Starwolfy Posted December 13, 2017 Share #41 Â Posted December 13, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) It would be interesting to see the same kind of conparison but with a TL lens like the 35. Could give a good idea about what you leave when use the SL in crop mode with a TL lenses (approx. 10 megapixels) vs the native 24 megapixels of the CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 Hi Starwolfy, Take a look here CL and SL comparison with lenses of similar capability. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Chaemono Posted December 13, 2017 Share #42  Posted December 13, 2017 So SL + 35 Summilux-TL vs. CL + 35 Summilux-TL. Let’s see if I find time during the holidays. Perhaps someone will do these first. I’m glad that LR includes a profile for the CL now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted December 13, 2017 Share #43  Posted December 13, 2017 I’ve installed the LR 6.13 update and there is no profile for CL ... so I don’t know what are some of you referring to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted December 13, 2017 Share #44  Posted December 13, 2017 I’ve installed the LR 6.13 update and there is no profile for CL ... so I don’t know what are some of you referring to. Is that standalone? The CC version is now at v7.0 upgrading to 7.1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erudolph Posted December 13, 2017 Share #45 Â Posted December 13, 2017 The standalone LR update that has CL profile is said to be December 19th. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 13, 2017 Share #46  Posted December 13, 2017 I've posted a number of examples of shooting still images with TL lenses on my SL on the SL and now the CL forums. They look just fine at web resolution, even with only 10 MPx. Expanded and viewed at "actual size" on a large screen, I can see that the lens has resolution to offer that 10 M pixels don't fully exploit (Moire is one clue to this). The 11-23 TL and 23/2 TL are lenses that show this. I don't have a 35/1.4 TL to experiment with.  The acid test would be to compare lenses at the same effective focal lengths:  23/2 TL Summicron on the CL or TL against 35/2.0 (actually I only have the 35/1.4) M lens on the SL or M10.  35/1.4 TL on the CL or TL against one of the many 50s available for the SL or M10  60 TL macro on the CL against the 90 macro-M or the APO SC 90 from M or R.  It will be important to see how an image with depth looks in each setup, to see how the transitions from in focus to out of focus differ. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 15, 2017 Share #47 Â Posted December 15, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) It would be interesting to see the same kind of conparison but with a TL lens like the 35. Could give a good idea about what you leave when use the SL in crop mode with a TL lenses (approx. 10 megapixels) vs the native 24 megapixels of the CL. Scott is right. You won't be able to see much difference except that you are likely to like the colors of the SL better (each with the Adobe profile). The SL should show less noise at higher ISO values. But one will have to zoom in 300% to try to see a difference and there it'll be 10 MP on the SL vs. 24 MP on the CL. So likely pointless. I'll still do them but first this weekend I want to try the CL + 23 Summicron-TL vs. the SL + 35 Summilux-TL wide open and the Summilux also at f/2.0 to match the Summicron aperture. I want to see how the sensors perform in low light. I took some pictures with the CL yesterday that I posted in the image thread and I must say I really like how flexible the CL files are. One can expose for the highlights and then recover details in the shadows at virtually no cost. I didn't do direct comparisons with the SL last night but when I processed the CL files in LR I was very impressed. I suspect wide exposure latitude is where the strength of the CL sensor lies but I need to do more testing. Even with the 23 Summircon-TL the CL is almost pocketable. It's perfect to carry around when one wouldn't necessarily want to carry an M in the evening. The snappy AF even in low light makes it a joy to use. Given the very good low light performance of the iPhone 8/X (can be shot at ISO 250 @1/4 sec.), I would also like to compare the CL with the pancake to it. Edited December 15, 2017 by Chaemono 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #48  Posted December 17, 2017 It would be interesting to see the same kind of conparison but with a TL lens like the 35. Could give a good idea about what you leave when use the SL in crop mode with a TL lenses (approx. 10 megapixels) vs the native 24 megapixels of the CL. Following are nine pairs. This is the best I could do yesterday. The weather was very poor so I went to a place indoors. There was a magenta/pink light from the restaurant reflecting on the cars, so it wasn't ideal. They are with the same lens at the exact same settings just opened in LR and exported as JPEGs. I can provide you with the DNGs if you like but these here are pretty pointless, I think. Colors are better with the SL but this is also a function of PP skill. The SL seems to capture more light at the same shutter speed which means one can shoot the same TL lens in low light at a higher shutter speed and at the same ISO as the CL and still get a better exposed image, I believe. I'm still very impressed with how the CL files behave when processed. Some of them were intentionally underexposed. LUF compression here doesn't help, obviously.  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!    1 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/279451-cl-and-sl-comparison-with-lenses-of-similar-capability/?do=findComment&comment=3419888'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #49  Posted December 17, 2017 For Starwolfy   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!    1 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/279451-cl-and-sl-comparison-with-lenses-of-similar-capability/?do=findComment&comment=3419889'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #50  Posted December 17, 2017 For Starwolfy  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!    1 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/279451-cl-and-sl-comparison-with-lenses-of-similar-capability/?do=findComment&comment=3419892'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #51  Posted December 17, 2017 For Starwolfy  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!    1 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/279451-cl-and-sl-comparison-with-lenses-of-similar-capability/?do=findComment&comment=3419895'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #52  Posted December 17, 2017 For Starwolfy  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!  1 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/279451-cl-and-sl-comparison-with-lenses-of-similar-capability/?do=findComment&comment=3419901'>More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 17, 2017 Share #53  Posted December 17, 2017 I assume the second of each pair was taken with the SL, since those are about 1/3 to 1/2 stop brighter. I would expect the CL shots would look fine with a small shadow boost. And the first Mercedes convertible shots with the SL seem to have blown out the seat back highlights just a bit. So maybe the SL has an advantage in dynamic range, when exposed carefully. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #54  Posted December 17, 2017 Scott, yes, that is correct. 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! 1 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/279451-cl-and-sl-comparison-with-lenses-of-similar-capability/?do=findComment&comment=3419919'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted December 17, 2017 Share #55 Â Posted December 17, 2017 It didn't take the Edit for some reason. The above I had posted earlier but probably overdid it a bit with the shadow boost. And you are right. The CL is fine. NR +30 and sharpening +30 in the second above. Pretty low price to pay in terms of noise IMO. Uncompressed pictures here:Â https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-N7zNRh/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwolfy Posted December 20, 2017 Share #56 Â Posted December 20, 2017 Chaemono thank you so much for all these efforts and pictures ! I'll study them once I'll be back home. Best Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted January 2, 2018 Share #57 Â Posted January 2, 2018 IMO the point is not so much if the CL is 90% or 95% IQ of the SL. The SL with its native lenses is pretty big (and heavy). The CL with a 23 or 35 TL lens is so much smaller and less obstrusive and more portable. Â If I go hike with a large backpack I dont mind the SL+24-90. Â If I go ride the bike or XC-Ski the CL with the 11-23 or 16-55 is what I can bring. Or on a party where you want to shoot available light the CL+23mm. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
meerec Posted January 2, 2018 Share #58  Posted January 2, 2018 IMO the point is not so much if the CL is 90% or 95% IQ of the SL. The SL with its native lenses is pretty big (and heavy). The CL with a 23 or 35 TL lens is so much smaller and less obstrusive and more portable.  If I go hike with a large backpack I dont mind the SL+24-90.  If I go ride the bike or XC-Ski the CL with the 11-23 or 16-55 is what I can bring. Or on a party where you want to shoot available light the CL+23mm.  If I go downhill skiing, which I’m planning in two weeks in Zermatt, the CL+11-23 is way too big for me!! I’ll be skiing with the CL and a small M lens. Wonderful, can’t wait. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pieter575 Posted August 28, 2021 Share #59 Â Posted August 28, 2021 Thank you very much for all the comparison shots. I wonder if there's a place out there comparing SL lenses on the CL. For example, how does the TL 35 compare to the SL 35 on the CL? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now