SLM

[helged]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With three new M-lens announcements today, its perhaps time to speculate when/whether SLM - a monochrome version of the SL - will be announced.

 

Or is the SL+M246 combo the holy grail?

 

Or are the monochrome qualities/rendering of the SL on par with M246, implying limited added value from a SLM?

 

Any views from SL+Mono users?

[mmradman]

Next M, and there will be next M, will have improved sensor compared to M240 and SL/Q. Degree of improvement like ISO, DR, Mpixels will be subject to rumor speculations as Photokina  gets closer.

 

Two years later MM mk3 follows with similar sensor to the new M but without Bayer layer.

 

Mnochrom SL? Probably not.  Comes 2018 SL mk2 comes out.

[ramarren]

I'm not sure why the announcement of a set of new M-mount lenses would make you curious as to whether a monochrome version of the SL might be announced. Doesn't make sense to me, there's no logical relationship. 

[earleygallery]

M lenses are for M cameras. Leica have to make more SL lenses quickly! 

[ferdinand]

........ Leica have to make more SL lenses quickly! 

 

 

16 S Lenses

48 M Lenses

51 R Lenses

plus T Lenses

and 24-90 

 

who needs more?

[rafikiphoto]

M lenses are for M cameras. Leica have to make more SL lenses quickly! 

 

 My M lenses are doing just fine on my SL. I am feeling so at home with the setup I'd be happy for Leica to make a 'basic' SL without AF!

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 My M lenses are doing just fine on my SL. I am feeling so at home with the setup I'd be happy for Leica to make a 'basic' SL without AF!

 

 

I suspect that would cut so little from the cost of producing the SL that it wouldn't be worth it. I feel the same using the SL with my R lenses ... it works just the way I hoped it would when I bought it, to the extent that I've hardly used the SL 24-90 lens at all. I've put an M lens or two on it for testing, but it feels a little unbalanced that way. I've probably just gotten used to the weight and balance of the camera with the R lenses, however. 

[earleygallery]

16 S Lenses

48 M Lenses

51 R Lenses

plus T Lenses

and 24-90 

 

who needs more?

 

Maybe those people who want FF AF lenses to go with their FF AF body ? 

[rafikiphoto]

... it works just the way I hoped it would when I bought it....

 

That sums it up succinctly in my experience.

[helged]

An attempt to get back on topic ;-):

 

Is the monochrome rendering of the SL on par with MM/M246? For very dark situations no, but what about day light photography? And for the most commonly used prints up to A3+, say?

 

Please chime in...!

[jaapv]

Not really, the resolution will be lower and the tonal range more limited. Which does not mean the that it won't be capable of excellent monochrome. It is just not a specialist.

[ferdinand]

Maybe those people who want FF AF lenses to go with their FF AF body ? 

 

The lens list is the marketing statement from Leica

 

It's very clear for me that new AF lenses are necessary to get the advantages of the SL 

[ramarren]

An attempt to get back on topic ;-):

 

Is the monochrome rendering of the SL on par with MM/M246? For very dark situations no, but what about day light photography? And for the most commonly used prints up to A3+, say?

 

Please chime in...!

 

 

There are some nuances to this question. 

• If you're talking about rendering B&W from raw, as above the SL will be on part except at the extremely high ISO settings.
• If you're talking about in-camera B&W JPEGs, the SL does not have the B&W software filters that the M-P does: no way to control the spectral translation. The MM246 requires the use of optical filters for the translation and contrast control, and filters consume light, which reduces its sensitivity. ... so that's another thing to consider. 

In summary... I find the SL produces outstanding images which print to 13x19 inch (a bit larger than A3) beautifully, either B&W or color. Since I've been able to make exhibition quality 20x24 inch prints from a 5 Mpixel original capture quite easily, I can't believe the SL wouldn't make even larger prints of outstanding quality. 

[helged]

I'm thinking of raw...

[Jared]

There are some nuances to this question. 

• If you're talking about rendering B&W from raw, as above the SL will be on part except at the extremely high ISO settings.
• If you're talking about in-camera B&W JPEGs, the SL does not have the B&W software filters that the M-P does: no way to control the spectral translation. The MM246 requires the use of optical filters for the translation and contrast control, and filters consume light, which reduces its sensitivity. ... so that's another thing to consider. 

In summary... I find the SL produces outstanding images which print to 13x19 inch (a bit larger than A3) beautifully, either B&W or color. Since I've been able to make exhibition quality 20x24 inch prints from a 5 Mpixel original capture quite easily, I can't believe the SL wouldn't make even larger prints of outstanding quality. 

 

 

I certainly agree that exhibition quality prints are possible out of the SL, either monochrome or color.  That being said, the SL will not be on a par with the M monochrome in terms of either resolution or ISO performance.  In my experience, the SL is about a stop better than the M(240) when it comes to noise characteristics which will still leave it will short of the M monochrome.  There are sensitivity benefits to not having color filters in front of your sensor which is why astronomers tend to shoot LRGB images--incorporating luminance frames into their images.  Also, the interpolation required by a Bayer array erodes resolution somewhat, even if you don't have an anti-aliasing filter.  As a result, the SL would also fall a bit short of the M Monochrome in terms of fine details.  All that being said, the SL is a fine tool for monochrome work.  It's just not optimized for that.  

 

- Jared

[Jared]

Oh, and I wouldn't see the release of three new M lenses as an indication one way or another as an indication of where Leica's attention lies.  These are minor tweaks to existing lenses.  As far as I can tell, they changed the barrel a bit to allow a nice, threaded lens hood a la 35mm Summilux.  The optical design for all there lenses appears to be unchanged.  Weight and size are also the same as the predecessors (within a margin of error for the new lens shades).  I think Leica finally realized that people don't like getting cheap plastic lens shades on $3,000 lenses.

 

- Jared

[ramarren]

I certainly agree that exhibition quality prints are possible out of the SL, either monochrome or color.  That being said, the SL will not be on a par with the M monochrome in terms of either resolution or ISO performance.  In my experience, the SL is about a stop better than the M(240) when it comes to noise characteristics which will still leave it will short of the M monochrome.  There are sensitivity benefits to not having color filters in front of your sensor which is why astronomers tend to shoot LRGB images--incorporating luminance frames into their images.  Also, the interpolation required by a Bayer array erodes resolution somewhat, even if you don't have an anti-aliasing filter.  As a result, the SL would also fall a bit short of the M Monochrome in terms of fine details.  All that being said, the SL is a fine tool for monochrome work.  It's just not optimized for that.  

 

 

While at the level of theoretics I agree with your assessment, in practical usage the only real advantage in resolution, dynamic range, and tonal scale I see in MM246 images are when shooting in the ISO 6400 and up sensitivity range. You might review Egor's excellent articles comparing the MM9, MM246 and M240, which have extensive examples of the imaging from all three: 

  http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

  http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/05/sentences-and-sensibility/

 

The evidence there seems to show pretty clearly that at modest ISO settings, the M240 is quite close to the MM246 even though the latter is well-optimized for B&W only. If the SL has a small ISO advantage on the M240, it will similarly achieve performance quite close to the MM246 regardless of the theoretics. 

 

I don't think it's valuable to consider niche uses like astrophotography ... such extraordinary needs don't concern me in the use of an M or SL for pictorial or documentarian photography, and the resolution gains you're netting there are measured in single digit percentages, from what I've seen, which are important for those niche uses but almost completely unobservable for more typical photographic pursuits. 

[nscali]

IMHO, owning all three, the mono images that come out of the M246 are in a class of their own.

I know the 'scientific' tests suggest otherwise but in my experience, the images out of the M246 have a level of detail, sharpness and pop that is very similar to medium format. The best way I could describe is that irrespective of which lens you use, they all look like they are shot on the 50 APO. You notice it when you first look at the files and get that 'wow' feeling. When they are printed they have an incredible life to them. Just my opinion, but it would be good if other M246 owners could chime in here. It is all about the end result in the real world..

[Jared]

While at the level of theoretics I agree with your assessment, in practical usage the only real advantage in resolution, dynamic range, and tonal scale I see in MM246 images are when shooting in the ISO 6400 and up sensitivity range. You might review Egor's excellent articles comparing the MM9, MM246 and M240, which have extensive examples of the imaging from all three: 

  http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/04/sensors-and-sensibility/

  http://www.ultrasomething.com/photography/2015/05/sentences-and-sensibility/

 

The evidence there seems to show pretty clearly that at modest ISO settings, the M240 is quite close to the MM246 even though the latter is well-optimized for B&W only. If the SL has a small ISO advantage on the M240, it will similarly achieve performance quite close to the MM246 regardless of the theoretics. 

 

I don't think it's valuable to consider niche uses like astrophotography ... such extraordinary needs don't concern me in the use of an M or SL for pictorial or documentarian photography, and the resolution gains you're netting there are measured in single digit percentages, from what I've seen, which are important for those niche uses but almost completely unobservable for more typical photographic pursuits. 

 

 

I agree with you that at base ISO any of the recent M offerings--MM9, MM246, and M240--is capable of good black and white results, but I think even the links you provided show there are substantial advantages to the MM246 well before the ISO 6400 range you mentioned.  Even with the one stop better performance that the SL offers over the M(240), I suspect the MM246 would have a visible edge for monochrome work.  The dynamic range is just going to be a lot better as the ISO creeps up.

 

As far as the astrophotography example I mentioned, I was just trying to illustrate why removal of the Bayer filter has value in terms of both resolution and SNR, even with an otherwise identical detector.  Certainly didn't mean to imply we should all adopt the practices used by astrophotographers.  Not at all practical.  That being said, the benefits in sensitivity are a lot bigger than the single digit percentage range you mentioned.  Just look at any CMOS/CCD manufacturer's graphs of quantum efficiency and you will see that typical improvements in sensitivity (and therefore SNR) are in the range of 20% or even higher depending on the specific frequency being measured.  That's enough to matter, and it's why the tests you linked to showed much better results for the M(246) vs the M(240) at higher ISO's.  That's the only reason I brought in astrophotography--not to suggest that the typical M or SL user would care about that particular specialized application. 

 

The resolution differences should indeed be small among the M246, the M240, and the SL.  I wouldn't recommend selecting one over another based on resolution.  But the high ISO performance is much better in the M246 than either of the other two cameras.  

 

- Jared

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ramarren]

I suspect we will continue to disagree on the practical merits, Jared. "Graphs of quantum efficiency" are not photographs.

 

The MM246 by those examples seems to have a 2 to 3 stop advantage over the M240, which by your own estimation is bettered by the SL by about 1 stop or so (I feel similarly). So yes, I agree that at highly elevated ISO settings, the MM246 is the B&W contender to beat. 

 

But ... In practical terms, I find it pretty darn rare that my cameras spend time much above ISO 400-800, even in low-ish light circumstances. An f/1.4 lens goes a long way, never mind an f/1 or faster. And if I'm doing work that requires very high detail, I use a tripod and make longer exposures rather than rack the ISO up to the top of the range. Most other photographers I know do the same. So in practical terms, while the MM246 is indeed king of high ISO B&W, in the majority of common picture taking use, the output quality is not that different. On that stand I am quite comfortable. 

 

I do believe that nscali feels that the MM246 is quite special in its output as well, but I have to ask: do you mean direct, out of the camera JPEGs or raw files out of the camera? And do you use optical filters to obtain the spectral translation of the typical B&W filter (Yellow, Red, Green, Orange, and Blue) at which point the ISO rating is less revealing that it might otherwise be because the filter losses cut the ISO down into the same range as the M240/SL has to work with at the high quality settings.

 

I know with B&W film in daylight, I'm always using a yellow or orange filter, cutting my set ISO by two stops. The real advantage is night shooting, where the cool, warm color temperature of artificial light does not require the same filtration as warm, cool color temperature of sunlight and the spectral balance of the light suits B&W spectral translation more naturally. 

 

As I said before, there are some nuances to the question: "Is the monochrome rendering of the SL on par with MM/M246? For very dark situations no, but what about day light photography? And for the most commonly used prints up to A3+, say?"