Can the new SL compete or even sostitute in some fields the S?

[Vip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The new SL2 has new features that are so advanced that was only dreamed before. Do you think that in some fields can aim to compete with the S for some benefits that can offer?

[Stuart Richardson]

Realistically, yes. Completely? No. The biggest difference between them will still be the optical viewfinder and the format difference. S lenses are longer for the given field of view, so they have a different look. They also give you an option for flash sync up to 1/1000th if you buy the CS lenses. They also have a different rendering. I met a Leica representative at the Paris launch and we were discussing it, and he felt that the S lenses required fewer aspherical elements and optical gymnastics to reach their performance level, and those techniques can tend to make the bokeh look a bit different. He felt that the S lenses, while perhaps not as strong in the MTF, have a look that many prefer. I am leaving out his name, as I do not want to put words in his mouth, but that was the general impression. He was in no way disparaging the SL lenses, which he indicated were the sharpest they ever made. But the rendering is different. 

I think the interface and handling are also different, and to my own taste, better on the S. The SL2 looked good, but it is more menu driven than the S cameras, and it has ditched the 4 button system in favor of a layout similar to the smaller cameras. I think the S3, cost aside, will still be the best camera for studio work and fine art/landscape work. But the SL will still be fantastic for that work as well. Based on my experience with pixel shifting tech, I do not think it is as effective as marketed. In the S1 there are definitely artefacts that result from the blending of frames (and I am not talking about artefacts from motion, which also occur), and it is not as sharp as a true single shot version from a sensor of that resolution. It stands to reason, however, that the SL2 in pixel shifting mode will outresolve the S3, but only in circumstances where everything is stock still, and at the risk of pixel level anomalies from the stitching algorithm. I think I am extremely picky about these since a lot of my past work has been in huge prints or extreme crops, which is where these errors show up. That said, if that is not your intention, there is no reason to use a pixel shifted image...47mp is already more than enough for any print less than a meter long.  

[Advertisement]

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

[helged]

44 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Realistically, yes. Completely? No. The biggest difference between them will still be the optical viewfinder and the format difference. S lenses are longer for the given field of view, so they have a different look. They also give you an option for flash sync up to 1/1000th if you buy the CS lenses. They also have a different rendering. I met a Leica representative at the Paris launch and we were discussing it, and he felt that the S lenses required fewer aspherical elements and optical gymnastics to reach their performance level, and those techniques can tend to make the bokeh look a bit different. He felt that the S lenses, while perhaps not as strong in the MTF, have a look that many prefer. I am leaving out his name, as I do not want to put words in his mouth, but that was the general impression. He was in no way disparaging the SL lenses, which he indicated were the sharpest they ever made. But the rendering is different. 

I think the interface and handling are also different, and to my own taste, better on the S. The SL2 looked good, but it is more menu driven than the S cameras, and it has ditched the 4 button system in favor of a layout similar to the smaller cameras. I think the S3, cost aside, will still be the best camera for studio work and fine art/landscape work. But the SL will still be fantastic for that work as well. Based on my experience with pixel shifting tech, I do not think it is as effective as marketed. In the S1 there are definitely artefacts that result from the blending of frames (and I am not talking about artefacts from motion, which also occur), and it is not as sharp as a true single shot version from a sensor of that resolution. It stands to reason, however, that the SL2 in pixel shifting mode will outresolve the S3, but only in circumstances where everything is stock still, and at the risk of pixel level anomalies from the stitching algorithm. I think I am extremely picky about these since a lot of my past work has been in huge prints or extreme crops, which is where these errors show up. That said, if that is not your intention, there is no reason to use a pixel shifted image...47mp is already more than enough for any print less than a meter long.  

+1.Having some experience with both S and SL lenses, I agree that there is something special to the S. If you start with the optically super-fantastic SL lenses, and mix in a little Mandeler magic (say the mystical 75mm Lux-M or 80mm Lux-R rendering), you may end up with an S lens. Very subjective, obviously, but optical perfection is only one of many parameters forming the end product.... 

Edited November 8, 2019 by helged

[John McMaster]

The 16bit files of the S still look better in large prints than 14bit of FF.

john

[Stuart Richardson]

Agreed. The best 50mm I ever used in terms of look was the 50mm E60 Summilux R. It was a modern, but non-aspherical formulation. I am sure that it was not as sharp as the aspherical lenses, but it had absolutely beautiful rendering. I think most of the S lenses do have aspherical elements, but given the lack of any size restrictions and the state of Leica's optical prowess 10 years ago, they came up with lenses that are incredibly balanced...extremely sharp and low in aberrations, while also being exceptionally pleasing of character. I think part of this is from the format as well...being slightly longer than 35mm gives the advantage of less depth of field, but not so much so that it is a struggle to get everything in focus if that is the composition you are after...

[Vip]

Very effective explanation. 
thank you

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Realistically, yes. Completely? No. The biggest difference between them will still be the optical viewfinder and the format difference. S lenses are longer for the given field of view, so they have a different look. They also give you an option for flash sync up to 1/1000th if you buy the CS lenses. They also have a different rendering. I met a Leica representative at the Paris launch and we were discussing it, and he felt that the S lenses required fewer aspherical elements and optical gymnastics to reach their performance level, and those techniques can tend to make the bokeh look a bit different. He felt that the S lenses, while perhaps not as strong in the MTF, have a look that many prefer. I am leaving out his name, as I do not want to put words in his mouth, but that was the general impression. He was in no way disparaging the SL lenses, which he indicated were the sharpest they ever made. But the rendering is different. 

 

Toni Felsner, the S system Product Manager, also explained (in a video interview with Hugh Brownstone) that S lenses, unlike those developed for mirrorless systems, must be well corrected for certain distortions (without benefit of in-camera software), as the OVF reveals any issues. This suggests that S lenses, other system and lens differences aside, must be extremely well corrected at the build stage, even more so than SL counterparts.

Jeff

[BernardC]

I think we should also mention the general use cases where a smaller format will almost always be preferable to a larger one:

• Long lens work. Granted, the S doesn't have any native lenses beyond the 180, but you can adapt many Hasselblad/Mamiya/Pentax/astro lenses. There's really no point in doing that, a theoretical 450/4.0 on an S wouldn't be significantly better than a 300/2.8 on 35mm.
• Macro/microphotography. Filling a larger frame requires much more magnification, which leads to diminishing returns. For instance, a picture of a 24mm object requires 1.5x magnification on the S, 1x on 35mm, and 0.7x on APS, with a much deeper f-stop (and more light) to get the same depth of field. 35mm is usually the sweet spot in that equation, partly because of convenience, and partly because of equipment availability (the two are related, of course).
• Low-light hand-held work. The S lenses are very fast for medium format, but they can't compete with Summiluxes and Noctiluxes in near-darkness.

[ZHNL]

I think i can safely say SL2 will compete well with S007 for pixel and DR. Then, there is 64M S3 coming, IQ comparison wise, it would be very similar to SL1 and S007 again. 
 

however, TBH, S’s selling point was never pixels counts, at least for past 5 years, but SLR form with OVF, and file rendering which include lens rendering and 16 bit file. 
 

S glasses do have look that most FF offers missing. As much as I like 50APO m which was credited to have MF look, I prefer 70mm on S, though at much bigger size.
 

It was a relaxed feel, smoother rendering, gentle transition make S shine. 

[Jeff S]

The S3 is also said to have a new color array, including an improved red channel. Plus, larger sensors often support better tonal transitions.  These attributes might distinguish the S3 from the SL2, particularly at larger print sizes.  As always, however, the most important tools reside between the ears... the user is often key... otherwise common gear would produce common results.

Jeff

[mmx_2]

15 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Toni Felsner, the S system Product Manager, also explained (in a video interview with Hugh Brownstone) that S lenses, unlike those developed for mirrorless systems, must be well corrected for certain distortions (without benefit of in-camera software), as the OVF reveals any issues. This suggests that S lenses, other system and lens differences aside, must be extremely well corrected at the build stage, even more so than SL counterparts.

Jeff

This, ironically also suggests that these lenses would actually be really great on film:). Don’t see that coming though😂😂

[mmx_2]

15 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Toni Felsner, the S system Product Manager, also explained (in a video interview with Hugh Brownstone) that S lenses, unlike those developed for mirrorless systems, must be well corrected for certain distortions (without benefit of in-camera software), as the OVF reveals any issues. This suggests that S lenses, other system and lens differences aside, must be extremely well corrected at the build stage, even more so than SL counterparts.

Jeff

This, ironically also suggests that these lenses would actually be really great on film:). Don’t see that coming though😂😂

[chrismuc]

SL2 has a latest generation 47 MP high DR sensor, a high res/high refresh rate EVF, IBIS, hundreds of AF points all over the sensor area, a (to be predicted) very reliable AF.

Current S has less MP than SL2, next generation S just slightly more than SL2, yes an excellent OVF, but no IBIS, one single AF point, no AF microadjusttment, an outdated AF reliable AF reliability.

The latest L prime lenses are outstanding, if you see the MTF at open aparture across the image circle, really a generation ahead of the S lenses.

So ... IMO that leaves not much market space for the next S camera body and the S system in general (plus facing the serious competition of the GFX100 in medium format territory).

Of course a Leica sales rep will tell you something different to keep the S alive (that's his job) ... pointing out the esoteric 'special rendition' of the S lenses, but in scientific AB comparison, IMO the SL2 will be a match, also for large prints.

As mentioned before, IMO the next gen. S is mainly interesting for current S owners but will hardly convince new users to invest in the Leica S ecosystem.

The SL2 on the other hand is such a huge step ahead from the SL plus the L prime lenses are top notch and that combo can provide an MF look image quality.

[John McMaster]

Have you used an S?  There is more to end results than just sharpness (look at Lloyd Chambers 😉) and sensor size has an effect as well...

john

[ZHNL]

7 hours ago, chrismuc said:

SL2 has a latest generation 47 MP high DR sensor, a high res/high refresh rate EVF, IBIS, hundreds of AF points all over the sensor area, a (to be predicted) very reliable AF.

Current S has less MP than SL2, next generation S just slightly more than SL2, yes an excellent OVF, but no IBIS, one single AF point, no AF microadjusttment, an outdated AF reliable AF reliability.

The latest L prime lenses are outstanding, if you see the MTF at open aparture across the image circle, really a generation ahead of the S lenses.

So ... IMO that leaves not much market space for the next S camera body and the S system in general (plus facing the serious competition of the GFX100 in medium format territory).

Of course a Leica sales rep will tell you something different to keep the S alive (that's his job) ... pointing out the esoteric 'special rendition' of the S lenses, but in scientific AB comparison, IMO the SL2 will be a match, also for large prints.

As mentioned before, IMO the next gen. S is mainly interesting for current S owners but will hardly convince new users to invest in the Leica S ecosystem.

The SL2 on the other hand is such a huge step ahead from the SL plus the L prime lenses are top notch and that combo can provide an MF look image quality.

Use this logic, maybe buy A7r4 with a few superb E Mount lenses such as 135gm, Voigtlander 50apo, 65Apo and 110 APO make more sense. 

it has more focus point, more pixels,  better AF, smaller size, cheaper price, sounds great, right? Do you see something wrong in logic?
 

obviously, S is not for you. 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by ZHNL

[Vip]

8 minutes ago, ZHNL said:obviously, S is not for you. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Vip
Mistakes in coping

[Vip]

obviously, S is not for you

This is a gratuitous comment and completely unkind. My tread was intended to ask opinion to friends in a forum not killing any camera or judging other photographers choices

[ZHNL]

18 minutes ago, Vip said:

obviously, S is not for you

This is a gratuitous comment and completely unkind. My tread was intended to ask opinion to friends in a forum not killing any camera or judging other photographers choices

???

[John McMaster]

26 minutes ago, Vip said:

obviously, S is not for you

This is a gratuitous comment and completely unkind. My tread was intended to ask opinion to friends in a forum not killing any camera or judging other photographers choices

The comment was not aimed at you, it was a valid question for someone who has not used the S, rather than chrismuc...

john

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ZHNL]

2 hours ago, Vip said:

obviously, S is not for you

This is a gratuitous comment and completely unkind. My tread was intended to ask opinion to friends in a forum not killing any camera or judging other photographers choices

I stand behind my comment. It is A true statement based on that reply.
 

Nothing personal. Seriously, if you feel the reply echo your personal opinion, go for SL2. 
 

i did preorder SL2 myself, but I know what I will get and what the difference is. 

Edited November 9, 2019 by ZHNL