"Vader" Certainly Isn't Any Prettier

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 minutes ago, Rockcrusher said:

So i am planing to buy a Leica S2 with a 50mm APO Lens.

how will you use the 50mm APO on the medium format S2 ??

[Advertisement]

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

[Rockcrusher]

i talk about the new "Vader" Camera. It is Fullframe.

[frame-it]

35 minutes ago, Rockcrusher said:

i talk about the new "Vader" Camera. It is Fullframe.

oh i see you mean SL2 not S2

[Rockcrusher]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb frame-it:

oh i see you mean SL2 not S2

this is why i am in this thread...

[Exodies]

Because you won’t acknowledge a typo?

[anickpick]

seems like a perfect match

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Allegedly the SL2 has better IQ than the Q2 because of the way the sensor was implemented.  I don’t know if this is possible but I’m thinking it could result in less read noise.  Also, did anyone else hear that the SL2 EVF has 6.2-6.4M dots or is someone just confusing it with the pixel pitch of 6.3μm in the S1/R EVF?

Edit - another reason why SL2's IQ is better than Q2 could be because the sensor in the SL2 is mounted on a board where it's kept cooler or is being cooled somehow resulting in lower dark current.  This would lead to significantly better IQ despite using the same sensor as the Q2.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Chaemono

[nicci78]

You may be right.
SL has better IQ than the Q, despite sharing the same sensor. It means that bigger body = better cooling = less noise ? 

[Mr.Q]

8 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Allegedly the SL2 has better IQ than the Q2 because of the way the sensor was implemented.  I don’t know if this is possible but I’m thinking it could result in less read noise.  Also, did anyone else hear that the SL2 EVF has 6.2-6.4M dots or is someone just confusing it with the pixel pitch of 6.3μm in the S1/R EVF?

Edit - another reason why SL2's IQ is better than Q2 could be because the sensor in the SL2 is mounted on a board where it's kept cooler or is being cooled somehow resulting in lower dark current.  This would lead to significantly better IQ despite using the same sensor as the Q2.

The way you phrase it makes it seem like the SL is superior in IQ to the Q in every measurable metric. In reality, the only discernable difference is in the corners/edges, and that's due to the SL lenses that were made with no compromises. And it should perform better as Summicron-SL lens alone weighs more than the Q.

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Mr.Q:

The way you phrase it makes it seem like the SL is superior in IQ to the Q in every measurable metric. In reality, the only discernable difference is in the corners/edges, and that's due to the SL lenses that were made with no compromises. And it should perform better as Summicron-SL lens alone weighs more than the Q.

I’m referring to noise, DR, and hopefully malleability of files specifically with regards to SL2 compared to Q2.  My hope is based on the general comment ‘the IQ of the SL2 is better than that of the Q2’ which a Leica representative from Wetzlar made yesterday morning when he showed the camera to store employees of a Leica owned store.  I had told that store that if the SL2 has the same sensor as the Q2 I don’t want it.  I should get a camera on Wednesday.  I’ll compare the files with the S1 and the S1R and give it back if I’m not happy with the IQ.

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

I’m referring to noise, DR, and hopefully malleability of files specifically with regards to SL2 compared to Q2.  My hope is based on the general comment ‘the IQ of the SL2 is better than that of the Q2’ which a Leica representative from Wetzlar made yesterday morning when he showed the camera to store employees of a Leica owned store.  I had told that store that if the SL2 has the same sensor as the Q2 I don’t want it.  I should get a camera on Wednesday.  I’ll compare the files with the S1 and the S1R and give it back if I’m not happy with the IQ.

Look back between SL & Q sensor IQ as reference.

[bags27]

I think there's a difference in the IQ of the SL and the Q. It may just be that L lenses are more to my taste than the Lux on the Q. Whatever the case, the more I use the Q (which is less and less since I got the CL), the more I feel it produces highly digitized photos that strike me as being unreal. Great, wonderful, lovely, but unreal: not what I could ever imagine seeing with my eyes. That's different from what I see coming out of the CL and SL. No, they're not quite M10 fabulous, but they're still real--something between the more filmic M10 and the fully digitized Q. Interpretative while still having a foot in the actual world.

For me, the Q2 pushes digitalization even further than the Q. If the SL2 does the same, I suspect I'll be saving a lot of money.

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb sillbeers15:

Look back between SL & Q sensor IQ as reference.

Could be but this will not be good enough for me.  The Q exhibited banding in pushed shadows and the SL did the same. See here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3 

Leica didn't fix the banding with pushed shadows issue in its 24 MPx cameras until the M10 and the CL, both of which produce very malleable files, i.e. shadows can be lifted by 100 and exposure adjusted sufficiently to get a bright enough picture with no banding showing.  I'd say the CL files are even more impressive given that it's APS-C, but the M10 still beats it for IQ, of course, given its larger sensor and larger pixels.

I want to be perfectly clear, I'm not referring to lifting Exposure by 5 stops.  There the SL does great.  See here: https://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2015/10/18/the-leica-sl-first-impressions-sample-images.  I also love how it treats highlights in high contrast scenes, up to ISO 1600 that is.  I'm specifically referring to shadow detail recovery by using the Shadows slider in LR first, and then adjusting the exposure to get a bright enough picture.  It's the combination of the two that results in banding in the Q2/S1R.  Some may say 'who cares, I never need to lift shadows this much.'  Fine, but one can with the M10, the CL, and the S1 with no issues which means that these three cameras, which take Leica lenses natively, can show more details in the shadows while protecting the highlights.  This in my book is called DR.  It remains to be seen if the SL2 has M10/CL/S1 DR or Q2/S1R DR.  If it's the latter, it's going back to the dealer.

Edit - To paraphrase from the DPR article in the first link above, 'put another way, is the SL2 ISO invariant (Q2/S1R are clearly not)?: does it have so little downstream read noise that one can shoot at base ISO and push the results later in order to give oneself extra highlight headroom. That's the $64,000 question we will be after. 😁 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Chaemono

[caissa]

I would worry about noise and banding if I usually went to the limit when using the camera. But as I typically never need to go that far, I typically never encountered these problems. And life is too short to worry too much about non-existent problems (problems that I never encounter). So this problem discussion is without influence on my decision what to use or buy.

Some users have the tendency to say 'this camera is not good enough for me'. I am rather the type who thinks, 'am I good enough to overcome the problems, that this camera still has ?'

Edited November 3, 2019 by caissa

[bags27]

5 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Could be but this will not be good enough for me.  The Q exhibited banding in pushed shadows and the SL did the same. See here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3 

Leica didn't fix the banding with pushed shadows issue in its 24 MPx cameras until the M10 and the CL, both of which produce very malleable files, i.e. shadows can be lifted by 100 and exposure adjusted sufficiently to get a bright enough picture with no banding showing.  I'd say the CL files are even more impressive given that it's APS-C, but the M10 still beats it for IQ, of course, given its larger sensor and larger pixels.

I want to be perfectly clear, I'm not referring to lifting Exposure by 5 stops.  There the SL does great.  See here: https://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2015/10/18/the-leica-sl-first-impressions-sample-images.  I also love how it treats highlights in high contrast scenes, up to ISO 1600 that is.  I'm specifically referring to shadow detail recovery by using the Shadows slider in LR first, and then adjusting the exposure to get a bright enough picture.  It's the combination of the two that results in banding in the Q2/S1R.  Some may say 'who cares, I never need to lift shadows this much.'  Fine, but one can with the M10, the CL, and the S1 with no issues which means that these three cameras, which take Leica lenses natively, can show more details in the shadows while protecting the highlights.  This in my book is called DR.  It remains to be seen if the SL2 has M10/CL/S1 DR or Q2/S1R DR.  If it's the latter, it's going back to the dealer.

Edit - To paraphrase from the DPR article in the first link above, 'put another way, is the SL2 ISO invariant (Q2/S1R are clearly not)?: does it have so little downstream read noise that one can shoot at base ISO and push the results later in order to give oneself extra highlight headroom. That's the $64,000 question we will be after. 😁 

Thanks so much for this, Chaemono. This puts an analysis to something I discovered over the summer, when I shots many hundreds of landscape pictures with both the Q and CL, only to discover how many of the Q photos had shockingly strong banding. Some of that, of course, could be muted in post, but it did compromise what I had hoped to convey.

[sillbeers15]

6 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Could be but this will not be good enough for me.  The Q exhibited banding in pushed shadows and the SL did the same. See here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3 

Leica didn't fix the banding with pushed shadows issue in its 24 MPx cameras until the M10 and the CL, both of which produce very malleable files, i.e. shadows can be lifted by 100 and exposure adjusted sufficiently to get a bright enough picture with no banding showing.  I'd say the CL files are even more impressive given that it's APS-C, but the M10 still beats it for IQ, of course, given its larger sensor and larger pixels.

I want to be perfectly clear, I'm not referring to lifting Exposure by 5 stops.  There the SL does great.  See here: https://www.jaycassario.com/blog/2015/10/18/the-leica-sl-first-impressions-sample-images.  I also love how it treats highlights in high contrast scenes, up to ISO 1600 that is.  I'm specifically referring to shadow detail recovery by using the Shadows slider in LR first, and then adjusting the exposure to get a bright enough picture.  It's the combination of the two that results in banding in the Q2/S1R.  Some may say 'who cares, I never need to lift shadows this much.'  Fine, but one can with the M10, the CL, and the S1 with no issues which means that these three cameras, which take Leica lenses natively, can show more details in the shadows while protecting the highlights.  This in my book is called DR.  It remains to be seen if the SL2 has M10/CL/S1 DR or Q2/S1R DR.  If it's the latter, it's going back to the dealer.

Edit - To paraphrase from the DPR article in the first link above, 'put another way, is the SL2 ISO invariant (Q2/S1R are clearly not)?: does it have so little downstream read noise that one can shoot at base ISO and push the results later in order to give oneself extra highlight headroom. That's the $64,000 question we will be after. 😁 

From my experience, the only time I experienced banding is on M240 at ISO 6400. I’m not here to say that I do not care or and I do not lift the DR that much. Rather I find it interesting that SL, Q and M10 are all FF 24 MPx sensors but the last behaves differently from the earlier two. Is it due to sensor maker variation or due to tweeking? Let’s see what comes out of the SL2.

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb bags27:

Thanks so much for this, Chaemono. This puts an analysis to something I discovered over the summer, when I shots many hundreds of landscape pictures with both the Q and CL, only to discover how many of the Q photos had shockingly strong banding. Some of that, of course, could be muted in post, but it did compromise what I had hoped to convey.

Can you imagine the CL having more malleable files than the SL2? 😂  They surely can’t be this dumb.  Three more times of going to sleep and waking up and we’ll find out. 

Edited November 3, 2019 by Chaemono

[bags27]

2 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Can you imagine the CL having more malleable files than the SL2? 😂  They surely can’t be this dumb.  Three more times of going to sleep and waking up and we’ll find out. 

You think you'll be able to sleep Tuesday night? 😃

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

Gerade eben schrieb bags27:

You think you'll be able to sleep Tuesday night? 😃

Probably not. 😁

[thighslapper]

10 hours ago, bags27 said:

I think there's a difference in the IQ of the SL and the Q. It may just be that L lenses are more to my taste than the Lux on the Q. Whatever the case, the more I use the Q (which is less and less since I got the CL), the more I feel it produces highly digitized photos that strike me as being unreal. Great, wonderful, lovely, but unreal: not what I could ever imagine seeing with my eyes. That's different from what I see coming out of the CL and SL. No, they're not quite M10 fabulous, but they're still real--something between the more filmic M10 and the fully digitized Q. Interpretative while still having a foot in the actual world.

For me, the Q2 pushes digitalization even further than the Q. If the SL2 does the same, I suspect I'll be saving a lot of money.

Forgive me ...... but these sort of statements ...... of which there are plenty on the forum .... rarely if ever are backed up with convincing factual evidence of any actual difference.

Example images taken at the same focal lengths, under identical conditions and processed optimally and are required. I cannot see how a digital camera can produce 'less digital' looking images from the sensor alone ..... particularly with Leica where all the parameters are deliberately kept aligned to give a 'Leica' colour palette.

I have posted images from the S1R and the SL and they are indistinguishable ..... and that's from two different manufacturers and sensors. With the correct default adobe profile in LR this is exactly what you would expect. 

There are many other factors that can result in differences in image quality, but modern high DR and high resolution sensors are way down the list. 

Every new camera results in some complaints about the differences compared to previous models ..... and in the past most of this has proved to be due to Adobe not having the appropriate profile in LR when the camera was released. I'll only pass judgement when I have seen images produced under identical conditions, side by side, processed with the correct profile in LR.