A two weeks trip to the Alps with SL and S1R

[ImmerDraussen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bought  a S1R right before my holidays and couldn‘t  resist to take with me. 

What is good about the Panasonic:

• The view finder is much brighter than the SL (the dark EVF of the SL is a reason to keep my DSLRs)
• I have an image stabilizer for my Zeiss and Canon lenses (135 mm/f2 and 300mm/f2.8)
• The higher resolution helps to extend the reach of the 90-280 mm
• Battery life is better compared to the SL

Having two cameras with completely different UIs gave no problems. Also mixing pictures from the two bodies is okay. So far so good. But what was not so good with the Panasonic.

• The Panasonic produces more noise at any ISO setting than the SL
• There is a loss of details in the shadows (ISO 1600).
• I lost a number of shots because of false focussing. The one field focus point is easily distracted by gras or other things in front of your object. The second issue is that the focus point moves in the bottom right corner, if I pack the camera back into the bag. If the horizon level is activated this is not very obvious. The same may happen with the SL, but I never missed this.
• The  MC21 converter works fine with Zeiss lenses, but the exif readings are wrong (same with the Novoflex on the SL)
• The Panasonic can not be set to .dng. As I‘m still on LR6,   I have to convert the file before loading.

For most of the issues there are easy work arounds and a bit of training will avoid the failures. Having  more than 24 Megapixels is beneficial in a few cases, but you have to pay a price. All in all the SL does not feel old.

 

Andreas

[tom.w.bn]

I thougt a lot about if I really need the S1R or if the S1 is more than enough...   I think it happens 2x a year that I would like to have the option for more digital crop but you buy it with the need for more processing power and processing time in 100% of your images. So I decided for the S1. 

I doubt that the S1R produces more noise at any ISO setting. I believe it for low ISO but is this still true for ISO > 1600? I mean, an ISO 6400 image from the SL is for the bin and from the S1R quite usable.

I also discovered some initial AF issues with the MC21 converter and Canon lenses. It's mainly something we have to learn.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thighslapper]

Not sure I agree about the two first points about the Panasonic..... 

Noise is apparent at all ISO's on the S1R ...... but it is entirely dependent on the default settings of the Detail panel in LR ...... which has changed now LR has a dedicated profile for the S1R. Increasing sharpening accentuates this as the Detail setting in sharpening is too high for the 47mpx images ....... it needs to be 10 or less. 

Shadow recovery is much better than the SL at all ISO's in my experience ...... to the extent that although I bracketed very high dynamic range shots on a recent trip, I could process them from a single image 95% of the time. 

I presume the roving focus point is a result of the touch screen ..... I have mine deactivated by the lock lever as I rarely use it ... and it's only a thumb flick away. 

I converted to .dng initially as there was no LR profile and have continued with this as the file sizes are much smaller ..... and for the sake of consistency with all my other Leica images. It only adds a few minutes to importing the files. I delete the old RW2's. 

I'm becoming increasingly attached to this camera and Leica will have to come up with something special in the SL2 to get me to change .... 😟

[tom.w.bn]

I use Capture One and the current version supports the S1 and S1R very nicely.

[ImmerDraussen]

Maybe some of my comments have been misleading:

• Whole ISO range for me means 100 to 1600 ASA. I should have been more precise.
• With noise I mean that elements that have no texture (blue sky) have some kind of grainy structure. This is visible also at low ISO and becomes worse the higher the ISO setting are.  The SL is better here (I believe). It possible to remove it in LR, but it always reduces the textures of those things that have a texture and the pictures look more like plastic. My reference for is the 645Z which seems to be completely inert for this at low ISO and is very moderate at 1600. For me picture taken with this camera  look most natural.

Andreas

[ron777]

5 hours ago, ImmerDraussen said:

Maybe some of my comments have been misleading:

• Whole ISO range for me means 100 to 1600 ASA. I should have been more precise.
• With noise I mean that elements that have no texture (blue sky) have some kind of grainy structure. This is visible also at low ISO and becomes worse the higher the ISO setting are.  The SL is better here (I believe). It possible to remove it in LR, but it always reduces the textures of those things that have a texture and the pictures look more like plastic. My reference for is the 645Z which seems to be completely inert for this at low ISO and is very moderate at 1600. For me picture taken with this camera  look most natural.

Andreas

How are you viewing your images?

I have taken several hundred images with the S1R where a blue sky occupies a dominant position.  I do not use LR but, rather, Capture one Pro 12. Most of these images had been acquired with an ISO of between 200 and 800 and only those that employed a circular polarizer were taken with an ISO close to the 1600 range.  Viewed at 100% on a 27" calibrated Mac monitor via C1, there is no visible noise.  Perhaps LR is a factor?

I'd have to agree with thigh slapper.  For myself, the S1R is a fantastic camera and I have no misgivings about having sold my SL.  My crystal ball is out for repair, but regardless the eventual SL2's offerings, I cannot imagine that it will fulfill my needs any more so than the S1R.  And if it turns out to be an S1R clone, the red dot will not sway me.

Edited July 16, 2019 by ron777

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For landscapes or other things where a tripod can be used, the High Res mode takes noise down even further in the S1R. I have a print done using that mode to 70” wide, and I see now noise whatsoever.

[thighslapper]

17 hours ago, ImmerDraussen said:

Maybe some of my comments have been misleading:

• Whole ISO range for me means 100 to 1600 ASA. I should have been more precise.
• With noise I mean that elements that have no texture (blue sky) have some kind of grainy structure. This is visible also at low ISO and becomes worse the higher the ISO setting are.  The SL is better here (I believe). It possible to remove it in LR, but it always reduces the textures of those things that have a texture and the pictures look more like plastic. My reference for is the 645Z which seems to be completely inert for this at low ISO and is very moderate at 1600. For me picture taken with this camera  look most natural.

Andreas

I think we all obsess too much about noise ........ what is easily visible at 100% on high resolution monitors viewed at 30cm does not appear in A2 prints.... and I suspect is absent in A1 or larger as well. 

There is an inherent slight granularity to S1R RAW files, but again I think this is more a product of what LR is doing in its processing algorithms. 

 

[ImmerDraussen]

For me, the S1R is a pretty perfect camera, don‘t get me wrong. For the few issues I noticed are easy work arounds. But I was also impressed how small the gap to the SL is.

@tighslapper: Prints do not shows this, but I can see it on 27‘‘ 5k iMac without using the 1:1 view. Maybe it is just the way LR renders the raw files.

 

 

[su25]

21 hours ago, ImmerDraussen said:

For me, the S1R is a pretty perfect camera, don‘t get me wrong. For the few issues I noticed are easy work arounds. But I was also impressed how small the gap to the SL is.

@tighslapper: Prints do not shows this, but I can see it on 27‘‘ 5k iMac without using the 1:1 view. Maybe it is just the way LR renders the raw files.

 

 

Maybe you should downsize S1R pics to 6000x4000 and compare to SL while viewing both at 1:1?

[ron777]

What is the anticipated result?

[ImmerDraussen]

After reading all your comments, I thought either all of you are blind or I‘m completely stupid.

The latter is the case😩

I cropped a blue sky from a picture, re-sized it and wanted to post it. The effect was gone.

So I played with the magnification slider in LR. The effect became stronger and weaker. So it seems I have been fooled by some kind of interference of picture pixel counts and and screen resolution.😤

[ron777]

I'd dumped the Adobe product line, and thus LR, when they'd gone to a subscription service, since their business model is essentially an annuity for their benefit.  Capture One, on the other hand, has none of the issues that you've described vis-a-vis LR, and gives beautiful results, plus the added benefit of no subscription.  Some have complained about the cost of upgrades, while updates are free.  However, if the software performs the functions you require there is no need to upgrade, whereas with Adobe you are locked into the subscription in perpetuity.

 It's all a matter of preference, I suppose, but I prefer the comfort of knowing that my software has the potential for being a one time purchase, and the decision to spend more money for an upgrade is my own.  The scale may shift, however,  for someone who benefits from, or requires the benefits of Adobe's entire suite of software (i.e. PS and others).

[tom0511]

Also a user of SL and S1r and I feel the S1r does indeed show noise pretty fast when you bring up shadows or slightly underexpose.

Looking at IQ I find this one of the weakestpoints of s1r sensor. I also use LR (because C1 doesnt work for my S camera and in various comparisons I could not see a clear winnder between C1 and LR) but I doubt its a problem of the converter.

So with the S1r I really try to keep ISO low and expose correct.