Jump to content

SL+primes vs medium format


tom0511

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the impression, that the new primes for the SL (I have some experience with the 50 and 75mm) bring 35mm/ the SL IQ closer to the IQ of medium format? Specially the transition from the sharp areas to the background, but also micro detail and tones seem really impressive to me.

For a few times I have shot around with bot the SL and the S and/ord x1d and must say that the SL with the 75 (or 50) did pretty well.

Even DR didnt seem that far away.

I know there is also the question of 16bit color, and I havent compared prints so far, and of course much higher resolution in regards of MP.

But lets say up to a certain print size, anybody who also thinks the SL+ primes have come a step closer?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely have the same impression ..... the images have higher inherent clarity and definition than with other lenses ...... plus the smooth transitions between OOF elements do give them a look that seems to mimic the higher DR of MF. The 75/2 in particular gives the impression you are using a significantly larger sensor .....

I'm not entirely sure whether all this is real or just an illusion due to the way it renders images ..... but the final processed images do look different. It's even evident reviewing photos on the EVF. 

 

I suppose it just indicates that the quality of the lens does play a bigger part in the photography pathway than we tend to give it credit for. 

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SL lenses are special, for sure. I haven't seen anything in 24x36 format that I like better. I also have a full set of Sony GM lenses and my associate shoots Canon L. I'm looking forward to a body that can keep up with them. The XCD lenses are as sharp but don't draw as nicely. The S lenses do, I think. You can put the S lenses on the S and they are great. They too need a body that does them justice. Probably more importantly than the SL.

 

The X1D still thumps the SL when the files get pushed though. With big prints or shadow recovery the X1D files keep going and going. Shadow recovery is astonishing. Easily outdoing even the A7R3.

 

If Leica would make me a 40MP+ SL I'd gladly rid myself of my Sony kit. I don't need the AF capabilities of the A9 but I do need the resolution of the A7R3. But the X1D stays, unless something spectacular happens with the S.

 

Gordon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The only thing that can bring closer to medium format is a larger sensor. No matter how great the lenses are, MF just looks different.

 

very true. But this is miniMF. The format size difference is not that great so the differences are there but more subtle. For example a standard lens on 645 is 75mm. 50% longer than 24x36. On miniMF it's a 63mm. Much closer to the 50mm normal so it's harder to see the change. It's a slightly smaller step up than the one from APSC to 24x36.

 

It's still there though, if you look for it and once you recognise it it seems obvious. Subtle but obvious.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know..downsampled jpg, but anyways

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!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

For optimal print results, every step in the chain matters....sensor, lens, lighting (shooting and display), editing, print materials (inks, papers, printer) and techniques, print size (and cropping, if any), and more....including the all important user skill and judgment.

 

For me, MF especially offers the potential for better color and tonal gradation (b/w and color), but it’s not apparent in every pic and every print. Printing isn’t plug and play, any more than taking pics. Otherwise we’d each produce the same results with the same gear. But when conditions suit, all else being equal (which it rarely or ever is), then a bigger sensor can help deliver better print IQ. So can using a better lens. And a bigger sensor combined with a better lens has more potential yet. The key word is potential.... there are many variables in the capture to print display workflow. And obviously it means nothing without a worthy pic to start.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

But lets say up to a certain print size, anybody who also thinks the SL+ primes have come a step closer?

Yes, I think the tonal depth / clarity / sharp focus falloff of the new SL primes are a step up from anything I’ve seen from Leica FF before, and the gap has narrowed against miniMF sensors like the S007.

 

For very large prints, the rendering off the S007 still seems a bit smoother / gentler, though.

 

It would be very interesting to see how the 2 systems compare (SL + new primes vs S) if the SL had the same megapixel count in the high-30s, given I suspect some of the perceived superiority of the S continues to reflect resolution advantages.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I allways felt the difference between small medium format and M was obvious.

I also felt the difference between Nikon and small medium format was obvious.

But if we talk about image potential it might be that the new SL primes are so good that they increase the potential of FF.

I have to further see what I get, but it has been the first time for years that I feel FF might get to a point where the advantage of MF-IQ (for my needs and print sizes) has decreased so much that I might get out of medium format in a longer term.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the tonal depth / clarity / sharp focus falloff of the new SL primes are a step up from anything I’ve seen from Leica FF before, and the gap has narrowed against miniMF sensors like the S007.

 

For very large prints, the rendering off the S007 still seems a bit smoother / gentler, though.

 

 

I've always found this a bit puzzling .......

 

Interpolation algorithms for printing big if anything should smooth transitions further, rather than enhance them...... and irrespective of the original DR of the image it is compressed back to 6-7 stops anyway in the printing process.  

 

No doubt it is all a bit more complex than my simple understanding of the physics involved, but surely from the point of view of most good prosumer cameras and viewing a computer monitor or paper print sizes up to A2 any differences are more to do with processing than the original files ....

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found this a bit puzzling .......

 

Interpolation algorithms for printing big if anything should smooth transitions further, rather than enhance them...... and irrespective of the original DR of the image it is compressed back to 6-7 stops anyway in the printing process.  

 

No doubt it is all a bit more complex than my simple understanding of the physics involved, but surely from the point of view of most good prosumer cameras and viewing a computer monitor or paper print sizes up to A2 any differences are more to do with processing than the original files ....

 

I'm no expert but just a bit of the experience of working with experts. Part of the printing art that careful practitioners try to deliver is the perception of clarity and separation of details even with limited range. It's when I compare with something better that I realise there's missing nuances in the image that is missing. If I compare a print against original image on wide gamut monitor for example.

 

My delight with medium format sensors is the data not seen on screen can be brought to play when the image is reworked. More data is always better. The monitor can be Adobe 1998 but if the app is using LAB colour space or a pro colour space as its internal engine, the conversions will have less data losses and banding is less likely to occur in the final output. So smooth transitions can occur. Otherwise the dynamic range will break down with gaps in the output image. I see it most obviously in jpg image editing.

Edited by lx1713
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If time goes on and all things become equal I would rather go to APS-C than to medium format.

So if others like medium format that is perfect, but for me I cannot find anything valuable in the "bigger" format, only a lot of drawbacks (all well known, no need to repeat).

So is this a real discussion (open end) or just a means to make a statement that one likes medium format better than FF.

Another fruitless thread. (Better go use the cameras - whichever - than spend time here.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If time goes on and all things become equal I would rather go to APS-C than to medium format.

So if others like medium format that is perfect, but for me I cannot find anything valuable in the "bigger" format, only a lot of drawbacks (all well known, no need to repeat).

So is this a real discussion (open end) or just a means to make a statement that one likes medium format better than FF.

Another fruitless thread. (Better go use the cameras - whichever - than spend time here.)

 

The CL & TL system is already showing the potential of the 24MP sensor with Leica glass certainly makes comparable image resolutions as FF images on most applications.

For me, I admit it is a mind set issue to accept and go with Leica APSC. On MF, I contemplated going into earlier but decided against it because of limitation in usage rather than bulk of lenses and gear. Considering Leica S (007) & SL, the weight & bulk isn't that significantly different. But on versatility, the SL wins.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If an apsc version matches the SL in image and handling performance and have the matching lenses say 16-60 f2.8 OIS & 60 - 180 f2.8 OIS, wouldn't that be a delicious proposition? I would  still retain the native SL lenses and get the larger mp SL when it comes but get the apsc camera and lenses. I already have a few TL gems. no giving them up.

Edited by lx1713
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the quality level Leica is after the lens designers would not save much on lens size by going APSC if the design includes larger max aperture for DOF equivalence.

 

Those f/2.8 zooms proposed would be very similar in size to the existing SL zooms.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest VVJ

If an apsc version matches the SL in image and handling performance and have the matching lenses say 16-60 f2.8 OIS & 60 - 180 f2.8 OIS, wouldn't that be a delicious proposition? 

 

I would already be very happy with f4 zooms provided they have OIS.

 

FWIW, the highly regarded Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 weighs 655g.  It is the only Fuji zoom that does not have OIS though.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

FWIW, the highly regarded Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 weighs 655g.  It is the only Fuji zoom that does not have OIS though.  

 

No OIS and a diffent mechanical build quality and only f2.8  (equals f4 in FF) and IMHO minor image quality compared the leica zoom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If time goes on and all things become equal I would rather go to APS-C than to medium format.

So if others like medium format that is perfect, but for me I cannot find anything valuable in the "bigger" format, only a lot of drawbacks (all well known, no need to repeat).

So is this a real discussion (open end) or just a means to make a statement that one likes medium format better than FF.

Another fruitless thread. (Better go use the cameras - whichever - than spend time here.)

 

Hi, this was not meant as a statement, but as a discussion for those who are interested.

I am not surprised you find it fruitless thread, if you prefer APS-C anyways, but why you post 4 lines and spend your time here if you mean what you write in your last line? 

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.

×
×
  • Create New...