Jump to content

SL vs Monochrom 246 at higher ISO


53tele

Recommended Posts

The best comparison for these two cameras you may find at reid reviews. They are not free but they do not cost the world (fair prize for serious reviews).

 

I cannot send you any files because I hate to spend the time with shooting dozens of still lives just for comparing them "under the microscope", meaning at a calibrated 4k monitor.

 

Generally the SL has the newer generation of sensor. That means it can be used up to 12500, with some luck even to 50000 ISO.

But I actually did not have the need for this until now. Just imagine you have a still life, why would you need so much ISO ? It cannot run away, you can use flash or even all different sorts of lighting...

 

In the situation where you really need high ISO it does not matter to get the last bit of resolution.

 

The SL (like the Q) have an excellent color quality which makes them preferable to the 240 (In my eyes). But this is mostly lost by conversion to black and white and does not matter to you.

The M246 is maybe a tad sharper with very sharp lenses that are used under best circumstances (speak lot of light, lens not at full aperture) and with a highly professional handling. Only then, and this is not really easy "in the field".

 

So I think it is quite clear when to use which camera (if you have the time to prepare for the situation at all).

 

Stephan

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote in my SL review, I think that the MM246 still holds an edge over the SL at higher ISOs (about 1 stop). I haven't done head-to-head comparisons, but the level of detail in MM246 files at ISO 6400-12500 is just amazing. The SL at ISO 10000-12500 is good, but not as clean/detailed as the MM246. 

 

Leica SL (Typ 601) Review: A Professional Mirrorless Camera

 

I talk about high ISO performance of the MM246 in my full review here:

 

Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Review

 

And, for a more direct comparison of the MM246 to the M240 and M9M, I did a controlled head-to-head comparison at all ISO settings, here:

 

B&W ISO Showdown: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) vs. M Monochrom (M9) vs. M (Typ 240)

 

If there is interest, I may repeat a similar test with the SL601. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have access to both cameras and could share some insight into how the SL (with b&w conversion) holds up against the monochrom 246 at higher ISOs like 12500?

 

I havent compared but I am pretty sure the M246 to beat the SL easily at the very high ISO.

I once compared the SL to the Nikon df at ISO 3200 and the Nikon df - in my view - beats the SL in terms of noise and color at high ISO.

I believe the Monochrom should beat both in high ISO. Just my guess. I am also tight in regards of time and therefore dont shoot much comparison things anymore. For me it is more important how the cameras work over the time. For example one comparison shot in certain light and certain subject might not give the whole picture and mightlead to wrong assumtions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I wrote in my SL review, I think that the MM246 still holds an edge over the SL at higher ISOs (about 1 stop). I haven't done head-to-head comparisons, but the level of detail in MM246 files at ISO 6400-12500 is just amazing. The SL at ISO 10000-12500 is good, but not as clean/detailed as the MM246. 

 

Leica SL (Typ 601) Review: A Professional Mirrorless Camera

 

I talk about high ISO performance of the MM246 in my full review here:

 

Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) Review

 

And, for a more direct comparison of the MM246 to the M240 and M9M, I did a controlled head-to-head comparison at all ISO settings, here:

 

B&W ISO Showdown: Leica M Monochrom (Typ 246) vs. M Monochrom (M9) vs. M (Typ 240)

 

If there is interest, I may repeat a similar test with the SL601. 

 

Hello dfarkas,

 

I like your tests, they are very clean and the results nicely laid out.

 

So if you find the time, it would be very interesting if you could make a similar comparison with the SL. I don't know, maybe you can even do this on your job ? If not the effort is probably too big. The problem is maybe also that you would need a single lens for all cameras - so this would probably be the Apo Summicron 50 in all its perfection. Or I could also suggest the Apo Macro Elmarit-R 100, that could also be fitted to all cameras. A comparison with the 24-90 would not be so meaningful/significant.

 

So if you find the time, great. But as I mentioned already for just a few dollars a year you find comparisons with different lenses for the two cameras at Reid Reviews - as you probably know already. To be clearer: The same lens on both cameras, but several lenses in several tests. Up to now mostly wide-angles.

To make it clear I am not involved in any way with this site and am not paid etc. but I find using this site much less nerve-racking than all the fools saying "I know nothing, BUT this definitely beats that ..." .  It's not about beating, it's about knowing the tools better.

 

Stephan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello dfarkas,

 

I like your tests, they are very clean and the results nicely laid out.

 

So if you find the time, it would be very interesting if you could make a similar comparison with the SL. I don't know, maybe you can even do this on your job ? If not the effort is probably too big. The problem is maybe also that you would need a single lens for all cameras - so this would probably be the Apo Summicron 50 in all its perfection. Or I could also suggest the Apo Macro Elmarit-R 100, that could also be fitted to all cameras. A comparison with the 24-90 would not be so meaningful/significant.

 

So if you find the time, great. But as I mentioned already for just a few dollars a year you find comparisons with different lenses for the two cameras at Reid Reviews - as you probably know already. To be clearer: The same lens on both cameras, but several lenses in several tests. Up to now mostly wide-angles.

To make it clear I am not involved in any way with this site and am not paid etc. but I find using this site much less nerve-racking than all the fools saying "I know nothing, BUT this definitely beats that ..." .  It's not about beating, it's about knowing the tools better.

 

Stephan

 

Stephan,

 

I've known Sean Reid for years. He's a great resource and a very experienced tester. I'll second your recommendation to check out his comparisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 1600ISO (sort of) comparison between SL and M246 is shown here. Clear differences are found regarding sharpness, details and noise in favour of M246 (as expected). At low/lower ISOs, the largest difference is that the M246-files can be tweaked quite a bit before artefacts show up, whereas the SL-files may turn miscoloured and/or noisy with some postprocessing. That being said, I really like the SL! (also compared to M9 and M240 that I have owned in the past).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...