Comparison Request: SL2 vs. M10 using the same M Lens

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 24.11.2019 um 11:36 schrieb aokajiya:

[...]

, and found the photos with the m10 to often have more of a 3D pop, particularly in color, and was wondering how the SL2 images "felt" compared to similar shots from the m10. This is entirely a feels comparison,

[...]

Depending on the RAW converter one uses and the color profile one selects, a "a feels comparison" will yield more 3D pop, particularly in color, for the M10 or the SL2, and vice versa.

Am 24.11.2019 um 11:36 schrieb aokajiya:

[...]

Bonus points for using a 35 lux or 50 cron apo, which are my most-used lenses. Many thanks in advance.

[...]

How many bonus points and can they be exchanged for a lens at one of the forum dealers? 😂

Edited December 28, 2019 by Chaemono

[Advertisement]

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

[scott kirkpatrick]

1 hour ago, otto.f said:

I found actually that one better for the M10 than C1’s M10 profile

That's especially true for the M10-D.  C1 couldn't be bothered to create a different profile, but it is a bit different.

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Pictures from each camera can be made to look indistinguishable by moving LR tones, contrast, and Calibration sliders.

Only up-to a point. There is a lot of discussion on cinema forums about how cameras respond differently to LED lighting, and how they can not be matched precisely, even with the controls available in a high-end colouring suite. Things are easier with sunlight and full-spectrum artificial light (tungsten), but it's still very tricky to match skin tones and other elements within the same shot.

That's not a huge concern for stills photographers, but it can cause headaches when editing a scene that was shot with multiple cameras. You generally don't want the feel of a shot to change on every cut, unless you are going for a subjective/POV style. Red even offers different sensor filter stacks that can't be matched in post. One of the explanations for this is that they let-in different amounts of infrared light, which can radically change the look of human skin.

[thighslapper]

I'm sorry, but I find all this comparison of essentially UNPROCESSED raw files rather pointless.

RAW is basically the raw ingredients from which you can bake what you want depending on the recipe. LR, C1, Luminar, DXO etc. all use different recipes so it's not surprising the default images are different.

What matters is the processed end result ...... and from what I can see almost every camera with a similar resolution and type of sensor, using the same lens, CAN essentially produce an identical image if processed carefully with the correct profile within the same processing software.  

The fact that the RAW files may appear to differ is due to differences in the rendering, not the camera itself. Of course there may be M lenses periphery differences but that is essentially a lens compatibility issue. You are never looking at unfiltered raw data. 

A true comparison in my book would be images processed optimally to maximum clarity and colour fidelity. Then it would be obvious ...... as has often been pointed out that the lens in front of the camera and the idiot behind the viewfinder are the main components in image differences and quality. 

[caissa]

Sorry, what I say is maybe off topic.

What makes these comparisons so terrible is that they are awfully boring and completely artificial. They discuss pictures that are not worth contemplating for longer than a split second. They are hopelessly awful and not interesting anybody.

I look at pics because they show a subject that is attractive and shown in a remarkable way. (Even ugliness can be attractive.)

These comparisons are therefore not worth the time.

Technical comparisons should be left to measurement equipment.

See the warning at the top. Can be removed, if found too negative. (No offense intended.)