Leica SL vs M in low light

[CYBORA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

   Sorry if this has been discussed before, I tried to use the search function, but couldn't find any topic on this.

 

   I checked the DxOMARK low light points for SL and M , I find that they are similar, even M is just a few points better than SL. I expected to find SL to be much better than M. Of course SL's sensor is optimized for more DR that is done by sacrificing the high ISO capabilities, but it is expected to have a sensor in SL better than M in both aspects ( after 3-4 years of progress )

 

   Some thinks DxOMARK should not be taken serious and so this is why I am asking how your experience is for comparing their high ISO. 

[ramarren]

I haven't really bothered to compare them in detail on this point (most of the time, my M-P and my SL sit at a fixed ISO 320 or 400 ...) but my gut feeling from skimming through higher ISO settings is that the SL looks to have about a stop more dynamic range at ISO 6400-12800, and slightly lower noise at 12800 than the M-P has at 6400. 

 

I haven't looked at DXO stuff for years... Frankly, when I rack the sensitivity up to these levels, I'm usually doing it with the intent of driving more noise and texture into my photos for aesthetic effect and underexpose to exaggerate the effect. I'm often astonished with how little noise shows up using today's high performance sensors. 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LD_50]

I shoot both the SL and the M-P. I have not done any test shots to compare them but have shot extensively with both.

 

I allow up to ISO6400 on the SL but capped the M-P at ISO3200. The SL appears better to me in both DR and noise at high ISO. Neither is great at these levels.

[steppenw0lf]

I do not really scientifically compare my cameras - not enough fun in it.

But when it is "dark" it is for me easier to use the old Noctilux (1.0) with the SL than with the M246. I find the EVF a bigger help than the OVF.

 

We had a discussion about SL vs M246 with high ISOs two or three months ago. And I think a gentleman from England showed examples of the immense quality of the M246. (It was the picture of a church). Also Reid Reviews has done comparisons. The M246 is on paper usually minimally better than the SL (and (clearly) better than the M240).

 

But as said, in the hand and at the eye the SL is easier to use for me.

 

The site you mentioned (DxO) is a rather sad story, they often do not even countercheck what they write. And when we found some simple errors in the comparison between SL and D5, for me it is no serious source anymore. No need to waste time with it, there are enough resources of better quality. (Summary: Blunders in the simple facts, and extreme "precision" in the technical measurements - that really fits together well. ;-)

Edited July 2, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[FlashGordonPhotography]

At 1600 and above I prefer the look of my SL files to either my M or M-P.

 

Gordon

[Jared]

My problem with the M at high ISO's was not so much the noise itself, but the loss of shadow detail as you lost dynamic range. I find I have at least one stop more dynamic range at a given ISO with the SL--perhaps even two.

 

- Jared