Jump to content
vikasmg

CL and SL comparison with lenses of similar capability

Recommended Posts

I have taken a few more shots today trying to see where the strengths of the CL lie IQ wise and how I would like using it. Below are two more examples comparing the CL + 35mm TL and the SL + 50 Summilux-SL. Colors are off with the stock profile and LR doesn't offer an Adobe one yet for the CL. The SL has clearly better low light performance as it should but the CL appears to have more exposure latitude. It reminds me a lot of how a Sony sensor behaves. But it's hard to tell as the lens on the SL was stopped down a bit whereas the Summilux-TL was wide open. I'll try again with the same lens on both. It's a delight to use the CL with its native "TL" lenses. It handles so fluidly. What a pleasure. Oh, and BTW, the EVF is FANTASTIC!

 

In the two below, AWB by the cameras, opened in LR, Exposure +0.40, and Highlights -80 for both. Uncompressed files here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-snPbMf/

 

SL + 50 Summilux-SL

ISO 200 f/2.0 @1/100 sec.

CL + 35mm TL

ISO 200 f/1.4 @1/100 sec.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at these pics and keep thinking... why do we need FF when APS-C results are so close in compact package? For me the only FF camera that makes sense is M. It is still a compact system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two above were just at ISO 200. At higher ISO levels performance relative to the SL starts to fall behind. Perfectly acceptable noise but the CL doesn’t capture the full range of tones as nicely as the SL, for example at ISO 1600, which is impressive (not quite as good as Sony α7R II/III). For me, the best part of the CL is how tiny it is with the TL lenses, how well it handles, how snappy the AF is, and how excellent the EVF. Plus, it can be used as a 24 MP range extender for those with SL lenses. The sensor is terrific. I suspect it’s a Sony sensor.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, thx for SL and CL comparison in low light. Even these small pictures show, how good the SL is, how would it be on a large print or 5k screen, Think I will keep my SL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the real question is about chosing the CL for TL lenses use or the SL instead.

The SL is heavier but :

- amazing EVF

- better build

- joystick

- faster AF (it seems)

- better iso

 

Size difference is not "that" much.

 

SL vs CL + 35mm f1.4

SL vs CL + 11-23

SL vs CL + 18-56

 

http://j.mp/2yVCFrW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two more at ISO 3200. But this time both lenses at f/1.4. Wide open the 50 Summilux-SL performs at its best IMO.

 

Uncompressed files here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-snPbMf/

 

CL + 35 Summilux-TL (AWB, opened in LR, Exposure +0.20, Shadows +80, NR +40, default sharpening)

ISO 3200 f/1.4 @1/320 sec.

 

 

SL + 50 Summilux-SL (AWB, opened in LR, slightly straightened, Exposure +0.20, Highlights -33, Shadows +75, NR +40, default sharpening)

ISO 3200 f/1.4 @1/400 sec.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>My current feeling is that the M10 with a 35 summicron will continue to be the companion, go anywhere as it fits into a shoulder bag so easily it's with me nearly all the time. Really - there's no size advantage for this focal length.<<

 

Yes I kind-of agree about the size but there is a definite advantage in weight. I took out my M10 Just after I put away the CL and the difference was clearly felt!

 

- Vikas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed on the weight - but it's such a reassuring little brick...

 

And good to have around as a defence weapon when to disarm an unsuspecting atacker of some kind . The M will survive to take a picture of the results!

 

Edit: I came back late to this party - looks like there’s already been a discussion on the M as a weapons on page 1!

 

- Vikas

Edited by vikasmg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the real question is about chosing the CL for TL lenses use or the SL instead.

The SL is heavier but :

- amazing EVF

- better build

- joystick

- faster AF (it seems)

- better iso

Size difference is not "that" much.

SL vs CL + 35mm f1.4

SL vs CL + 11-23

SL vs CL + 18-56

http://j.mp/2yVCFrW

 

To me it is not the question I'd like to be asking.

 

I have both the SL and CL and intend to use both bodies with all the lenses I own: M lenses, the SL lens (90-280), and the TL lens (11-23).

 

The TL lenses are useful on the SL for the video work.

The CL is great by extending the focal length of the M and SL lenses.

 

Here are two “test” coffee shots on the CL with the SL 90-280. The quality is very nice, handling a little awkward given the size of the zoom in comparison to the CL body. But the results are good. And that is what matters to me the most.

 

For shooting wildlife, as I intend to do with CL+90-280 zoom, I’m going to put this combo on a solid tripod, with the Wimberley sidekick gimbal for a “floating” panning experience. Should be really good !!

 

Espresso ... ?

 

 

... or macchiato ?

 

Edited by meerec

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more a macchiato guy

 

My comment was about chosing a single body to go along with TL lenses. I like the CL form factor but I am not sure the SL is that bigger. Moreoever, in my opinion the SL is on steroids compared to the CL.

I understand your point and the specific use you intend for your lenses and bodies though. Best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're choosing a single body to go with the TL lenses, the SL will net a 10Mpixel image where the CL will net a 24Mpixel image. Depending upon your needs and printing desires, this is an important difference. 

 

The CL body is a bit smaller and a good bit lighter than the M-D ... the SL body is a bit larger and a good bit heavier than an M-D. I carry the M-D more of the time simply because it's smaller and lighter than the SL already. The CL, should I get one, would push that difference even further.

 

I'm still not entirely sold that I "want/need" a CL ... even though I have an order sitting at the dealer. It may be spending a lot of money for something that I won't use that often, or it may be something that I tend to use more than the other two cameras. Either way, it adds to the complexity of the decision making process—"which camera to carry"—for me. So I debate it still. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s actually tiny. Don’t go by the pictures. It feels half the size of the SL. What’s impressive about the CL and that’s what makes it a great range extender for SL lenses is that at lower ISO levels it has virtually the same color sensitivity as the SL so IQ is the same as a FF sensor in this respect. It’s only at higher ISO levels where the SL pulls ahead. I still need to do some comparisons using the same lens on both cameras but that’s what I have observed so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're choosing a single body to go with the TL lenses, the SL will net a 10Mpixel image where the CL will net a 24Mpixel image. Depending upon your needs and printing desires, this is an important difference.

 

The CL body is a bit smaller and a good bit lighter than the M-D ... the SL body is a bit larger and a good bit heavier than an M-D. I carry the M-D more of the time simply because it's smaller and lighter than the SL already. The CL, should I get one, would push that difference even further.

 

I'm still not entirely sold that I "want/need" a CL ... even though I have an order sitting at the dealer. It may be spending a lot of money for something that I won't use that often, or it may be something that I tend to use more than the other two cameras. Either way, it adds to the complexity of the decision making process—"which camera to carry"—for me. So I debate it still.

 

Which camera to carry is a common problem I fear, Godfrey.

 

There is a nice distinction between the M-D and SL. Both full frame, one AF the other MF; one fully electronic with all the bells and whistles, the other more purist.

 

The APS-C cameras do add an alternative with their 1.5x crop, and as commented above at low ISO the sensors perform pretty much equally well. I like the fact that these cameras all work well with SL, TL & M lenses. I’m enjoying using the TL2, I must say. But I wil be reverting to the SL more and more - I like the size and I prefer the options. The TL2 is easy to use and great fun, but the SL is a far better camera for most needs.

 

Cheers

John

Edited by IkarusJohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used the same SL lens here on the CL and the SL. I think even at ISO 200 the SL sensor has better color sensitivity and resolves more details but the test shots were at 1/50 sec. without a tripod so I won't post those here. Below there are two at ISO 1600 and at 1/320 sec. with the 50 Summilux-SL on the CL and the SL taken from changed positions to account for the difference in field of view and cropped almost exactly the same.

 

Uncompressed files here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-snPbMf/

 

CL + 50 Summilux-SL (WB adjusted to try to match, Exposure +1.50)

ISO 1600 f/1.4 @1/320 sec.

SL + 50 Summilux-SL (WB adjusted to try to match, Exposure +0.80)

ISO 1600 f/1.4 @1/320 sec.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both shots are pretty noisy, the CL the most. What went wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the motivation for the shot was.  If it is to compare DOF rolloff in the two formats, how about reshooting with more like 1/80 shutter speed and a clean ISO value?  Or put the cameras on tripod and set ISO 100 or 200 for each.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott, I agree. There should be more comparisons. It’s just that I haven’t had time. There are two more that I didn’t post at ISO 200 and at 1/50 sec. because they were handheld. If I zoomed in 3:1 there, I could also see that the SL sensor showed better color sensitivity and was sharper. But I need to redo those when I have time. I won’t mount the CL with the 50 Summilux-SL on a tripod but I might with the 90-280 SL.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...