweitkamera, kam aber selten zum Einsatz, da ich doch lieber mit meiner SL fotografiere. Zwei original Leica-Akkus sind dabei, sowie ein neuer Tragegurt, ein Ladegerät, die Geli mit dem Metalldeckel der minimale Gebrauchsspuren aufweist. Dies ist ein Privatverkauf- I send only within EU. -
By onasjI obtained a customer-release—not pre-release/beta—M10-R and compared it side-by-side with the M10 Monochrom (hereafter referred to as the M10-M) on a test scene at high ISO values. The firmware version for both was the latest firmware currently available to the public: 10.20.27.20 for the M10-R (upgraded from the initial released 10.20.23.49 firmware that was pre-installed in the new camera), and 2.12.8.0 for the M10-M.
Methodology: all shots were taken on a tripod with a 2-second delay to minimize vibration. The same Leica 50 APO lens was used for all tests. The aperture was set to f/5.6 for all tests, at which the resolving power of the 50 APO is about as high as possible among commercially available 35-mm format lenses. The ISO value and shutter speeds were as follows:
ISO 6400, 1/60 s
ISO 12500, 1/125 s
ISO 25000, 1/250 s
ISO 50000, 1/500 s
ISO 100000 (M10-M only), 1/1000 s
To the best of my ability, the M10-R and the M10-M were treated equally. The test shots were taken in one sitting, with the same tripod position 2.2 m from the target, and under the same lighting. The images were focused by rangefinder and confirmed by live view for each camera. The subject distance (2.2 m) was farther from the test scene than my earlier M10-R tests (1.3 m) because I anticipated that the M10-M might have no trouble resolving all the details of the scene from 1.3 m, even at absurdly high ISOs.
To keep the test as pure as possible, all the test shots were taken as DNG files, then transferred and opened in Adobe Photoshop 2020 with Camera Raw 12.3 (which has native M10-R support) with no corrections or adjustments to the default image settings, other than clicking “B&W” to convert the M10-R images to monochrome. Therefore, this test does not really answer the question of how the performance between the cameras compares if one were to bring the full power of modern post-processing, noise removal, AI-driven scaling and sharpening, etc. to bear on the images. It also does not exploit the important ability of adjusting the levels of different colors when converting color files to monochrome files—arguably the largest advantage of using the M10-R to generate monochrome photos instead of the M10-M. Instead, the purpose of this test is to compare the acuity and noise level of the two cameras at ISO 6400 to ISO 50000.
Overall, both cameras take remarkably good monochrome photos, even at ISO levels such as 12500 that would previously be considered out-of-reach. Here are 100% crops from a small portion of the center region of both cameras (M10-R on the left, M10-M on the right). Click on the image below to view it at 100% to avoid scaling artifacts. I would have no hesitation using ISO 12500 monochrome images from either camera for virtually any application. But of course there are substantial performance differences.
Hello guest! Please register or sign in to view the hidden content. Hallo Gast! Du willst die Bilder sehen? Einfach registrieren oder anmelden! Finding #1: The M10-M captures higher acuity levels than the M10-R across the ISO range tested (6400 to 50000).
As expected, given the lack of a Bayer color filter array (CFA) and no need to de-mosaic the red-, green-, or blue-filtered pixels, the M10-M offers significantly higher acuity than the M10-R. To my eye, the advantage persists even if you give the M10-R an advantage of one or two stops: compare the sharpness of the fine features of the scene as captured by the M10-M at ISO 25000 vs. the M10-R at ISO 6400, or the M10-R at ISO 25000 to the M10-M at ISO 100000—a remarkable testament to the M10-M’s ability to capture a scene down to the smallest details, even zooming in to 100%. Notice also that at the same ISO level, aperture, and shutter speed (chosen by each camera’s auto-shutter speed setting to be the same at all ISO levels!), the M10-M images are only modestly brighter than the M10-R; I was surprised that the Bayer CFA didn’t dim the M10-R images more strongly. Perhaps the M10-R firmware partially compensates for the loss of light due to the Bayer CFA.
Finding #2: The M10-M offers about a 1- to 2-stop advantage in high-ISO noise levels over the M10-R.
Compare the M10-M at ISO 50000 to the M10-R at ISO 12500, or the M10-M at ISO 25000 to the M10-R at ISO 6400. The M10-M continues to blow me away with its high-ISO performance. Indeed, Bill Claff’s measurements at https://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm rank the M10-M’s high ISO performance as fourth among all cameras tested to date, behind the Phase One IQ4, the Phase One IQ3, and the Fuji GFX-100—three current or recent top-of-the-line medium format cameras.
Overall, Leica has created in the M10-M and the M10-R two current-generation sister cameras with outstanding overall performance. If acuity or high-ISO performance is more important than color for your particular application, than the M10-M outperforms the M10-R and is among the very best cameras to my knowledge, even joining some medium-format monsters. And if color is needed, either in the final image or to enable creative conversion to black and white images that allows easy sky darkening, face lightening, etc. during post-processing, the M10-R remains an option worthy of its current flagship status among Leica M cameras.
-