Agent M10 Posted September 14, 2018 Share #1 Posted September 14, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I am thinking of buying into the SL system. One question: how good is the SL's low-light performance? I had an M-D and the most it could manage was 1600 and sometimes that wasn't great. I have a couple of M10s and don't have any problems with 10K or less. How does the SL currently stack up against the M10? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 14, 2018 Posted September 14, 2018 Hi Agent M10, Take a look here SL's Low-Light Performance?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LD_50 Posted September 14, 2018 Share #2 Posted September 14, 2018 I stop at ISO6400 unless I’m willing to display small and go b/w. Samples should be available online. I believe the M10 is slightly better. There should be some threads here and/or the M forum that explain the difference. I have no experience with the M10 but the SL is better than my M240. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scroy Posted September 14, 2018 Share #3 Posted September 14, 2018 I am thinking of buying into the SL system. One question: how good is the SL's low-light performance? I had an M-D and the most it could manage was 1600 and sometimes that wasn't great. I have a couple of M10s and don't have any problems with 10K or less. How does the SL currently stack up against the M10? It depends, I've gotten a few nice shots at ISO 20K+ where there are fewer tones in the image. But, there is quite a bit of noise especially the color noise, it does take a bit of processing to make it acceptable. Picture below was ISO 20K, handheld - SL+24-90 processing was done with DxO. 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! 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/289460-sls-low-light-performance/?do=findComment&comment=3593194'>More sharing options...
frame-it Posted September 14, 2018 Share #4 Posted September 14, 2018 i never go above ISO 1600...ISO 3200 only if its something i really wanna take a quick photo of...but i use M lenses so in manual focus its fine...the people using Autofocus might have more insight on available light night shooting the noise at 1600 and 3200 is quite nice unlike sony cameras Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted September 14, 2018 Share #5 Posted September 14, 2018 i never go above ISO 1600...ISO 3200 only if its something i really wanna take a quick photo of...but i use M lenses so in manual focus its fine...the people using Autofocus might have more insight on available light night shooting the noise at 1600 and 3200 is quite nice unlike sony cameras I’m not sure how Sony is related to the OP’s question nor where you come up with “Sony cameras” having poor noise characteristics at ISO 1600/3200. They make a lot of cameras, and a lot of them have better sensors than the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted September 14, 2018 Share #6 Posted September 14, 2018 I'm only talking about the organic look of the SL's high ISO noise vs the more digital look of the sony's high ISO noise..perhaps i should have explained better. "the noise at 1600 and 3200 is quite nice unlike sony cameras" I’m not sure how Sony is related to the OP’s question nor where you come up with “Sony cameras” having poor noise characteristics at ISO 1600/3200. They make a lot of cameras, and a lot of them have better sensors than the SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted September 15, 2018 Share #7 Posted September 15, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm only talking about the organic look of the SL's high ISO noise vs the more digital look of the sony's high ISO noise..perhaps i should have explained better. "the noise at 1600 and 3200 is quite nice unlike sony cameras" My previous post remains unchanged. I don’t know how comparing to Sony helps the OP compare to an M10. Also, Sony has a number of cameras that perform as well or better than the SL in terms of noise and DR at high ISO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted September 15, 2018 Share #8 Posted September 15, 2018 (edited) it might help the OP to know that the high ISO noise is a bit more pleasant than other manufacturers cameras, he already knows what the M10's are like whatever. My previous post remains unchanged. I don’t know how comparing to Sony helps the OP compare to an M10. Also, Sony has a number of cameras that perform as well or better than the SL in terms of noise and DR at high ISO. Edited September 15, 2018 by jaapv Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted September 16, 2018 Share #9 Posted September 16, 2018 it might help the OP to know that the high ISO noise is a bit more pleasant than other manufacturers cameras, he already knows what the M10's are like whatever. The SL2 will most likely have less high ISO noise. So, when that comes out, I’ll still keep the SL because I suspect it will trade at a premium second hand for that pleasant high ISO noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Albertson Posted September 16, 2018 Share #10 Posted September 16, 2018 The SL and the M10 share the same sensor and the same processor, so if you're happy with the M10's performance the SL should suit you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted September 17, 2018 Share #11 Posted September 17, 2018 (edited) No, they don’t. The M10 beats the crap out of the Sony for DR at ISO 640, for example, which isn’t the case for the SL. See Raw file comparisons in post #124 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/288283-high-iso-m10-vs-q/page-7?do=findComment&comment=3594186 Edited September 17, 2018 by Chaemono 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted September 17, 2018 Share #12 Posted September 17, 2018 Maximum ISO I use - under regular conditions - are ISO 6400. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediaFotografie Posted September 17, 2018 Share #13 Posted September 17, 2018 Maximum ISO I use - under regular conditions - are ISO 6400. my max setting is 12.500 - but it need some PP in every case 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/289460-sls-low-light-performance/?do=findComment&comment=3594487'>More sharing options...
Per P. Posted September 19, 2018 Share #14 Posted September 19, 2018 Under regular conditions I go to 3200 with both M10 and SL without any concerns. If necessary I will extend to 6400. To my eye the performance is roughly similar and perfectly fine. This is not based on scientific evidence or even close scrutiny of the files. At low light correct exposure remains important and, of course, you may have to increase noise reduction a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkCambridgeshire Posted September 20, 2018 Share #15 Posted September 20, 2018 I use a Sony A7SII for low light imaging … it's superb e.g. at ISO 20000. dunk 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