Panasonic S1 Field report from SL User

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

Panasonic has set that in the latest firmware for S series.

As far as I see Panasonic has only introduced an option to define if closer or remoter objects have priority. This is far away from af range control as I described it. But if you mean something else, please show a hint how to activate it.

[Guest]

 

[Advertisement]

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

[saxo]

Thanks for sharing!

I'm just wondering about your reported lens quality, of both Panasonic zooms. In recent tests, e.g. at digitalkamera.de, using the S1R, both lenses didn't really convince me. The resolving power of the 70-200 in the center is just about o.k with max.(!) of 72 lp/mm at 50% contrast and a steep falloff at the corner. This is o.k., but no good. The standard zoom is no way better.

As far as I remember, dpreview used the SL APO 90mm lens for the Panasonic S1R, probably the best 90mm on the market. This was great luck for Panasonic.

[thighslapper]

18 hours ago, saxo said:

Thanks for sharing!

I'm just wondering about your reported lens quality, of both Panasonic zooms. In recent tests, e.g. at digitalkamera.de, using the S1R, both lenses didn't really convince me. The resolving power of the 70-200 in the center is just about o.k with max.(!) of 72 lp/mm at 50% contrast and a steep falloff at the corner. This is o.k., but no good. The standard zoom is no way better.

As far as I remember, dpreview used the SL APO 90mm lens for the Panasonic S1R, probably the best 90mm on the market. This was great luck for Panasonic.

Not sure where you get the idea the 70-200 is a poor lens ......

In my testing (today) the Lumix 70-200 outperforms the SL 90-280 at 90/4 (centre and periphery) and has the same central resolution at 200/4 and loses only a little in the periphery compared to the 90-280. As the SL 90-280 is probably the best zoom available anywhere in this range I hardly think that makes the 70-200 'no good' ......

In addition it is much faster to focus, adds another stop of IS,  is half the weight and less than a third of the price. 

[saxo]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

Not sure where you get the idea the 70-200 is a poor lens ......

The source is: https://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubehör-Test/Testbericht_Panasonic_S_Pro_70-200_mm_F4_OIS_S-R70200E/11357.aspx

If you like, you can download test diagramms for just 50 Cent.

PS: you may use google translate if you don't speak German.

PS PS: What about your test results in lp/mm (or whatever unit you measured the resolution power of the two lenses)? Would you share the results to the community, this would be of interest for many of us.  As you said: the Panasonic is lighter, more compact (and cheaper) compared to the SL zoom. I would go for it, but only if I didn't have to compromise in terms of image quality too much.

Edited August 6, 2019 by saxo

[Likaleica]

Thank you, Jono.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, saxo said:

The source is: https://www.digitalkamera.de/Zubehör-Test/Testbericht_Panasonic_S_Pro_70-200_mm_F4_OIS_S-R70200E/11357.aspx

If you like, you can download test diagramms for just 50 Cent.

PS: you may use google translate if you don't speak German.

PS PS: What about your test results in lp/mm (or whatever unit you measured the resolution power of the two lenses)? Would you share the results to the community, this would be of interest for many of us.  As you said: the Panasonic is lighter, more compact (and cheaper) compared to the SL zoom. I would go for it, but only if I didn't have to compromise in terms of image quality too much.

Interesting info ..... I have looked through their database of tests and there is nothing comparable ..... although the new Sony 24-70 which they state is the best zoom in the range they have ever tested is in the 70-80 lp/mm bracket ... which I assume you also consider not good enough ? . Peripheral performance is better than the Lumix, but it's also a lot more expensive. They don't seem to have tested the 90-280 SL .... and I can't find any direct lp/mm data, but I suspect would be better than both, although I've found it a bit soft at the 90mm end. They also mention the influence of the S1R peripheral sensor processing but my translation doesn't make much sense .... not sure if it means the test process doesn't take into account what the firmware does to the peripheral image data .... ??? Anyway, my opinion was based on image comparisons rather than measurements, and that is subjective as we all have different ideas as to what is 'acceptable' in terms of image quality ... 

Unfortunately Leica don't seem to have any plans for a more compact zoom, so the options are very limited if you want an AF option that is easily portable and gives good image quality. 

I think all the major camera companies are going to have to re-think their optics if we are going 50mpx and above otherwise the increased sensor resolution will be wasted. Karbe states that the current crop of Leica lenses should be good for 100mpx +, which is reassuring.

Producing highly corrected lenses with the sort of resolving power required for FF seems to mean big and heavy so I do wonder whether ultimately it would be better to go MF, as the differentials (size, weight, price) keep reducing ....

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by thighslapper

[caissa]

Going medium format sounds great. But in reality we all know it is only 33x44 and not 6x6 or 6x4.5. So the difference is minor, the additional cost is high, the lens selection cumbersome, the difference in IQ negligible.

Sorry, I cannot see a practical reason to go to medium format.

It is different if you feel inspired by the mf cameras (e.g. the 907x). But for me this is not the case at all. (I actually dislike the shape, noise and reaction time of the lenses.) I cannot see that this is a strategy for the future.

 

An example is for me Vieri. Of course I have not seen all the pics he took lately, but what I have seen is not different in quality from earlier exhibitions. So I find the new equipment has not left a significant mark in his work, whatever fans may think. Obviously he is happy with the switch, but as stated it is not really visible in his work ...

Edited August 7, 2019 by caissa

[saxo]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

although the new Sony 24-70 which they state is the best zoom in the range they have ever tested is in the 70-80 lp/mm bracket ... which I assume you also consider not good enough ?

Just wrong assumption, nothing more to say ...

vor 9 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

Unfortunately Leica don't seem to have any plans for a more compact zoom, so the options are very limited if you want an AF option that is easily portable and gives good image quality. 

I totaly agree with that.

The SL 90-280 delivers spectaculare image quality, but its heavy, esp. for travel. Maybe Sigma will deliver a reasonable alternative in the future, but currently there is no other choice for L-mount users. I'm happy that Sigma joined the L-alliance. Sigma has a good reputation.

I believe for travel, with AF lenses, you must stick to APSC, e.g. Leica CL .

vor 9 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

I think all the major camera companies are going to have to re-think their optics if we are going 50mpx and above otherwise the increased sensor resolution will be wasted. Karbe states that the current crop of Leica lenses should be good for 100mpx +, which is reassuring.

If you want to get any benefit out of a 100 Mpx sensor,  don't forget to carry a heavy tripod with you. I'm unsure if IBIS will manage this.

I'm very happy with the summicron lenses. They are a perfect compromise between weight and lens quality.

 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

Producing highly corrected lenses with the sort of resolving power required for FF seems to mean big and heavy so I do wonder whether ultimately it would be better to go MF, as the differentials (size, weight, price) keep reducing ....

That's what Fujifilm did. This is understandable. Lightweight and tele-lenses: APSC X-system and on the other side studio/image Quality: MF GFX-system.

But the difference in IQ between FF and (mini) MF is not substantial.I remember a comparison between Sony and Hasselblad at DPreview. I decided to stay at FF. Greater lens selection, more options like higher fps, quicker AF, better video quality, still a bit better value for money etc. For my demand, FF is the right option.

Edited August 7, 2019 by saxo

[thighslapper]

5 hours ago, caissa said:

Going medium format sounds great. But in reality we all know it is only 33x44 and not 6x6 or 6x4.5. So the difference is minor, the additional cost is high, the lens selection cumbersome, the difference in IQ negligible.

Sorry, I cannot see a practical reason to go to medium format.

It is different if you feel inspired by the mf cameras (e.g. the 907x). But for me this is not the case at all. (I actually dislike the shape, noise and reaction time of the lenses.) I cannot see that this is a strategy for the future.

An example is for me Vieri. Of course I have not seen all the pics he took lately, but what I have seen is not different in quality from earlier exhibitions. So I find the new equipment has not left a significant mark in his work, whatever fans may think. Obviously he is happy with the switch, but as stated it is not really visible in his work ...

I have to agree. 

With 50mpx becoming the norm for FF I can't see the point of abandoning 35mm .... particularly as I am heavily invested in M/R/CL/SL lenses .... the latter being as good or better than anything else available out there.... and with high pixel counts optics increasingly become the limiting factor in image quality.

VB went X1D for more pixels and DR ... AND TO GET RID OF LENR ...... which for any long exposure landscape photographer comes close to driving you mad at times. 

[caissa]

But Hasselblad have lately been so unwise to change exactly that clever long time exposure behavior. it is not possible to stop a long exposure at any time and to still get a picture with the version 2 camera. I must confess I would like to see that as well in the SL or S1R.

[colonel]

On ‎8‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 10:16 AM, jonoslack said:

Hi There

I've spent the last 3 months shooting a Panasonic S1 along with my SL and CL, and shooting the Panasonic L mount lenses along with my Leica SL and TL lenses.

Here is a report on it:

https://www.slack.co.uk/lumix-s1.html

All the best

Jonathan Slack

As the expert I always look up to tell me which one:

1. New Panasonic S1 OR

2. Secondhand Leica SL

(similar price)

based on the fact I will start with the Sigma 45mm f2.8, get more Sigma Art primes later on and probably get at some point a second hand Leica 24-90 mm ?

(personally I like the handling of the SL more but acknowledge the great handling of the S1 and its more advanced functionality set - I guess the SL2 will be twice the price anyhow)

thanks

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by colonel

[Donzo98]

2 hours ago, colonel said:

As the expert I always look up to tell me which one:

1. New Panasonic S1 OR

2. Secondhand Leica SL

(similar price)

based on the fact I will start with the Sigma 45mm f2.8, get more Sigma Art primes later on and probably get at some point a second hand Leica 24-90 mm ?

(personally I like the handling of the SL more but acknowledge the great handling of the S1 and its more advanced functionality set - I guess the SL2 will be twice the price anyhow)

thanks

 

Second hand S1R  

i just got one for 3K... and sold my SL for 3100.

Between the S1 and used SL.

Better brighter EVF, IBIS... and 2K used. I would do S1 for sure.

[BernardC]

4 hours ago, colonel said:

As the expert I always look up to tell me which one:

1. New Panasonic S1 OR

2. Secondhand Leica SL

Go with you heart.

In the grander scheme of things, their imaging performance will be near-identical. The S1 has a newer sensor, so it performs better at high ISOs (3200+). It also offers more video features, if you are into that.

Those differences aren't relevant in most situations. It's best to get the one that you enjoy using, and concentrate on your photography, not on your camera.

 

 

[colonel]

19 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Go with you heart.

Those differences aren't relevant in most situations. It's best to get the one that you enjoy using, and concentrate on your photography, not on your camera.

thats my normal procedure ........

Edited August 13, 2019 by colonel

[jonoslack]

9 hours ago, colonel said:

As the expert I always look up to tell me which one:

1. New Panasonic S1 OR

2. Secondhand Leica SL

(similar price)

based on the fact I will start with the Sigma 45mm f2.8, get more Sigma Art primes later on and probably get at some point a second hand Leica 24-90 mm ?

(personally I like the handling of the SL more but acknowledge the great handling of the S1 and its more advanced functionality set - I guess the SL2 will be twice the price anyhow)

thanks

 

I think you are the first person who ever looked up to me! - so you deserve a proper reply

I'd go for the SL - perhaps you could even get a deal on a new one? 

the only reason I might think differently is if you were going to do a lot of professional events in low light - or lots of long exposure landscape images. Or lots of fast moving objects.

The SL interface is really lovely (once you've figured it out it stays embedded in your brain)

You can and should shoot M lenses on the SL (but not so good on the S1)

The high ISO performance really is only about 1 stop better (and when did that matter). 

In two years the SL will be worth twice as much as the S1 (fair or not). 

So, the final crunch . . if someone said to me, you can only have one, would you have an S1 or an SL, then I'd have the SL, every time. For the reasons given above, but also for that inexcusable joy of ownership which Leica provides . . . . . 

 

 

[tom0511]

IMO the SL has the simpler and more intuitive user interface, smaller body, works better with M lenses, and feels a little more solid/classy in regards of material and finsih.

The S1/S1r has the better handgrip, in body stabi (can be really usefull), and better AF.

 

[Jon Warwick]

Does the S1R work better with M lenses than the S1?

[sillbeers15]

7 hours ago, BernardC said:

Go with you heart.

In the grander scheme of things, their imaging performance will be near-identical. The S1 has a newer sensor, so it performs better at high ISOs (3200+). It also offers more video features, if you are into that.

Those differences aren't relevant in most situations. It's best to get the one that you enjoy using, and concentrate on your photography, not on your camera.

 

 

The AF tracking capability should be much improved over the SL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[scott kirkpatrick]

7 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

Does the S1R work better with M lenses than the S1?

Both S1s have thicker glass over the sensor than the SL or an M does.  So some M lenses will soften away from the center of the image.  The S1R, with its denser pixels, will let you see this more easily.  

Edited August 14, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick