Jump to content
vikasmg

CL and SL comparison with lenses of similar capability

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...