The S1R, 6 weeks on

[jrp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... and with a couple of thousand pics on the clock.  Coming from an S1R, in no particular order:

• I do like the colours (in Lightroom) but there is room for improvement: the reds often seem too hot, in comparison to the rest of the scene.
• The images have slightly more dynamic range than the SL images, which means that highlights seem less prone to just cutting to white.
• I prefer the SL's DNG format & the SL's better previews, out of the box without having to generate sidecar JPEGs.  The XQD cards transfer data pretty fast to my MacBook Pro, but the files are larger, so I don't notice much of an improvement over the SL's SD card DNGs. The S1R's files do, however, take their toll on the MacBook's batteries, when processing with PhotoMechanic or LightRoom.  (Capture One is a bit easier on the batteries as it seems to make less use of the GPU.). The Panasonic SilkyPix raw processor is fine for playing with the odd picture, but is a bit of an amateurish product.
• The user manual is comprehensive but barely intelligible in many places (eg, the power saving options to cite my most recently-visited experience).
• Both cameras have good focusing for still subjects in good light.  The S1R's fancier focusing features seem to be quite limited in their effectiveness.  The intelligent, face-recognising AF doesn't work well in subdued light, particularly with bright background lights.  The SL is not great either in that scenario, but it's hard to be much worse.
• The SL's auto-ISO feature is much better than the S1Rs.  I have no idea what the S1R's tries to do -- it seems to favour high ISO -- so it's pretty unusable.
• The S1R produces better high ISO pictures (colours, and even noise/grain), which is an achievement at double the megapixels.
• The extra megapixels are wasted if your are using narrow depth of field.  If you are using 75-90mm lenses in available light for portraits, eg, you will struggle to get both eyes in focus, while eliminating motion blur (assuming that you are not photographing a corpse), while retaining an ISO that benefits from those additional Mpx.
• IBIS is a boon.  And, second to the better sensor, the other reason for switching to this camera.  It is very effective, provided that your subject matter is inanimate. 
• The multi-shot extra resolution mode is stupendous, in the right circumstances, but you'll need to use the SL Summicron lenses to get the most from it.  
• The S1R is a bulkier camera that has more buttons / menu settings, but I use relatively few settings in either case, so the simplicity of the Leica is not a significant benefit.
• Not sure that the M lenses play quite as nicely with the S1R as they do with the SL. This is not just a matter of image quality (edges) but also lens metadata transmission through the adapter, which you might reasonably have thought ought to be part of the L-mount spec.
• I have tried no Lumix lenses beyond the 50mm f1.4, which provides far better value for money than the Summilux equivalent, and a slightly better shooting envelope (faster AF, shorter minimum focusing distance).  The 90-280mm Leica lens is surprisingly good, so I haven't bothered to try the 70-200 f4 Lumix, which is supposed to be good, but lighter if you can live with the shorter reach / narrower apertures at lower focal lengths.  There are those that say that the 24-105mm Lumix is great (at least in the centre).  Others consider it a kit lens (which I take to mean serviceable but characterless, partly because of the f4 minimum aperture).  Others still say that the 24-90mm Leica is better (and it is also surprisingly good).
• I realise that a number of these +/- can be addressed by changing default settings / workflow, but that would be easier to accomplish if the manual was more forthcoming / task-oriented (like the separate focus settings brochure).  I have no idea whether Panasonic has a track record of changing functionality in firmware (rather than just fixing bugs), but there are things that could be improved in the firmware (such as he auto ISO, and incorporating more help info).

 

I'm sure that I will have forgotten some additional points and will have compressed some beyond the point of intelligibility, but I'd be interested in others' transitional impressions.

 

[ron777]

Could the auto ISO issue that you've encountered be related to the chosen metering mode?  I have been using center weighted metering and have not encountered any issues with auto ISO, in fact, I've found it to be quite effective.  But, then again, our photographic venues may be different in terms of environmental lighting.  As for M lenses, I've sold/traded all of mine and am using SL or Panasonic S Pro glass exclusively, with the odd Voightlander Nokton thrown into the mix.

[thighslapper]

38 minutes ago, ron777 said:

Could the auto ISO issue that you've encountered be related to the chosen metering mode?  I have been using center weighted metering and have not encountered any issues with auto ISO, in fact, I've found it to be quite effective.  But, then again, our photographic venues may be different in terms of environmental lighting.  As for M lenses, I've sold/traded all of mine and am using SL or Panasonic S Pro glass exclusively, with the odd Voightlander Nokton thrown into the mix.

Ditto ...... I've found it functions exactly as the SL ..... but again I use centre weighted ..... or more often now highlight weighted metering. There are issues with using M lenses as the camera uses a default slowest shutter speed that is often well above the 1/f that you would expect. Having such effective IBIS I tend to use shutter priority and choose very low shutter speeds so ISO is kept as low as possible...... unless I specifically want shallow DOF. 

I use Adobe DNG converter when I import RW2 files .... adds a few minutes when importing ...... and process from the DNG's (I delete the RW2's). They end up on average 2/3 the size of the panasonic files and 25% bigger than SL DNG's. I've not noticed much difference in processing ..... initial rendering is a bit slower, but not much else. 

From an image point of view I have found the results very like the SL output ....... in fact almost indistinguishable ..... 

[jrp]

I don’t think that I have (knowingly) moved off matrix metering.  There is no way that I can find of saying “no speed lower than 1 /2f”, please. Adobe DNG is OK, but eats more battery.  I am not so concerned about the physical size.