Chaemono Posted March 9, 2019 Share #21 Posted March 9, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) It would be interesting to know which camera produced the noisier image, the Q at ISO 5000 or the Q2 at ISO 8000. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Hi Chaemono, Take a look here The Q is almost 1-stop brighter than the Q2. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dancook Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share #22 Posted March 9, 2019 Just now, Chaemono said: It would be interesting to know which camera produced the noisier image, the Q at ISO 5000 or the Q2 at ISO 8000. Looks similar to me 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! Q1 Crop by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q2 Crop by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q1 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q2 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Q1 Crop by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q2 Crop by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q1 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q2 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295040-the-q-is-almost-1-stop-brighter-than-the-q2/?do=findComment&comment=3698887'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted March 9, 2019 Share #23 Posted March 9, 2019 So, the Q2 has similar low light performance as the Q. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share #24 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Chaemono said: So, the Q2 has similar low light performance as the Q. Yes, however from what I have seen the Q has shadow banding where the Q2 does not - look under shelf 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! Q2 - no banding by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q1 - banding by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Edited March 9, 2019 by dancook 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Q2 - no banding by Daniel Cook, on Flickr Q1 - banding by Daniel Cook, on Flickr ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/295040-the-q-is-almost-1-stop-brighter-than-the-q2/?do=findComment&comment=3698895'>More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted March 9, 2019 Share #25 Posted March 9, 2019 Which is why it would be better to do these comparisons between the SL2 (Q2) sensor and the SL1 (Q1) sensor in scenes with extreme Highlights and very dark Shadows. The right ISO is the one that protects Highlights and allows for best Shadow recovery at the same time. ISO 5000 on the Q1 and ISO 8000 on the Q2 might not to be the right values for ‘equal’ exposure on each camera for the same scene after all. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share #26 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Which is why it would be better to do these comparisons between the SL2 (Q2) sensor and the SL1 (Q1) sensor in scenes with extreme Highlights and very dark Shadows. The right ISO is the one that protects Highlights and allows for best Shadow recovery at the same time. ISO 5000 on the Q1 and ISO 8000 on the Q2 might not to be the right values for ‘equal’ exposure on each camera for the same scene after all. Ok well as long as I'm personally happy with any niggles I thought I might have had, which I am... I shall stop trying to blunder my way through technical comparisons Edited March 9, 2019 by dancook 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaemono Posted March 9, 2019 Share #27 Posted March 9, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes, and don’t spoil it for those full of anticipation that the S1R/SL2 sensor will perform better in low light than the SL. BTW, the S1R AF could probably get that high school fashion show job done which I believe was the reason you switched to the α9. And it takes SL lenses. 😀 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share #28 Posted March 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Chaemono said: Yes, and don’t spoil it for those full of anticipation that the S1R/SL2 sensor will perform better in low light than the SL. BTW, the S1R AF could probably get that high school fashion show job done which I believe was the reason you switched to the α9. And it takes SL lenses. 😀 I delivered 800 shots in a 90 minute show af and buffer we’re both a huge consideration Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 9, 2019 Share #29 Posted March 9, 2019 @Dan Cook -- if you have a Q2, get in touch with Bill Claff at photonstophotos.com and see if he would like to have controlled test data from which he can plot out the dynamic range and noise floor of the new sensor. He needs a bunch of files, and you have to follow his instructions exactly, but it's not hard, and his methodology has been used forjust about everything on the market. I would love to see that data available. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share #30 Posted March 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said: @Dan Cook -- if you have a Q2, get in touch with Bill Claff at photonstophotos.com and see if he would like to have controlled test data from which he can plot out the dynamic range and noise floor of the new sensor. He needs a bunch of files, and you have to follow his instructions exactly, but it's not hard, and his methodology has been used forjust about everything on the market. I would love to see that data available. If I need a tripod.. I seem to have lost my quick release plate Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 9, 2019 Share #31 Posted March 9, 2019 I've done it for him with several models. I believe it requires using your laptop or computer display as a standard light source and shooting close to it. I don't think I used a tripod, but you have to check his site where the instructions are posted. I sent him an email, and he was delighted to get the data for cameras that were then not yet covered. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2019 Share #32 Posted March 9, 2019 Yes, I did it with the Cl. He is a nice guy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 9, 2019 Share #33 Posted March 9, 2019 I’m not entirely sure I agree with what appears to be the “flexible” approach to ISO designation suggested above. ISO is a reference to an international standard after all. An EV rating gives a standardised measure of illumination, fixing for our purposes the relationship between ISO, aperture and shutter speed. Granted, the given ISO of a film or the base ISO of a sensor is variable, but I don’t accept that a camera maker can simply rescale the ISO setting to encourage under-exposure, or worse as a pap to those who see high ISO performance as the holy grail. I tend to set my ISO at base, and aperture for dof and not worry too much about shutter speed. Not sure if I should take more interest. Probably not - EV is permanently set to -2/3 on my M10-D. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2019 Share #34 Posted March 9, 2019 Did you read the standard? I did. It is as soft as butter. There is even a separate standard for Japanese cameras. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted March 9, 2019 Share #35 Posted March 9, 2019 agree with jaapv, see this, but controversial.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 9, 2019 Share #36 Posted March 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, jaapv said: Did you read the standard? I did. It is as soft as butter. So, if you line up a series of calibrated light meters, the EV readings will all differ? Interesting and novel suggestion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2019 Share #37 Posted March 9, 2019 My remark concerned cameras, not light meters. See Tony Nothrup's video., especially after minute 13. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 9, 2019 Share #38 Posted March 9, 2019 My comment is that for a given EV, setiing aperture and shutter speed should result in the same ISO Did you miss that? Or have I missed Dan’s point? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 9, 2019 Share #39 Posted March 9, 2019 Should - but it doesn't. this is a word-by-word repeat of a dozen other threads. I'm not going there again. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted March 9, 2019 Share #40 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) That’s fine. It doesn’t change an interesting issue. I’d be very interested to understand why Leica appears to have taken to re-writing what is a standard. In practical terms, when it was raised on the M10 thread, it didn’t really matter to me as objective comparisons between sensor performance is like watching paint dry. Once I’ve purchased a camera, I try to make it work. If it does, fine. If not (Sony) it gets the flick. I’m not about to start using an incident light meter with my M10, or my SL - but I might be more than a little irritated if I found that the ISO setting was off ... Edited March 9, 2019 by IkarusJohn Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.