saxo Posted October 29, 2015 Share #1 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Look at: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3 This test was a real surprise to me. I thought the Leica SL with 24 MPx would at least perform on par with the alpha 7r II regarding the dynamic range. But it is not! The whole thing about 24 MPx vs. 42 Mpx is a better low light and better dynamic range. Question: what is the advantage of the SL sensor compared to the Sony a7r II sensor? Martin Edited October 29, 2015 by saxo Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2015 Posted October 29, 2015 Hi saxo, Take a look here Dynamic range / ISO invariance: Sony a7r II vs. Leica SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
psss Posted October 29, 2015 Share #2 Posted October 29, 2015 Look at: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9955093579/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3 This test was a real surprise to me. I thought the Leica SL with 24 MPx would at least perform on par with the alpha 7r II regarding the dynamic range. But it is not! The whole thing about 24 MPx vs. 42 Mpx is a better low light and better dynamic range. Question: what is the advantage of the SL sensor compared to the Sony a7r II sensor? Martin why would 24mpix have better DR then 42? sony has 3 FF sensors, 8. ,24 and 42 mpix...they all have about the same DR but the lowest mpix count has the best high iso performance because the pixels are larger.... why would anyone think the SL sensor has an advantage over the A7rII sensor? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 29, 2015 Share #3 Posted October 29, 2015 Question: what is the advantage of the SL sensor compared to the Sony a7r II sensor? The advantage of the SL sensor is that you'll be able to use it with native Leica AF lenses, and you'll get better performance with Leica M wide angle lenses than you would with the Sony. DPReview has put forth their 4-, 5-, 6-stop push tests as being something important, but photographers are doing amazing work with cameras/sensors that would fail this test. It's a test that shows off an unusual aspect of Sony sensors, but not all that relevant to most photographers in most of photography. Of course, it is more relevant to some photographers than others. 10 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted October 29, 2015 Share #4 Posted October 29, 2015 The +4/5/6 is a noise floor demonstration, not a dynamic range demonstration. Also, I was under the impression the SL's base ISO is 50, so if comparing noise and such, wouldn't one want to start with each camera's respective base ISO? Camera across this in their article - "This means it's likely the same CMOSIS sensor in the Leica Q". Last I read the general consensus was that the Leica Q's sensor was sourced from TowerJazz. In the M-240 and S-007, Leica referred to the CMOSIS sensors as "MAX". That designation is not in the Leica Q or Leica SL spec sheets. I have no issue with Sony sensor performing better, but DPReview's testing process and writings (at least in this case) are not well done here. Other things to consider, the SL is still pre-production, so is this the final firmware? Is the SL officially support in LightRoom or whatever they used? I use C1 and the Leica SL is not amongst the supported cameras yet. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted October 29, 2015 Author Share #5 Posted October 29, 2015 The advantage of the SL sensor is that you'll be able to use it with native Leica AF lenses, and you'll get better performance with Leica M wide angle lenses than you would with the Sony. DPReview has put forth their 4-, 5-, 6-stop push tests as being something important, but photographers are doing amazing work with cameras/sensors that would fail this test. It's a test that shows off an unusual aspect of Sony sensors, but not all that relevant to most photographers in most of photography. Of course, it is more relevant to some photographers than others. I expect the Leica SL to perform better with wide angel M lenses than Sony, anything else would be a desaster. The thick sensor glas of the sony can be replaced by a thinner glas. If this puts the Sony realy on level with the SL or not is unkown to me. Is there any information given about the dynamic range of SL vs. a7r II? Thanks! Martin Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 29, 2015 Share #6 Posted October 29, 2015 Question: what is the advantage of the SL sensor compared to the Sony a7r II sensor? Martin For one, the SL sensor isn't in a Sony body. Rick 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted October 29, 2015 Share #7 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I expect the Leica SL to perform better with wide angel M lenses than Sony, anything else would be a desaster. The thick sensor glas of the sony can be replaced by a thinner glas. If this puts the Sony realy on level with the SL or not is unkown to me. Is there any information given about the dynamic range of SL vs. a7r II? Thanks! Martin Removing the sensor glass from the Sony doesn't seem to improve the Sony over say the M240 and it makes color temp balance horrible, not to mention the other corrections you lose due to the fact that Leica and LR provide lens profiles specifically assigned due to the lens codes read by Leica's cameras. I'm not sure who benefits from removing the sensor glass other than the company providing the service. I know, using the word service is a stretch. Rick Edited October 29, 2015 by Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted October 29, 2015 Share #8 Posted October 29, 2015 (edited) I can't run around and find sources for all this stuff, but this is what I've gleaned from reading other reviews and information here and elsewhere: the sensor is similar to the Q sensor, but not the same the SL does not perform as well as the M with M lenses (slight softness at the corders, slightly better resolution in the centre), but significantly better than the Sonys; so, if you want to use M lenses, the SL is a better bet than the Sonys (no surprises there) it depends what M lenses you use - look at Sean Reid's review. For those lenses, he identifies as "challenging", there is softness. I wouldn't call it anything like Sony level smearing if you decide to buy a Sony A7r2 and expect it to work well with M lenses, it sounds like you're embarking on a difficult journey - you can send it to Kolari to have the cover glass removed and replaced with a thinner one, but then you will need to develop new profiles as the colour balance is a long way off; it short, you're screwed if you do the above and get it to work, you're still left holding a Sony (see Rick's post) from what I've heard, many of the M lenses work extremely well with the SL (I've heard the 28 Summilux described as "crackingly good" on the SL) To me, it comes down to understanding this camera and getting to grips over whether or not it meets your expectations. What I've seen and read tells me that ISO performance 100 to 12,500 looks very good. Base ISO seems to be 100, ISO 50 is pulled. Dynamic range is also a step up from what I have with my M Edition 60. Cheers John Edited October 29, 2015 by IkarusJohn 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted October 30, 2015 Share #9 Posted October 30, 2015 Hasn't Leica published the expected DR of the SL? Like they did with the S? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 30, 2015 Share #10 Posted October 30, 2015 Hasn't Leica published the expected DR of the SL? Like they did with the S? Not that I've seen yet. They may still be tweaking algorithms; a firmware update is said to be following the release very closely. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaflex Posted October 30, 2015 Share #11 Posted October 30, 2015 I don't really get the idea behind the +6EV test. It only shows a technical difference between Sony and Canon or Leica Sensors. On Canon, Leica and Panasonic Cameras you should use the right ISO to get the best results, with Sony sensors you can shoot everything with ISO 100 if you like ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTRP Posted October 30, 2015 Share #12 Posted October 30, 2015 Why compare the SL to the Sony? At over $7000 it should double the performance the the Sony. I guess it will depend on me winning the lottery or donating more blood at the blood bank but that's another story. It's a Leica, just the name says it all - period! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 30, 2015 Share #13 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) I don't really get the idea behind the +6EV test. It only shows a technical difference between Sony and Canon or Leica Sensors. On Canon, Leica and Panasonic Cameras you should use the right ISO to get the best results, with Sony sensors you can shoot everything with ISO 100 if you like ... I'm guessing that DPR got the idea for this from their readers. Before DPR started doing the +6EV test, some of their readers were doing the same in the DPR forums, posting their own +6EV examples. The point was always to show off an unusual ability of Sony sensors (also used in Nikon cameras). Any other sensor would show horrible grain and banding. The example photos were typically of something really difficult to expose correctly, like a chair or a sofa. Then other people got the idea that this was an important test, and that perhaps they would really need to do +6EV exposure pushes in order to create acceptable photos. They feared that they would encounter amazing landscapes where the utmost detail had to be recorded in the brightest areas of sky while the deepest shadows had to be illuminated in the dark earth. And they would never consider using a tripod or graduated ND filter for these important photos. So DPR decided to join this bandwagon and made the +6EV test an important standard measure of image quality on their site. Edited October 30, 2015 by zlatkob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted October 30, 2015 Share #14 Posted October 30, 2015 I don't really get the idea behind the +6EV test. It only shows a technical difference between Sony and Canon or Leica Sensors. On Canon, Leica and Panasonic Cameras you should use the right ISO to get the best results, with Sony sensors you can shoot everything with ISO 100 if you like ... The idea is that when a sensor is ISO-invariant (aka ISO-less) you can underexpose to save some highlights that would otherwise be burned and can still salvage the shadows in the raw converter. If the lighting is good and you can shoot at base ISO it doesn’t make a difference, but with bad lighting, ISO-invariance equals a higher dynamic range. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
psss Posted October 30, 2015 Share #15 Posted October 30, 2015 why is this test questioned? banding shows up at +4 and actually you don't have to go that far....try any raw SL image with dark shadows, pull open the shadows there is banding....same with Q.... it is silly to come up with some conspiracy theory about dpreview or sony....sony could buy leica if they wanted to... and cmosis..... the sensor has issues, everybody should speak up to leica not try and discredit tests... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 30, 2015 Share #16 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) I don't find these tests to be all that useful or informative, that's all. For those that do, well, good for them. My supposedly "crippled, ancient technology, can't meet the latest spec on a road if a guide dog led it to it" Olympus E-1 still produces some of the most beautiful photos I've seen, second only to those my Olympus E-M1, Leica M9, and Leica M-P produce. Pulling up shadows 6 stops? GAACK, it would like garbage. Use proper exposure ... Perfect photos. Why bother with tests that mean nothing to any other than some ham-fisted new-to-Photoshop goofball who doesn't understand proper exposure and rendering technique? It would be better for them to learn how to meter and expose properly, and how to use Photoshop with grace and art, then to test cameras using such ham-fisted techniques and calling it a win when some oddball piece of hardware does well on such a test. I just had my Olympus E-M1 out for some macro work. What a magnificent little jewel of a camera it is! The image quality is nothing short of outstanding, the controls and configurability literally mind boggling ... Yet all the spec racers say, "Ugh. Teensy sensor. Only 16 Mpixels. Noisy at 'high' ISO. Not full frame, not 50 Mpixels, not Nikon/Canon ... not Sony! yuck!" I say, "who cares? It makes superb photos." AS I'm sure the Leica SL will. Can't wait for mine to get here. Hmm ... Maybe I'll do a beauty shot of all my R lenses today. :-) Edited October 30, 2015 by ramarren 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted October 30, 2015 Share #17 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) Whether it's +4, +5 or +6 is not that important. Those are extreme pushes. +1 to +2 is much more relevant to me. My Canons always come out looking bad in these comparisons, and yet they make amazing photos. Someone recently posted a fantastic, beautifully made mountain-top portrait, with extremes of light and shadow, made with a Canon 5D2 (with its 2009 sensor). Much of Salgado's Genesis was made with Canon cameras that would absolutely fail these tests — and yet the work is magnificent, timeless and breathtaking. I shoot weddings where there are dark suits, white dresses, in all sorts of light, and don't have to do +4, +5 or +6 corrections. Correction is typically in the -1 to +1 range, and rarely going to +2. I have a Sony A7II and its 24mp sensor is supposed to beat every Canon in dynamic range and in push-ability, and yet that makes no difference in my photos. It might be an incidental benefit in case I have a colossal exposure failure, but it's not a reason to own the camera. I recognize that there are some photographers in the world who genuinely benefit from +4, +5 or +6 stop corrections. There are all kinds of photography. I question the test because "pulling up the shadows" that much is not important for the vast majority of photography, and yet is put forth as something that photographers should be really concerned about when choosing cameras. It's a bit like the classic Henny Youngman joke where a guy goes to the doctor and says, "Doctor, when I do this it hurts". The doctor's wise reply is "Then don't do that!" On DPR, the joke would be, "DPR, when I push my pics 4 stops I see banding". My response would be "Then don't push 4 stops!". But on DPR it feels like the response is always "Then buy a camera with a Sony sensor!" Edited October 30, 2015 by zlatkob 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted October 30, 2015 Share #18 Posted October 30, 2015 I agree, it's a bit like saying: "This XYZ-car is no good, because if one loads 2.000 kg on the roof, it collapses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted October 30, 2015 Share #19 Posted October 30, 2015 I don't find these tests to be all that useful or informative, that's all. For those that do, well, good for them. ................... ..........I just had my Olympus E-M1 out for some macro work. What a magnificent little jewel of a camera it is! The image quality is nothing short of outstanding, the controls and configurability literally mind boggling ... Yet all the spec racers say, "Ugh. Teensy sensor. Only 16 Mpixels. Noisy at 'high' ISO. Not full frame, not 50 Mpixels, not Nikon/Canon ... not Sony! yuck!" I say, "who cares? It makes superb photos." AS I'm sure the Leica SL will. Can't wait for mine to get here. Hmm ... Maybe I'll do a beauty shot of all my R lenses today. :-) I don't want an SL for myself, but I couldn't agree more with everything you say above. If it suits you, go for it, learn it and enjoy it, as I'm sure you will. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicaflex Posted October 30, 2015 Share #20 Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) The idea is that when a sensor is ISO-invariant (aka ISO-less) you can underexpose to save some highlights that would otherwise be burned and can still salvage the shadows in the raw converter. If the lighting is good and you can shoot at base ISO it doesn’t make a difference, but with bad lighting, ISO-invariance equals a higher dynamic range. Okay, that's a great technical detail of the Sony sensor. So, like the Canons, Leica can't compeed with Sony in this respect. But on the other hand, isn't it great that Leica can compeed with the best Canon has to offer. Who would have imagined that a few years ago. ;-) Edited October 30, 2015 by Leicaflex 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.