clavewifi Posted October 29, 2017 Share #1 Posted October 29, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Dear friends, I was wondering if anyone has a straight comparison between the T and the TL2 -- in terms of IQ. When the TL2 was announced, I wanted to get it immediately. Unfortunately I live in a country where Leica Cameras are not available, so my decision is still pending. But, browsing through my Lightroom gallery and holding the T against the Sony RX1r, I have some concerns: -- High ISO -- Sharpening artifacts. Obviously, The Sony is ahead in terms of low light capabilities. Then, sometimes, sharpening on the T does not seem as smooth or organic as on the Full Frame Sony. Then, the pictures are of the Sony seem more organic. Not sure if that's because of the algorithms or the smaller sensor? Anyway: I tend between the TL2 and the Sony Rx1rII - or the Q. I always only use the Summicron 23mm, which I like very much. So, my question: how does the TL2 'behave' in low light (compared with the T)? And in terms of "smoothness" (compared with FF)? Many thanks in advance! ------ https://stefanenator.smugmug.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 29, 2017 Posted October 29, 2017 Hi clavewifi, Take a look here TL2 vs. T vs. FF. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rivi1969 Posted October 29, 2017 Share #2 Posted October 29, 2017 The only fixed-lens camera able to match the IQ of the Sony RX1Rii is the Leica Q. I would say it is 1-stop better in low light. And no, no APS come close to those buttery smooth full frame files those 2 cameras can produce. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgrayson3 Posted October 29, 2017 Share #3 Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) The TL2 with 35 Lux is frighteningly competent. I set up that, an SL with 50 Cron, and S with 70/2.5 on a tripod. Very similar FoV *and* DoF. The S had a different look, but the TL2 and the SL were astoundingly similar. Matt P.S. Agree on the Q. Stunning lens. Edited October 29, 2017 by mgrayson3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted October 29, 2017 Share #4 Posted October 29, 2017 So, my question: how does the TL2 'behave' in low light (compared with the T)? And in terms of "smoothness" (compared with FF)? The high ISO performance of the TL2 is much much better than the T. As a matter of fact it is probably the main reason to upgrade from a T. As far as image quality goes, it is great, probably only you know exactly what you mean with the smoothness of the files though, when I compare it with the SL there really is hardly any difference. I reach for the SL when speed is a concern. I also find it easier to nail the focus with the SL. I reach for the TL2 when weight is a concern. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGirton Posted October 29, 2017 Share #5 Posted October 29, 2017 I loved my T and the TL2 is amazing. It even "feels" more like a Leica camera (like my M). The Leica IQ is impressive, of course. I was very happy with the T as it was in that regard and the TL2 tops that. Low light isn't an issue for me personally, it performs very well. And as mentioned above, because of the new sensor, IQ wise the TL2 isn't any different than the Q, SL or M10. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clavewifi Posted October 29, 2017 Author Share #6 Posted October 29, 2017 (edited) Thank you all. I understand that the TL2 shares the Q's image processor? When speaking of "sharpening artifacts", I referred to s slight glitter on the edges (and in hairs). This only occurs in bright light (with the X2 and the Rx1R, I never witnessed this). This makes the pictures look sometimes, well, digital. I will attach an image to illustrate this. off topic: how do you reduce the files's size properly: exporting the file with lightroom and setting the size to 500k leaves to this strange results (the artifacts referring to was not the sky....sometimes LR says: error, could not reduce file to size..? Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Edited October 29, 2017 by clavewifi Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/278223-tl2-vs-t-vs-ff/?do=findComment&comment=3384505'>More sharing options...
rchrd Posted November 1, 2017 Share #7 Posted November 1, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) ISO and low light grain is way better on TL2. With T, I was only comfortable with 800 and regrettably pushed higher if desperate. With TL I am comfortable with 3200. 6400 is very useable too. "Full" frame and "crop" sensor are such convenient marketing terms for the size of a sensor. I have considered the Rx1r but there is a lot of barrel distortion on the lens, which to me outweighs the benefit of full frame sensors. Edited November 1, 2017 by rchrd 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted November 2, 2017 Share #8 Posted November 2, 2017 Actually, TL2 is - at least - on par with the SL at high ISO, where high is up to 25000 ISO. And I find it better than Nikons top-end crop model, D500. Quite impressive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted November 4, 2017 Share #9 Posted November 4, 2017 My feeling is the TL2 is quite a bit better than the T in regards to higher ISO. I would guess about 2 stops. Compared to FF/ the SL my feeling is the SL gives more dynamic range and more room for corrections in post processing, but the TL2, when exposed correct offers very good IQ as well. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jevidon Posted December 4, 2017 Share #10 Posted December 4, 2017 No comparison. My TL2 is light years ahead of my old T. I took a series of images indoors with fairly low light and ISO ranging from 3200 to 12,500. The colors are brilliant, the 23mm Summicron is extremely sharp and high contrast and the noise level is not even apparent. The results look better than with my M240 which is no slouch when it comes to IQ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDCT Posted December 5, 2017 Share #11 Posted December 5, 2017 No comparison. My TL2 is light years ahead of my old T. I took a series of images indoors with fairly low light and ISO ranging from 3200 to 12,500. The colors are brilliant, the 23mm Summicron is extremely sharp and high contrast and the noise level is not even apparent. The results look better than with my M240 which is no slouch when it comes to IQ.Agreed it’s light years ahead in high ISO and handling in general. Much more responsive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 6, 2017 Share #12 Posted December 6, 2017 I woudnt call it "light years", IMO noticable better but not miles ahead. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDCT Posted December 7, 2017 Share #13 Posted December 7, 2017 (edited) I hated using my T in low light. Anything past 1600 had a fair amount of noise. Its true that you could get away with 3200 but I wasn’t a fan. I am used to shooting at 6400 on my Sony Alpha. Its a sweet spot for the slower zooms that I use for casual shooting. The TL2 performs as well if not better than my Sony full frame. Add the better resolution, usable focus peaking, faster shutter speed, faster focusing and the better video capabilities I think its miles ahead. Edited December 7, 2017 by MDCT 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.