Chaemono Posted April 3, 2019 Share #181 Posted April 3, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) vor 2 Stunden schrieb verwackelt: Don´t you think a 100 MP SL2 will kill the S3? No. MF is not merely about resolution and pixel count. I have yet to see a FF sensor that performs like MF in high contrast scenes and captures colors and tones the way MF does. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 3, 2019 Posted April 3, 2019 Hi Chaemono, Take a look here 'Hopelist' for SL2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest Posted April 3, 2019 Share #182 Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) Exactly. People tend to look at the headline MP number, and forget the size of the sensor. Fundamentally, bigger pixels are better (dynamic range, noise) than more pixels. Edited April 3, 2019 by Guest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
verwackelt Posted April 3, 2019 Share #183 Posted April 3, 2019 Thats right, but the difference between the SL and the S3 is much smaller than the format-difference in filmtimes. From film 35mm to 6x9cm the difference is huge. So the looks have been much different. But different from 24x36mm of the SL to the small digital MF 30mm x45mm is not so much. And the Look is not so different anymore. FF and MF in digital comes much closer. And not to forget we have a lot of 1.4 lenses for FF today helping with shallower dof... There were threads in other forum where pictures of MF and FF were posted and people have to guess which picture was MF and which was FF. Most people guess wrong which was MF or FF. You have to print big to differ… 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted April 3, 2019 Share #184 Posted April 3, 2019 All very true when comparing different formats. In Leica marketing context S3 should be released few months before SL2. Considering the price tag that will be attached to S3 difficult to imagine full frame camera to have more MP than Medium format. Bulk of the buyers for both system are well heeled amateurs who in main buy on the strength of spec rather than savvy professionals who sometimes economise. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted April 3, 2019 Share #185 Posted April 3, 2019 3 hours ago, verwackelt said: Thats right, but the difference between the SL and the S3 is much smaller than the format-difference in filmtimes. From film 35mm to 6x9cm the difference is huge. So the looks have been much different. But different from 24x36mm of the SL to the small digital MF 30mm x45mm is not so much. And the Look is not so different anymore. FF and MF in digital comes much closer. And not to forget we have a lot of 1.4 lenses for FF today helping with shallower dof... There were threads in other forum where pictures of MF and FF were posted and people have to guess which picture was MF and which was FF. Most people guess wrong which was MF or FF. You have to print big to differ… Based on experience with FF (eg M, SL, Nikon D850) and mini-MF (S006) I would say that the S006 files (at low ISO/in good light) are much more malleable than the FF files, possibly because of the different bit-depths of the files. And you see the difference in print. Not only for trained eyes, but also based on feedbacks from friends that are not into photography at all. On the web, differences are hardly noticeable. So yes, the difference between FF and MF film was/is huge, but there are still differences between digital FF and mini-MF systems. At least based on my experience/feedbacks. But for a all-singing-all-dancing system, I would pick a FF-system over a MF-system. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
verwackelt Posted April 3, 2019 Share #186 Posted April 3, 2019 Yes in full Resolution or on bigger Print you can see the difference. I was interested in the GFX system. But as you mention, i find a SL2(perhaps) or S1R more versatile because of much bigger lens portfolio… 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted April 5, 2019 Share #187 Posted April 5, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Am 3.4.2019 um 18:08 schrieb helged: Based on experience with FF (eg M, SL, Nikon D850) and mini-MF (S006) I would say that the S006 files (at low ISO/in good light) are much more malleable than the FF files, possibly because of the different bit-depths of the files. And you see the difference in print. Not only for trained eyes, but also based on feedbacks from friends that are not into photography at all. ... Sorry, but I partly disagree with: '... much more...' I would agree with a 'bit more'. Often I personally can't tell the difference in print. Of course, depending on the subject, there is a visible difference, visible at side by side comparison, but by far not the same remarkable difference as between film FF and film MF. I think mini digital MF of 50 MPx is partly to show: I'm not an amateur using a sony a7rIII, I'm a professional using Leica or Hasselblad. You know, for reputation.... the technical differences are just too small. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Andersson Posted April 7, 2019 Share #188 Posted April 7, 2019 Steve Huff's initial comparison of the S1 and SL is interesting with "a high ISO test that shows how the S1 slaughters my beloved SL". Quite why he is sharing photos of his jar of Vaseline is a puzzle, though! If the base ISO dynamic range is similarly improved then it would appear to be a slam dunk for an SL2 to use the same sensor as the S1, leaving the S1R sensor for use in an SL2R. 🤣 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenningsmca Posted April 7, 2019 Share #189 Posted April 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Bob Andersson said: Steve Huff's initial comparison of the S1 and SL is interesting with "a high ISO test that shows how the S1 slaughters my beloved SL". Quite why he is sharing photos of his jar of Vaseline is a puzzle, though! If the base ISO dynamic range is similarly improved then it would appear to be a slam dunk for an SL2 to use the same sensor as the S1, leaving the S1R sensor for use in an SL2R. 🤣 I have found Steve Huff reviews are always positive so I would really take it with a grain of salt until there are a few more reviews out there or you compare one yourself. One would think Leica would offer users a little more cheddar of the state of the new cameras. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted April 7, 2019 Share #190 Posted April 7, 2019 vor 7 Stunden schrieb Bob Andersson: If the base ISO dynamic range is similarly improved then it would appear to be a slam dunk for an SL2 to use the same sensor as the S1, leaving the S1R sensor for use in an SL2R. 🤣 I don't think so. 🤣 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Andersson Posted April 8, 2019 Share #191 Posted April 8, 2019 18 hours ago, Jenningsmca said: I have found Steve Huff reviews are always positive so I would really take it with a grain of salt... I agree so I do apply salt liberally. That said, he's no longer being so kind about the SL in his latest video but seeing the SL and the S1 side by side the aesthetics of the Leica still pull the heartstrings! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Andersson Posted April 9, 2019 Share #192 Posted April 9, 2019 I flagged the new Photons to Photos data for the S1 in this post. While DxO doesn't have data for the S1R sensor up just yet it has just released its measurements for the S1. Here is a comparison between the SL, the S1 and the X1D - link. I'm particularly interested in the dynamic range measurements. The landscape dynamic range is shown on the opening page and clicking on the Measurements tab, the Dynamic Range tab and then the Screen tab shows how good the S1 might be. Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity plots also look extremely good for the S1. So I'll stick to my guns and hope that the SL2 (if Leica ever get around to releasing it 😛 😀) uses the same sensor as the S1. 🙏 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted April 9, 2019 Share #193 Posted April 9, 2019 vor 1 Stunde schrieb Bob Andersson: So I'll stick to my guns and hope that the SL2 (if Leica ever get around to releasing it 😛 😀) uses the same sensor as the S1. 🤣 Did you see the Highlight detail or rather lack thereof in the S1 pictures compared to the SL, a four year old sensor, in Steve Huff’s high ISO test here? http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/04/06/the-panasonic-s1-vs-leica-sl-high-iso-test/ ? This shows at lower ISO, too. Fortunately, folks at Leica are too smart not to notice. SL2 will have a different sensor. 😀 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Andersson Posted April 9, 2019 Share #194 Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) Are you finding this with your own copy?😀 While having good high ISO performance is a bonus I'm personally more interested in maximising DR and that means, of course, shooting as near to the sensor's base ISO as possible. Steve Huff's needs are not my needs. 🤣 Edited April 9, 2019 by Bob Andersson Excised a "doh" moment! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
verwackelt Posted April 9, 2019 Share #195 Posted April 9, 2019 vor 1 Stunde schrieb Chaemono: Did you see the Highlight detail or rather lack thereof in the S1 pictures compared to the SL Might be underexposed the S1 shots…? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted April 9, 2019 Share #196 Posted April 9, 2019 vor 2 Stunden schrieb Bob Andersson: Are you finding this with your own copy?😀 Compared to the SL, I’m finding this exactly. vor 2 Stunden schrieb Bob Andersson: Steve Huff's needs are not my needs. Straw man fallacy. Nice try. Steve Huff shows that the S1 sensor can’t capture Highlight details as well as the four year old SL sensor. If Leica were to use the S1 sensor in the SL2, there would only be morons working there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Andersson Posted April 9, 2019 Share #197 Posted April 9, 2019 40 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Straw man fallacy. Nice try. Steve Huff shows that the S1 sensor can’t capture Highlight details as well as the four year old SL sensor. If Leica were to use the S1 sensor in the SL2, there would only be morons working there. That seems a bit strong? I may have missed them but I was unaware that Steve Huff had published any low ISO results as yet and for me that is where the performance is make or break. That's what I was referring to in my comment - Steve routinely shoots in low light club settings and here in the Cotswolds low light clubs are thin on the ground. 🤣 If the DxO results, where they write that "with the new 24MP Lumix DC-S1, Panasonic has adopted a class-leading sensor for its venture into full-frame", are to be believed then if Leica do want to offer a 24 MP option what other sensor is out there is better? But if Leica use the rumoured Sony IMX435 36MP sensor, and if the rumoured specs for that sensor are correct, then I'll think Christmas has come early. One can only hope but there are two ífs in that previous sentence. 🙄 In the meantime I'm enjoying your thoughts about your S1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted April 9, 2019 Share #198 Posted April 9, 2019 vor 49 Minuten schrieb Bob Andersson: If the DxO results, where they write that "with the new 24MP Lumix DC-S1, Panasonic has adopted a class-leading sensor for its venture into full-frame", are to be believed then if Leica do want to offer a 24 MP option what other sensor is out there is better? Oh, yeah? It still blows Highlights. And how on earth is Leica going to justify an SL2 at a price range of 7,500 USD to 9,000 USD when it's sensor is used in a camera offered at, by the time the SL2 will be released, 2,200 USD. 😂 They would not only be technological idiots but also commercial idiots. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Andersson Posted April 9, 2019 Share #199 Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) Hi Chaemono, One could make the same cost argument if they were to opt for a 47 MP sensor. The logical conclusion is that if Leica can't, at the very minimum, find a sensor that is unique or that blows the opposition out of the water then they might as well cancel the SL2 altogether unless they sell it as a loss leader to drive sales of SL glass. I think we both agree that the good folks at Wetzlar are anything but idiots so it'll be interesting to see what gets announced in due course... A couple of questions if I may: are you saying that your S1 blows highlights at all ISO settings and if so do you think it's a sensor issue or a metering issue? Bob. Edited April 9, 2019 by Bob Andersson grammar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted April 9, 2019 Share #200 Posted April 9, 2019 vor 10 Minuten schrieb Bob Andersson: Hi Chaemono, One could make the same cost argument if they were to opt for a 47 MP sensor. The 47 MPx S1R sensor? It’s not back illuminated, shows tons of noise at high ISO, and blows Highlights. Probably cheap to manufacture, though, so that one can price the body at 3,500 USD and attract lots of MPx fetishists (those doing landscape work, wildlife photography with Leica glas and use bracketing in high contrast situations are excluded). Easy to blow that one out of the water. The camera will be a bit more expensive, though. 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