SL vs CL image quality

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I own both so I should know myself but I am interested to discuss and hear experience from others.

What do you think SL vs CL (or vs m43)  IQ?

My feeling while the CL is very good the Sl with a little bigger sensor and the SL lenses also being even slightly better there is some difference in "depth" and contrast and also bokeh of the images. On the other side I have shot some images with TL/CL where I was totally fine with the image quality. 

Whats you experience?

[Chaemono]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb tom0511:

I own both so I should know myself but I am interested to discuss and hear experience from others.

What do you think SL vs CL (or vs m43)  IQ?

My feeling while the CL is very good the Sl with a little bigger sensor and the SL lenses also being even slightly better there is some difference in "depth" and contrast and also bokeh of the images. On the other side I have shot some images with TL/CL where I was totally fine with the image quality. 

Whats you experience?

It’s not a fair comparison because that SL sensor captures very clean Highlights at close to base ISO. Try the 75 Summicron-SL on both cameras and photograph a light source like a chandelier, for example, in low light. Frame the pictures similarly. You’ll see how clean the Highlights look in the SL picture.

[tom0511]

I shot some comparisons today with CL+11-23 and 35/1.4 vs SL+16-35 and 50/2.0

The result from this unscientific test:

-The 11-23 is very good but the 16-35 beats it at least around f4.0 in the corners

-at CL and 11-23 wide open vs SL+16-35 at 35 wide open you see a slight "bokeh" advantage because the DOF is a little shallower

-CL +35/1.4 wide open is surprisingly good vs the APO 50 Cron on the SL; I do like the FOV of the TL 35mm;

-overall the SL images seem to render a little deeper and a little more 3d-looking images and maybe slightly better color separation, even though the CL combo does really good

-the cl AF was slightly off occasionally, while the SL nailed it allways.

with the cl I think it is  more important to nail exposure in the first step, with the SL there is a little more room to correct later.

 

[Mr.Q]

On 9/27/2019 at 10:31 PM, tom0511 said:

I own both so I should know myself but I am interested to discuss and hear experience from others.

What do you think SL vs CL (or vs m43)  IQ?

My feeling while the CL is very good the Sl with a little bigger sensor and the SL lenses also being even slightly better there is some difference in "depth" and contrast and also bokeh of the images. On the other side I have shot some images with TL/CL where I was totally fine with the image quality. 

Whats you experience?

In terms of sharpness you'd be hard-pressed to distinguish m43 images to even medium format images, under good lighting. The biggest difference lies in color depth, tonality and dynamic range. Basically images from the smaller sensors will look "flatter" than the bigger sensors at base ISO, and the gap widens as you ramp up the ISO where the bigger sensors will have a significant advantage in midtone SNR.

[lanetomlane]

I have both the SL and CL with their various lenses, but to me the SL, produces a much more pleasing image.

[ropo54]

1 hour ago, lanetomlane said:

I have both the SL and CL with their various lenses, but to me the SL, produces a much more pleasing image.

+1

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the CL and Q. The SL images I see here are to my eyes superior to the CL. And I tend to prefer them to the Q as well, but, of course, the Q has only an outstanding 28mm and the SL has incredible L mount lenses available. 

But  of course, the weight of the lenses. The TL 11-23 is 1.5 lbs lighter than the L 16-35. But if the SL2 is smaller than the SL, I may still figure out a way to rationalize getting it.

Edited October 2, 2019 by bags27

[DirkS]

Ask this question in the SL-thread and the people will prefer the SL.

Ask this question in the CL-thread and the people will prefer the CL.

 

[bags27]

16 minutes ago, DirkS said:

Ask this question in the SL-thread and the people will prefer the SL.

Ask this question in the CL-thread and the people will prefer the CL.

 

Just to be clear: on the CL thread (where I sit, too), many will say they don't see a difference in IQ or at least not one sufficient to justify the extra weight or price. But I doubt any CL owner will claim that the IQ of the CL is superior to that of the SL, whereas many here will prefer the IQ of the SL, as witnessed by the OP and a number of other posters here. And that is likely to be a greater difference with the SL2 while the CL still has a few years before it is refreshed (if ever).

Edited October 2, 2019 by bags27

[jaapv]

One needs to look at a camera system as a whole. Balancing the (minor) difference in image quality against the considerable difference in bulk, weight and price, the scales will tip to the CL for many users.

There is obviously a difference in IQ to the SL/SL2, but seeing it on a 100% screen magnification does not mean that there is a significant impact on the images that one produces. If that were the case, nobody would be shooting 135 film or full-frame sensors. Medium format is far more superior  to smaller formats than the difference between FF and APS.

It is all about finding the right balance between all aspects.

[frame-it]

On 9/29/2019 at 2:31 AM, Mr.Q said:

In terms of sharpness you'd be hard-pressed to distinguish m43 images to even medium format images, under good lighting.

at what print size ? MF resized to the m43 size ? or vice versa

[jaapv]

MFT will render excellent prints at least up to A3+. I am looking at a few right now. 

[frame-it]

34 minutes ago, jaapv said:

MFT will render excellent prints at least up to A3+. I am looking at a few right now. 

sure, but a 645 MF image printed on A3 would have more details, as compared to an m4/3 image of the same scene printed on A3

Edited October 3, 2019 by frame-it

[jaapv]

Not more - the details will be limited by the print(er). 20 MP is well within the limits of 280 DPI. You could make a case for marginally better details, but only very few would be able to see it.

[thighslapper]

I have used the CL and SL interchangeably for landscape photos and the images are almost indistinguishable till you get to low light situations or deep shadows where processing requires recovering shadow detail. Mine are jumbled up in my LR catalogue and 90% of the time I could not reliably tell you which is which without looking at the EXIF data.

However, if the images require significant processing then the superiority of the SL RAW files becomes quickly apparent. 

Edited October 3, 2019 by thighslapper

[colonel]

On 9/27/2019 at 2:31 PM, tom0511 said:

I own both so I should know myself but I am interested to discuss and hear experience from others.

What do you think SL vs CL (or vs m43)  IQ?

My feeling while the CL is very good the Sl with a little bigger sensor and the SL lenses also being even slightly better there is some difference in "depth" and contrast and also bokeh of the images. On the other side I have shot some images with TL/CL where I was totally fine with the image quality. 

Whats you experience?

The CL is really excellent IQ

The SL is better in every way, some ways are more marginal though. The point above about the extra bandwidth in raw is well taken.

There is also something about larger sensors outside the droll specs which just produce photos that are nicer to look at. The picture somehow breathes more, maybe it’s acuity, I don’t know, but the SL pictures have more of everything, especially pop - that pseudo science thing . In some pictures you can’t see it, but in others it’s quite pronounced IMHO.

 

Edited October 4, 2019 by colonel

[PeterGA]

I use the cameras interchangeably - in conjunction they double the utility of  L mount lenses - the 90-280 on the CL was worth the investment in a CL body to me - for the extra reach.

[scroy]

I have and use both. SL is a bit better in terms of IQ, CL kit is much lighter.  CL is nice for bit extra reach, same with Peter, I use the 90-280 on the CL from time to time.

For Daylight shots, its hard to distinguish between the two, but when lighting conditions are more challenging the SL shines.