"Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Price is quite expected 900€ less than SL introduction price. And only 490€ more than the less expensive non promotional price of 5,500€ 

That’s explain why Leica was selling its last SL at 4,400€ only. The SL2 is only 1,500€ more. 

Thanks so much for all this Nicci. Do we know the weight compared to the original SL?

[nicci78]

Essentially it is the same body with tweaked design. Do not expect it to be smaller or lighter. 

You’ve seen the leaked photos. 
Leica still stand behind its big body mantra for even bigger lenses. 
 

[bags27]

8 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Essentially it is the same body with tweaked design. Do not expect it to be smaller or lighter. 

You’ve seen the leaked photos. 
Leica still stand behind its big body mantra for even bigger lenses. 
 

Well, I simply refuse to believe my eyes. I am delusionally believing it will be smaller....

[helged]

4 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Essentially it is the same body with tweaked design. Do not expect it to be smaller or lighter. 

You’ve seen the leaked photos. 
Leica still stand behind its big body mantra for even bigger lenses. 
 

Add me to the group of people liking the size of the SL. It's simply just fine. This obviously depends on the size of the hands that hold the body. For me, the size (and thus stability) of the SL is near perfect. For comparison, CL is too small whereas the M works with all but the largest Lux'es and Noct's. And regarding weight, I am absolutely not worried about some increase. No problem at all.

[Jeff S]

12 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Essentially it is the same body with tweaked design. Do not expect it to be smaller or lighter. 

You’ve seen the leaked photos. 
Leica still stand behind its big body mantra for even bigger lenses. 
 

Any word on EVF specs?

Jeff

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

You can't, Q2 sensor is slightly bigger than 24x36.

• Everything outside is thrown away.
• Extra data is served to correct vignetting and distortion. 
• Making the 26mm lens cropped into 28mm. 

You can still access these extra pixels with certain raw developer, such as Capture One. 

SL2, such as SL, will have a 24x36 sensor. 

All Bayer sensors have extra pixels. They are used to calculate colour information at the edge of the frame.

 

I've read about the Q and Q2 having a 26mm lens, but no one ever explains what that means.

Is the lens actually 26mm and cropped to a 28mm equivalent, or is the lens 28mm with a slightly larger field of view, for distortion correction? Has anyone measured this, or is it internet speculation? Is the lens/camera a significant outlier in this regard? All lenses differ from their nominal focal length by a small percentage. If you borrowed five 28mm lenses and put them on an optical bench, you would get five different focal lengths at infinity, and five more at close focus. Same thing with cameras/sensors. 24x36mm is the nominal size, but no camera hits that specification exactly. Some are bigger, most are smaller. Is the Q2 significantly bigger/smaller than others? How about the S1R that uses the same basic sensor?

I realize that these questions aren't very important, but it's something I wonder about.

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@BernardC open Q2 files in Capture One to see the 51MP of the Q2. It is 26mm field of view, slightly crop into 28mm.
Yes Q2 is an always cropped camera, whatever the focal you chose : 28 ; 35 ; 50 ; 75mm

Extra information are used for distortion control. 
 

It is a 28mm lens upon a slightly larger sensor than 24x36. Therefore equivalent field of view is 26mm in 24x36 term. 
 

FYI Q2 sensor is 9005 x 5715 pixels registered but 24x36 area is 8368 x 5585 effective pixels. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by nicci78

[Mr.Q]

So the SL2 is essentially a SL with similar dimensions and weight, 47MP, IBIS, a slightly better EVF, no PDAF, and worse (4 button to 3) controls? 

Doesn't sound too exciting.

[Chaemono]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Mr.Q:

So the SL2 is essentially a SL with similar dimensions and weight, 47MP, IBIS, a slightly better EVF, no PDAF, and worse (4 button to 3) controls? 

Doesn't sound too exciting.

No, it doesn’t the way you put it. 😂

[bags27]

6 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

So the SL2 is essentially a SL with similar dimensions and weight, 47MP, IBIS, a slightly better EVF, no PDAF, and worse (4 button to 3) controls? 

Doesn't sound too exciting.

If so, it presents a similar situation to the Q owner. The Q2 is an upgrade (in some ways). Is it worth it if you already own the Q? For some, yes, for others (including myself), no. For those who did not already own the Q, it was a resounding success.

Will it be the same with the SL2? Will some SL owners buy and some desist? Probably. But will it be the same resounding success as the Q2 for non-SL owners....especially with the much less expensive Panasonic S1R available?

Edited October 10, 2019 by bags27

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

So the SL2 is essentially a SL with similar dimensions and weight, 47MP, IBIS, a slightly better EVF, no PDAF, and worse (4 button to 3) controls? 

Doesn't sound too exciting.

Who said it had a slightly better EVF?  I haven’t seen a response from Nicci.

Jeff

[adan]

RE the Q/Q2 image correction - I'm sure it's simpler than most people are saying.

The lens is a 28mm with significant native barrel (fisheye) distortion. At the center of the image, it projects the subject the same size as a regular 28mm lens (thus it is a "28mm"), but moving towards the corners, the "focal length" as measured by subject magnification gets shorter and shorter, leading to curving lines and things being smaller in the corners for their distance. It may well be an effective "18mm" lens at the corners (according to the size of objects, compared to a rectilinear 28 or 50 lens).

It projects onto a standard 24 x 36 sensor of 24 or 47 Mpixels. The in-camera processor removes the barrel distortion in "virtual image space" (computer memory) larger than the native size, and then crops it back to 24/47 Mpixels. On the fly, for both the viewfinder image and the final recorded image. Which is much easier and cheaper than using some weird dedicated sensor that can't be reused in a different camera (e.g. SL2).

In theory, there is a small corruption of fine details near the corners, as they are stretched (upsampled) to fill a new shape - but those areas are what are finally cropped away digitally anyway.

(We used to have a member who shot architectural interiors with an actual 16mm fisheye - and just made similar corrections himself in PS)

Anyway, back to "Vader".....

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!

[nicci78]

interesting @adan but Q and Q2 do not work liked that.

The sensor and its DNG is 9005 x 5715 real pixels covering a 24.5 x 38.75mm area. Corners are almost pitch black (extreme vignetting) It is distorted. 

The RAW developer software such as Lightroom cropped and processed it into 8368 x 5585 which cover 24 x 36mm area.

You can access the whole 51.5MP file with Capture One. Sadly Lightroom locked out the cropped area.

 

However SL, CL, TL2 and certainly SL2, do not work like Q and Q2. The sensor is 24 x 36 or APS-C and that's it. With these models software correction (if any) do work exactly as you presented it adan.

 

[lct]

It is a matter of distortion in the first place. Fixed lenses like that of Q/Q2 cameras distort a lot more than M or R primes to quote a few. Suffice it to disable lens profile to check that. 
Raw file: https://tinyurl.com/y5r6sxob

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!

 

[Mr.Q]

42 minutes ago, bags27 said:

If so, it presents a similar situation to the Q owner. The Q2 is an upgrade (in some ways). Is it worth it if you already own the Q? For some, yes, for others (including myself), no. For those who did not already own the Q, it was a resounding success.

Will it be the same with the SL2? Will some SL owners buy and some desist? Probably. But will it be the same resounding success as the Q2 for non-SL owners....especially with the much less expensive Panasonic S1R available?

I'm not sure I agree with your Q comparison because a bump in resolution to 47MP means much more to a fixed lens camera (adding much more versatility) than it does to an ILC.

With the other added features (ie weather-sealing, bigger battery) the Q2 really has no competition, whereas SL2 is competing against the S1R, A7IV, Z7, EOS R, and even the X1DII and GFX. A simple sensor upgrade to a 2015 camera body with no innovation to speak of? That would be a huge disappointment, to put it mildly.

 

 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

It is a 28mm lens upon a slightly larger sensor than 24x36. Therefore equivalent field of view is 26mm in 24x36 term.

Thanks, that answers my question. it's a 28mm lens (or near enough) that covers slightly more than the 24x36 diagonal. The camera uses some of that additional information to correct distortion. And perhaps other traits.

What was confusing was the whole "26mm" thing. It's not a 26mm in any way, any more than a 16mm fisheye is an "8mm."  26mm is a number that conveys the notion of "slightly wider than 28mm," which it isn't. It's a 28mm with some barrel distortion, just like a fisheye is "a 16mm with lots of barrel distortion."

Thank you for clearing that up.

As I mentioned before, all Bayer sensors have an effective size (i.e.: 24x36mm) and an actual size (24.5x38.75mm in your example). The information "beyond the edge" is used to calculate colours for edge pixels, for reference black levels (when masked), and also for whatever other purpose the camera designer deems useful, like distortion correction.

 

[Mr.Q]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Who said it had a slightly better EVF?  I haven’t seen a response from Nicci.

Jeff

I must have misread then.

[helged]

1 hour ago, bags27 said:

If so, it presents a similar situation to the Q owner. The Q2 is an upgrade (in some ways). Is it worth it if you already own the Q? 

With IBIS in SL2, if as excellent as that in S1R, I would say that SL2 vs SL can hardly be compared to Q2 vs Q. 

[bags27]

1 hour ago, Mr.Q said:

I'm not sure I agree with your Q comparison because a bump in resolution to 47MP means much more to a fixed lens camera (adding much more versatility) than it does to an ILC.

With the other added features (ie weather-sealing, bigger battery) the Q2 really has no competition, whereas SL2 is competing against the S1R, A7IV, Z7, EOS R, and even the X1DII and GFX. A simple sensor upgrade to a 2015 camera body with no innovation to speak of? That would be a huge disappointment, to put it mildly.

 

 

Actually, I think you ARE agreeing with me 😀. Or maybe I'm agreeing with what I thought I meant, but didn't write properly. At best, it's parallel, but in fact, there is far less of a market for this upgrade than there is for the Q2. And also, a lot of folks saw the Q2 as opportunity to get into the Leica world. I doubt the SL2 will hold that allure.

So, yes, the SL2, as it's currently understood, doesn't seem to be so attractive except to some loyalists who can afford the latest expression of the camera.

[bags27]

1 hour ago, helged said:

With IBIS in SL2, if as excellent as that in S1R, I would say that SL2 vs SL can hardly be compared to Q2 vs Q. 

perhaps so. But the weather sealing in the Q2 was what a lot of folks saw as the deal maker. So, perhaps mutatis mutandis.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount