Would you now buy an SL for $3500 or an SL2 for $6000?

[frame-it]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

As a portable medium format camera, it offers a lot of things quite nicely - lens compatibility, super new lenses, big files that can get even bigger, stabilization.

how is it a medium format camera ?

[geoffreyg]

15 hours ago, frame-it said:

how is it a medium format camera ?

My statement was a bit sloppy, sorry. I was thinking that 47mb, plus the hi-rez mode gets it up into "medium format" size and quality. Of course, the sensor size is still FF (35mm), so technically speaking, its not.

But the idea, and its a personal one, was that  this size of file, the camera and its excellent lenses, is competing with medium format digital backs. I have the  same feeling about the MM - while  of course an M and FF size also, but the quality of its files are (in BW) practically equivalent to medium format digital backs. I wouldn't say the same about the other Ms, and of course, this is not a widely accepted comparison - YMMV. Hope this makes some small amount of sense...informally speaking of course. 

[m9photo]

@Raid Amin have you decided yet? 

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb geoffreyg:

My statement was a bit sloppy, sorry. I was thinking that 47mb, plus the hi-rez mode gets it up into "medium format" size and quality. Of course, the sensor size is still FF (35mm), so technically speaking, its not.

But the idea, and its a personal one, was that  this size of file, the camera and its excellent lenses, is competing with medium format digital backs. I have the  same feeling about the MM - while  of course an M and FF size also, but the quality of its files are (in BW) practically equivalent to medium format digital backs. I wouldn't say the same about the other Ms, and of course, this is not a widely accepted comparison - YMMV. Hope this makes some small amount of sense...informally speaking of course. 

I disagree formerly, but not informally. 

[Raid Amin]

3 hours ago, m9photo said:

@Raid Amin have you decided yet? 

I may use my set aside money to buy lenses and not a new body. Maybe. 

[tom0511]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb Donzo98:

Still much better at HIGH ISO... no question. 

at what ISO and what means much better for you? 1 stop difference? I found the SL better at high ISO than the S1r but on the other side I also find with ibis and some fast lenses I can use ISO 1600 and lower for 90% of my images, IMO high ISO difference

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, Donzo98 said:

Still much better at HIGH ISO... no question. 

What do you base that statement on? Looking at DPReview Studio Scene, there does not seem to be much difference. If it is true that  ISO 6400 on the S1 is ISO 3200 on SL, then SL has less noise at high ISO than S1.

[Donzo98]

4 minutes ago, SrMi said:

What do you base that statement on? Looking at DPReview Studio Scene, there does not seem to be much difference. If it is true that  ISO 6400 on the S1 is ISO 3200 on SL, then SL has less noise at high ISO than S1.

Look up Steve Huff’s HIGH ISO comparison between the SL and S1.

i had an SL, S1R... and now have an S1. That’s what I base it on.

 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Donzo98 said:

Look up Steve Huff’s HIGH ISO comparison between the SL and S1.

i had an SL, S1R... and now have an S1. That’s what I base it on.

 

Thank you for the reply. Steve Huff may have compared the JPG output, I was thinking of RAW files. DPReview allows downloading files for both cameras (same scene). That way everybody can decide if the difference matters.

[Donzo98]

53 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Thank you for the reply. Steve Huff may have compared the JPG output, I was thinking of RAW files. DPReview allows downloading files for both cameras (same scene). That way everybody can decide if the difference matters.

Why do you think it’s not true?? I only shoot RAW... the S1 is the best of the bunch. You may not need anything above 3200... but if you do the S1 is best.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Donzo98

[Tailwagger]

Personally I've been very surprised by the  higher ISO performance of the SL2. 1600 is very clean, clean enough that I've found little reason to apply additional NR in post. 

[Donzo98]

2 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Personally I've been very surprised by the  higher ISO performance of the SL2. 1600 is very clean, clean enough that I've found little reason to apply additional NR in post. 

I agree... for a 47mp camera... the high ISO performance is great. 

[frame-it]

9 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

My statement was a bit sloppy, sorry. I was thinking that 47mb, plus the hi-rez mode gets it up into "medium format" size and quality. Of course, the sensor size is still FF (35mm), so technically speaking, its not.

But the idea, and its a personal one, was that  this size of file, the camera and its excellent lenses, is competing with medium format digital backs. I have the  same feeling about the MM - while  of course an M and FF size also, but the quality of its files are (in BW) practically equivalent to medium format digital backs. I wouldn't say the same about the other Ms, and of course, this is not a widely accepted comparison - YMMV. Hope this makes some small amount of sense...informally speaking of course. 

perhaps but not really..i had the 5DSR 51MP FF when it was released..its files were gorgeous, but nowhere near my GFX50r

[SrMi]

44 minutes ago, Donzo98 said:

Why do you think it’s not true?? I only shoot RAW... the S1 is the best of the bunch. You may not need anything above 3200... but if you do the S1 is best.

When you look at 'calibrated' test files from DPReview, the difference does not look significant. Do you agree? I understand your experience with S1 and SL produced different results.

[Donzo98]

20 minutes ago, SrMi said:

When you look at 'calibrated' test files from DPReview, the difference does not look significant. Do you agree? I understand your experience with S1 and SL produced different results.

Can you provide that link?? I would like to see it...

 

[Mr.Q]

45 minutes ago, frame-it said:

perhaps but not really..i had the 5DSR 51MP FF when it was released..its files were gorgeous, but nowhere near my GFX50r

The idea that the SL-Summicrons somehow replicate a medium format look is quite silly, really. If that's true you could slap on those Summicron's onto an APS-C camera and get a compact FF camera.  Another problem with such argument is that it fails to acknowledge that modern medium format (XCD and GF) lenses are astonishingly good as well. They are just as good as the SL lenses, just different in rendering.

[Donzo98]

Here is the link to Huff's test...I think it's tough to dispute those images.

I love Leica too... but I'm not blinded by the brand. Sometimes you just have to admit things are better.

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2019/04/06/the-panasonic-s1-vs-leica-sl-high-iso-test/

Edited December 5, 2019 by Donzo98

[PeterGA]

How much does one value IBIS and a doubling of megapixels - that is what it boils down in any comparison- everything else is relatively minor as far as this SL2 V SL conversation goes. As soon as one thinks about 50MP or higher - the discussion goes on to what others have alluded to above - the depth of the image,  an outcome of the larger chip size. Depending on subject matter - this may or may not be a relevant considerations for many - however people DO make comparisons between 35mm chip size and larger chip sizes for their use and it is no accident that I read many people on here owning and using both 35mm cameras and a Hasselblad or Fuji MF  set-ups.

The OP question is like all such questions - subject to qualifications about intended use and expectation.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Donzo98 said:

Can you provide that link?? I would like to see it...

 

Here is the link to the studio shot comparison: https://bit.ly/365KRUl

Every DPReview's review has one of those studio scene shots added. Sometimes they use inferior lenses, sometimes they do not focus properly, but it still can be useful as it is one of the more serious comparisons out there.

The link above leads to the comparison of four cameras that I deemed interesting for this discussion (S1, SL, S1R, Z6) and has "Comp" selected (down-sizes S1R image to 24 Mp). The link to download the RAW/JPG files is there as well.

Enjoy.

 

Edited December 5, 2019 by SrMi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Donzo98]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Here is the link to the studio shot comparison: https://bit.ly/365KRUl

Every DPReview's review has one of those studio scene shots added. Sometimes they use inferior lenses, sometimes they do not focus properly, but it still can be useful as it is one of the more serious comparisons out there.

The link above leads to the comparison of four cameras that I deemed interesting for this discussion (S1, SL, S1R, Z6) and has "Comp" selected (down-sizes S1R image to 24 Mp). The link to download the RAW/JPG files is there as well.

Enjoy.

 

Thanks for the link ... but I think that looking at those RAW images... the S1 is definitely cleaner than the SL... and of course the S1R. (The low light images especially) The Z6 looks surprisingly good. I’m an an SL glass user though.