rumors SL2 with 36MP sensor only

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yep, it’s all been covered many times.

Maybe best to get back to thread topic. Sorry for the OT.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[nicci78]

What is crazy is M Monochrom is that you can create whatever b&w look you ever dreamt to get. 

Yes you have to post process it. Create a profile in LR and you are done ! 

You can also tweak jpg in camera to your taste. 

And of course just use a colour filter. They are made for black and white. 

[Tailwagger]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and workflow of course, but personally I find the notion of spending tens of thousands, once one factors in optics, to shoot jpegs as, apologies, absurd. The oddity is not that they are poor, but that they are there at all. Regardless, It takes little effort to setup LR or what have you to generate perfectly acceptable results straight from raw.  Doing so gives one a lazy path to a superior image, while ensuring that when it's desirable to alter the curves to better jam the 12-14 stops of DR down to 3-6 for display, it can be done optimally.

[pico]

On 8/30/2019 at 10:32 AM, BernardC said:

That, of course, is what the Zone System was all about: matching your scene contrast with the contrast that you want in your print. It's easier to do with a digital RAW file, but the overall concept hasn't changed.

The goal of ZS has not changed but the film and paper has changed so much that a modified, simpler ZS is adequate today.

[thighslapper]

13 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

I find the notion of spending tens of thousands, once one factors in optics, to shoot jpegs as, apologies, absurd. The oddity is not that they are poor, but that they are there at all. 

........ mainly because most of these high mpx cameras use the jpg as the review file ..... the embedded jpg in the DNG/RAW file is not good enough to assess focus etc.

It does however cause other issues, particularly with assessing highlights and exposure. I am highly dubious as to the accuracy of the real time histogram and clipping as I suspect this too does not display the full DR from the RAW file accurately. Tests on my S1R yesterday showed perfectly recoverable cloud detail in allegedly blown highlights overexposed 2 stops beyond the histogram and even further beyond the clipping shown on screen.

[bags27]

3 hours ago, thighslapper said:

........ mainly because most of these high mpx cameras use the jpg as the review file ..... the embedded jpg in the DNG/RAW file is not good enough to assess focus etc.

It does however cause other issues, particularly with assessing highlights and exposure. I am highly dubious as to the accuracy of the real time histogram and clipping as I suspect this too does not display the full DR from the RAW file accurately. Tests on my S1R yesterday showed perfectly recoverable cloud detail in allegedly blown highlights overexposed 2 stops beyond the histogram and even further beyond the clipping shown on screen.

For problems with the in-camera histogram, I find this helpful, especially the second part.

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Observation about 61 MP FF by a user:  "I think it might be a bit noisier than I expected (not so good at moderate ISO) but more sampling needed there. Not going to be terrible though..."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63046775

"Not so good at moderate ISO...Not going to be terrible though..." doesn't cut it. So, let's hope that the SL2 has fewer than 40 MPx. Some people will want to use it for indoor action.

[Tailwagger]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

"Not so good at moderate ISO...Not going to be terrible though..." doesn't cut it. So, let's hope that the SL2 has fewer than 40 MPx. Some people will want to use it for indoor action.

This touches on the most critical aspect of selecting a particular camera and why reasonable people can disagree around what's important... how one actually intends to use it. I often get the feeling that many folks who clamor for more and more pixels rarely, if ever, shoot under less than ideal conditions. For those that can invariably shoot at base ISO in bright sun,  perhaps having 60MPx has some appeal. In my case, it's generally the opposite. With majority of my work being done at sun up and finished by mid-morning, most captures regularly push the limits of shadow and highlight, often being forced to choose one over the other.  Under those circumstances, the importance of DR and noise control far outweigh the count of pixels involved. Back when I was shooting mostly with a 645D, I never felt the need for more than the 40Mpx it provided, but I constantly bemoaned its lack of DR. So I'm with you on this, in this sphere less can indeed be more.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Tailwagger

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Tailwagger:

This touches on the most critical aspect of selecting a particular camera and why reasonable people can disagree around what's important... how one actually intends to use it. I often get the feeling that many folks who clamor for more and more pixels rarely, if ever, shoot under less than ideal conditions. For those that can invariably shoot at base ISO in bright sun,  perhaps having 60MPx has some appeal. In my case, it's generally the opposite. With majority of my work being done at sun up and finished by mid-morning, most captures regularly push the limits of shadow and highlight, often being forced to choose one over the other.  Under those circumstances, the importance of DR and noise control far outweigh the count of pixels involved. Back when I was shooting mostly with a 645D, I never felt the need for more than the 40Mpx it provided, but I constantly bemoaned its lack of DR. So I'm with you on this, in this sphere less can indeed be more.

Exactly. In order to make the L-mount more attractive and more competitive, Leica has to come out with something that complements, not replicates the Lumix bodies. Hence, a fast 36 MPx FF SL2 would make sense. The S1R, the S1, and the SL2 should be to the L-mount what the α7R IV, the α7S III, and the α9 II are to Sony. It’s so obvious.

[lct]

Interesting comparo.

[thighslapper]

14 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Exactly. In order to make the L-mount more attractive and more competitive, Leica has to come out with something that complements, not replicates the Lumix bodies. Hence, a fast 36 MPx FF SL2 would make sense. The S1R, the S1, and the SL2 should be to the L-mount what the α7R IV, the α7S III, and the α9 II are to Sony. It’s so obvious.

Not sure how it's going to be as fast ..... or faster if it still uses the Maestro 2 processor though. The S3 increased resolution has reduced the fps capability of the body.

If they stick with CDAF like Panasonic there will be all the same old issues with AF speed and accuracy in low light. 

Personally I'm not bothered as I rarely shoot anything that requires either ...... and I doubt Leica are that interested either in the sports or wildlife side of photography .....  they have shown no inclination to date to produce any long lenses. 

Whichever way you look at this you end up with a cosmetic upgrade with some new useful features and a custom sensor with improved image QUALITY and modest increase in mpx. All the other options just don't sound like 'Leica' to me. Whatever Leica do they always stick to their fundamental philosophy ..... which is essentially putting as little interference as possible between the eye and the final image ...... with no compromises on ultimate quality. 

Edited September 2, 2019 by thighslapper

[scott kirkpatrick]

11 hours ago, thighslapper said:

........ mainly because most of these high mpx cameras use the jpg as the review file ..... the embedded jpg in the DNG/RAW file is not good enough to assess focus etc.

It does however cause other issues, particularly with assessing highlights and exposure. I am highly dubious as to the accuracy of the real time histogram and clipping as I suspect this too does not display the full DR from the RAW file accurately. Tests on my S1R yesterday showed perfectly recoverable cloud detail in allegedly blown highlights overexposed 2 stops beyond the histogram and even further beyond the clipping shown on screen.

I don't know how to extract the contents of an .RW2 file, but the SL's .DNG files contain a full-size but perhaps low quality JPG.  It takes up a lot of space.  It will be interesting to see what allocation of space in the DNG's Leica settles on for the next camera.

I agree about the highlight range of the S1R and its sensor.  I've stopped backing down the exposure offset, because I can recover 1-2 stops of highlights.  Some the amazing clouds I saw in the Faeroes are examples of this.  The digital zone system today seems to be -- expose for the midtones, adjust brightness a bit, pull down highlights to find shapes in the skies, pull up the shadow slider (Capture One has a great one) for water and dark clothing and you're on your way.

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

.....  I've stopped backing down the exposure offset, because I can recover 1-2 stops of highlights.  Some the amazing clouds I saw in the Faeroes are examples of this.  The digital zone system today seems to be -- expose for the midtones, adjust brightness a bit, pull down highlights to find shapes in the skies, pull up the shadow slider (Capture One has a great one) for water and dark clothing and you're on your way.

Better to deal with shadow noise than clipped highlights, as Ctein wrote way back in 2011.  Curve adjustments help, but I still often find subtle highlight (sky) rendering the most disappointing aspect of digital compared to film negs.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

Jeff

[Chaemono]

Crossing the little-detail-to-no-detail-in-the-highlights-wall is the worst. The holy grail for FF sensors IMO is to approach at least the DR of the X1D sensor. I’m really intrigued to see if Sony can pull it off even if that 36 MPx sensor is not in the SL2. 

[IkarusJohn]

On 9/1/2019 at 5:17 AM, verwackelt said:

You are right with a bit amount in pp you can get beautiful b&w pictures from the raws.
But shouldn´t a 7000€ camera not be able to give some nice JPGs too?
I know a lot of people that do not like sitting in front of computer and just wants a nice JPG from a well exposed shot.
I find the Leica monochrome JPGs not pleasing. Some looked really bad. Leica should take some afford to optimize the sensorinterpretation in software.
Fuji did a good job with the Acros simulation. Leica should be able to do the same or better.
I think it is a typical problem when engineers do the profiling and colormanagement without photographers consulting them.

The Monochrom (CCD based, version 1) doesn't have JPGs at all, and the output is "flat", but wonderful with a little bit of post-processing.

That is a near perfect camera for me.  Similarly, the M Edition 60 didn't produce JPGs either.  As others have commented, I really don't understand investing in such an expensive and niche system, then just using JPGs.  Have you tried even simple tone curve adjustments, like Jeff has suggested?  Even minor processing can turn what looks like a dull raw file into something really special.

Raw files out of the Monochrom are incredible - wouldn't know what the JGPs would look like, as the camera doesn't generate any.  Even the histogram is based off the raw file.

Edited September 1, 2019 by IkarusJohn

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

The Monochrom (CCD based, version 1) doesn't have JPGs at all, and the output is "flat", but wonderful with a little bit of post-processing.

That is a near perfect camera for me.  Similarly, the M Edition 60 didn't produce JPGs either.  As others have commented, I really don't understand investing in such an expensive and niche system, then just using JPGs.  Have you tried even simple tone curve adjustments, like Jeff has suggested?  Even minor processing can turn what looks like a dull raw file into something really special.

Raw files out of the Monochrom are incredible - wouldn't know what the JGPs would look like, as the camera doesn't generate any.  Even the histogram is based off the raw file.

No, John, JPG and DNG.  The histogram changes to RAW after some delay.

http://www.slack.co.uk/slack/Monochrom.html

But I’d never use JPG mode.

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

Ah, Jeff, you're quite right.  When I got my Monochrom, I set the Profile fo DNG only, and it hasn't moved since.  The menu doesn't show the JPG option, which is what I was looking at.  I stand corrected.

However, I have no intention of ever using that option!

[Jeff S]

Easy enough to forget about it, for sure.

I see you’ve got an X1Dii on the way... have fun with that.  I’ll be testing it against the SL2 and likely picking one or the other (finally) to complement an M10 and MM.  

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

The IMX435 is the only rumored 36 MPx sensor and supposedly costs around $3,500. 😁

“The IMX435 STARVIS looks beyond good... At Base gain it has an FWC of 605000e-, with 3.618e- read noise. That amounts to a monstrous 104.5dB or 17.4 stops of dynamic range...”

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/655920-16-bit-sony-exmor-it-is-real/

[Chuck Albertson]

4 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Ah, Jeff, you're quite right.  When I got my Monochrom, I set the Profile fo DNG only, and it hasn't moved since.  The menu doesn't show the JPG option, which is what I was looking at.  I stand corrected.

However, I have no intention of ever using that option!

You need to press the "Set" button  to bring up the ur-menu to change that option. The Monochrom does crank out some decent jpegs, especially if you tart up the contrast a bit.