S vs the SL

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm currently testing an S (006) with 70mm Summarit. I thought you guys might be interested to see the differences between the two. This is far from extensive enough to draw any long term conclusions, but it is interesting to see such immediate and obvious differences between the two cameras. The settings are comparable between the two cameras and the white balance is identical:

 

Leica SL, 50SL Summilux by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

Leica S, 70mm Summarit by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

Leica S - 70mm Summarit by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

Leica SL, 50SL Summiliux by Greg Turner, on Flickr

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[scott kirkpatrick]

An interesting experiment -- I do see the difference in skin tonality.  But my immediate reaction is sympathy for your subject.  He'd much rather be jumping or bouncing.

[geetee1972]

An interesting experiment -- I do see the difference in skin tonality.  But my immediate reaction is sympathy for your subject.  He'd much rather be jumping or bouncing.

I had to bribe them to sit still!

[hillavoider]

first two, the SL looks warmer, or the skin tones look warm, the 2nd set the SL shot looks colder, or completely opposite, I don't know I can't see too much difference

[sillbeers15]

I cannot see much difference between your S(006) & SL(601).

[Jeff S]

In the first two, the S does a much nicer job rendering the shoes and basketballs.

 

Screen shots on my iPhone otherwise look similar.

 

Jeff

[Irakly Shanidze]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It seems like your experiment was not fully controlled. In the first pair the SL shot has more magenta, while in the second one SL was warmer. Did you adjust white balance in any way? Was white balance automatic, or you set it to a certain value?

 

The main differences should be in the skin texture. Have you looked at the files at 100% magnification?

[geetee1972]

It seems like your experiment was not fully controlled. In the first pair the SL shot has more magenta, while in the second one SL was warmer. Did you adjust white balance in any way? Was white balance automatic, or you set it to a certain value?

 

The main differences should be in the skin texture. Have you looked at the files at 100% magnification?

 

White balance is 6800k in both.

[Jared]

I think you will find setting them to the same white balance in Kelvin will not be nearly as close a match as using a gray card and setting them that way. Different chips, different RGB filters (Bayer), different color responses in raw conversion. A gray card will get you a closer match. You’ll still see differences, but they’ll be more related to saturation and actual color response differences in the camera rather than simple white balance.

[geetee1972]

I think you will find setting them to the same white balance in Kelvin will not be nearly as close a match as using a gray card and setting them that way. Different chips, different RGB filters (Bayer), different color responses in raw conversion. A gray card will get you a closer match. You’ll still see differences, but they’ll be more related to saturation and actual color response differences in the camera rather than simple white balance.

This is what I am finding! I'm also finding on the S that if the white balance is off by anything more than a small margin, it's much harder to get it back to where it needs to be.

[Irakly Shanidze]

White balance is 6800k in both.

 

how come in the first set of pictures SL is warmer, while in the second it is cooler than S?