Jump to content
SrMi

Leica CL vs TL2 dynamic range

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, EUSe said:

Today I was told by a Leica representative that the CL sensor is not the same as the TL2 sensor and that the CL sensor is the better one.

Sounds like a car salesman - whatever we don't have in stock is not as good as what we do have in stock. And I want you to have the best and not be disappointed in 3 months...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 14 Minuten schrieb Le Chef:

Sounds like a car salesman - whatever we don't have in stock is not as good as what we do have in stock. And I want you to have the best and not be disappointed in 3 months...

No. A Leica Academy tutor who has given me good advice many times. Both the CL and the TL2 are in stock over here and he knew that he couldn‘t sell me any. It was not a sales event.

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EUSe said:

Today I was told by a Leica representative that the CL sensor is not the same as the TL2 sensor and that the CL sensor is the better one.

Thank you for sharing that info. Did the representative quantify in which way CL sensor is better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Thank you for sharing that info. Did the representative quantify in which way CL sensor is better?

🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, EUSe said:

No. A Leica Academy tutor who has given me good advice many times. Both the CL and the TL2 are in stock over here and he knew that he couldn‘t sell me any. It was not a sales event.

That's very poor thinking on his part. He is essentially saying to anyone who wants to buy a TL2 that they should not. You shared his preferences so that's now public. I would love to know whether Leica supports that point of view when they're trying to sell as many units as possible and have invested considerable sums of money in getting the TL2 to market. Not impressed.

Edited by Le Chef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is taking it a bit far, to put it mildly. Even if the sensors are different and one "better" than the other, both sensors are good enough to make any distinction an irrelevancy. The real differences between the two cameras are the design and user interface, nothing else. Well, come to think of it, the real decisive difference is the bloke behind the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole "better" thing is a load of cobblers; I'm sorry.

Leica (particularly Maike) has said on a number of occasions that these cameras are "sisters" - same resolution sensor, same format - just different styles of camera aimed at different market sectors.  You can look for differences all you like, but it won't make a jot of difference to image quality.  If it makes anyone feel better, believe whatever reinforces your purchase choice.

They're both excellent cameras, and the differences between them are more the user interface than anything to do with the quality of pictures they take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are so right. Buy whichever you like most. Same guts, different software, different shell and different caracter. 

The sensor measurements seems unreliable. Too many weird results among different cameras. 

Jono Slack the official Leica beta tester said and wrote it was the same sensor. So it is.

How can he be wrong ? His reviews pictures seem to confirm that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 8 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

Thank you for sharing that info. Did the representative quantify in which way CL sensor is better?

No, he didn't quantify and how could he. I will not comment this any further since any information I am giving is turned against me and the representative ("Souns like a car salesman", "That's very poor thinking of his part", "Jono Slack said..." .

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

how could he.

Well, if one makes a "better" claim  surely there must be a basis for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but not as a percentage evaluation. Everybody is free to believe whatever he/she hears, reads and sees - and prefers. I agree about the obvious unreliability of measurements. We were talking about dynamic range and the latest discussion on the TL2. I found Meike Harbert’s comments on the technical basis on the two APS-C-cameras linked here on the forum very evasive. Nobody said there was no difference and nobody said the difference was big. So what. I would never try to compare the TL2 and CL on the basis of compressed forum files. To be truthful - taken out of the context and without further information,, would you even be able to guess which camera took the picture? I daresay in most cases not. So whoever has both and cares -  process them to taste, preferably with different Raw-converters and compare them. It will still be a matter of taste and skills.

Edited by EUSe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Have a look at posts 66 and 67, please...

What tells you I didn‘t? I even agree with most of it, especially # 67. I am just relating what I have been told. Leica will not provide detailed information on the sensors, they never did. I can also see why, as most elements of the system are compounds of different parts with possibly different providers. There is also firmware tweaking. I remember interview statements going in that direction. The dynamic range discussion has several dimensions:

1) Sensor specs and physical output

2) Real world experience of the whole system, including lenses and relevance of technical data

3) Processing software

4) User skills

I will not include the artistic aspect which is highly personal (it usually appears as a discussion killer in many threads). In the end it is the customer who decides whether or not the result is pleasing. Camera handling is another personal aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say definitely different sensors and/or different DNG compression/NR whatever. I won't say with which of the two cameras this picture was taken but can anyone tell me what this is when the Shadows are lifted by 100 in LR? A similar picture taken with the other camera didn't show the circles. In B&W in order not to give away the camera by its color science.

ISO 100 f/1.4 @1/640 sec.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken with electronic shutter or mechanical one ? 

It is ugly, too much post proceessing ? Or bad metering ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I checked, it’s not electronic shutter. And there is no processing except Shadows +100.

Edited by Chaemono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am 14.12.2018 um 19:54 schrieb EUSe:

Today I was told by a Leica representative that the CL sensor is not the same as the TL2 sensor and that the CL sensor is the better one.

It's not that easy. There are trade-offs but in most situations I'd say the CL sensor is better and DR curves can turn out to be meaningless for all practical purposes. Having taken tons of pictures today with the TL2 and the CL, I'd say that Bill Claff's curves must be correct but the only time I noticed the better DR of the TL2 is when I shot directly into a light source like a lamp. There, the TL2 captures Hightlight details effortlessly, nothing like an APS-C camera at all. It's absolutely impressive. But here is where it ends. The CL sensor is much sharper (more noise at higher ISO), and the files are so malleable. Lift Shadows by 100 in LR on the TL2 and you get tons of chroma noise. None of that with the CL. Below two examples with the 35 Summilux-TL at the same settings. I have tons of these pairs at ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200. I'm keeping my CL (impressive low-light AF accuracy and speed relative to the TL2 today).

 

TL2 + 35 Summilux-TL DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g730469637-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=62koyc5l74h2yzvmpFpDO3HzWqiM7EiQPampySnvHb4=

ISO 1600 f/1.4 @1/640 sec.

 

CL + 35 Summilux-TL DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g602146396-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=a3N72XmHpsB_YFBPEQntsOETMZg21UYpcMz-njy3F3E=

ISO 1600 f/1.4 @1/640 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CL really usable at ISO 3200 with a little bit of noise reduction and sharpening. Arguably, a bit slower shutter speed would habe been required on the TL2 here to match exposure. These and the two above with AWB by the cameras.

TL2 + 35 Summilux-TL DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g639533298-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=f2H-SZOf6q6JVfcpeg5hsoOg7EQ4ri7cDdCKSxm7gCQ=

ISO 3200 f/1.4 @1/1000 sec.

CL + 35 Summilux-TL DNG file here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g599519245-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=UDdKUHPIHiNhtMUjOiqceA4RbjTsHIQL0uYwQ6S9oes=

ISO 3200 f/1.4 @1/1000 sec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven no TL2 to compare but I can conform your CL findings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×