SL2 - first (less talked about) impressions

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Color and skin tones are very T-like.  Firs good light today.  I'll post some in the image thread.

[Tailwagger]

8 hours ago, helged said:

When using the Leica M to SL, or Leica R to SL, the camera recognies the lens, and the focal length is set (assuming the M lens is 6 bit coded, and the R lens has ROM contacts). 

To amplify, when you mount the lens and turn the camera on, it starts in the menu confirming the lens if it's encoded, but gives you an opportunity to tell it what's up, if not.

[thighslapper]

If anyones interested ........ I've put the SL2 DNG's through Adobes DNG converter before importing them into LR and it losslessly compresses them to between 43-58mb .... averaging around 50 or so, still with a medium res embedded jpg. It takes seconds, so it will be a permanent part of my workflow along with conversion of S1R RW2 files to DNG and renumbering. It may help the speed of processing in camera but I cannot see the point of storing gazillions of 86mb raw files when you can shrink them to almost half the size with no penalty. 

Edited November 30, 2019 by thighslapper

[wjdrijfhout]

I have an early M-adapter. At that time they were called M/T adapters (the Leica T camera was the first camera with L-mount...). The exact same adapter is later relabelled M/L adapter. So if you're looking on Ebay for a used one, you can expand your search to include M/T.

Most other adapters won't read the 6-bit code, so no automatic lens selection. But you will always have the option to select the M-lens manually from a list that's in the camera's firmware. Novoflex, a well known high quality adapter maker with close connections to Leica, for example has a LET/LEM adapter, which I believe is less than half the price of the Leica adapter. But it involves manual lens selection.

 

[SrMi]

17 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

If anyones interested ........ I've put the SL2 DNG's through Adobes DNG converter before importing them into LR and it losslessly compresses them to between 43-58mb .... averaging around 50 or so, still with a medium res embedded jpg. It takes seconds, so it will be a permanent part of my workflow along with conversion of S1R RW2 files to DNG and renumbering. It may help the speed of processing in camera but I cannot see the point of storing gazillions of 86mb raw files when you can shrink them to almost half the size with no penalty. 

LR can also compress DNGs in place, no need to run them first through Adobe DNG converter, unless you want to hang onto the originals.

[thighslapper]

On 11/30/2019 at 11:17 PM, SrMi said:

LR can also compress DNGs in place, no need to run them first through Adobe DNG converter, unless you want to hang onto the originals.

I keep my files separate from the LR catalogue and also store the uncompressed originals on my NAS ..... just in case

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am seduced by the quality of the images in the SL2 image thread. This may be because the first users happen to be excellent photographers, and are exploiting the Summicron-SL lenses, but even allowing for the limitations of image presentation (compression, resolution) on the LUF they look to have attractive colour gradation and 'depth' (whatever that might mean). I'd like to hear from those who have plenty of experience with the SL and S1R about their feelings on how they compare: do you prefer the colours and general 'look' of SL2  to the others, or do you feel that all three, in ideal circumstances of reasonable light and similar subject matter, produce results that are indistinguishable (except, in the case of the SL, at big enlargement or cropping)?

Are you also seduced by the SL2 images? It's subjective opinions I want - there are a number of members here whose judgement I value!

Edited December 5, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[Chaemono]

The SL2, S1R, α7 III/IV „in ideal circumstances of reasonable light and similar subject matter, produce results that are indistinguishable.” 

The SL2 is a dream to use and shoot, though.  First, it’s smaller and more compact than the Lumix bodies but feels more solid than the Sony bodies.  Second, Pre-Focus is amazing and has afforded the camera with the SL primes the fastest and most precise single point focus I’ve seen.  Third, with that EVF and the Maestro III processor, looking through the viewfinder and holding down the shutter in Single Drive mode, you can “[...] see something happening and [...] bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else – [...].” 😁 

With the SL Summicrons, the SL2 feels like a modern age M, IMO.

[Agent M10]

3 hours ago, Chaemono said:

With the SL Summicrons, the SL2 feels like a modern age M, IMO.

I'm keeping one M and the 50mm APO, but everything else is going to the SL2 and primes.

[jplomley]

Provided I can get a 35 SL with the SL2, I will be trading in one of my M10’s. As the wide angle Summicrons become available, I will flip my 16-35 SVE for a 21 and 28 APO SL. Corner performance of the 16-35 below 21mm leaves much to be desired IMHO. 

[johnbuckley]

1. Thank you wjdrijfhout for posting this thread.

2.  Thank you to digitalfx for explaining what happens with the WB adjustment. I had wondered what was happening. It's a little slow to adjust to the new WB, which brings up another point: some things about the SL2 -- for example, when you press the Play button -- take a beat to kick in. Other things are super fast, but it does seem like, when instructed to do something new, the processor thinks about it.

3. In re: straps, yes the supplied strap does allow the camera to hang straight against the body. However -- and here's a plug -- the Harry Benz approach, first used for the SL, works perfectly on the SL2. I can't describe it perfectly except to say that where the strip of leather that goes through the strap lugs is affixed to the main strap, it operates as a hinge, thus keeping the camera always at the right angle. I used the Harry Benz Brogue on the SL1 but ordered and received a beautiful LSD strap. It's a trip.

4. I have noticed a couple of WB quirks to watch out for in post-processing. First, greys can become blues if you dial up Vibrance or Saturation. Second, Caucasian skin tones seem to become slightly redder in low light. All cameras seem to have slightly different native color scales, or perhaps different interactions with Lightroom and other software -- remember how the M(240) had wilder reds -- which you just have to factor into your workflow. I don't consider this a problem, just an aspect of the SL2's character.

 

[Jeff S]

15 minutes ago, johnbuckley said:

3. In re: straps, yes the supplied strap does allow the camera to hang straight against the body. 

 

 

By straight against the body, do you mean with lens pointing down and hugging body, or with lens sticking out away from body?

Jeff

[johnbuckley]

Jeff, with Harry's straps, you can do either. If you want it hanging straight down, you can just point it down. If you want it protruding out, it will do that (hanging forward just a little.) I find it ingenious, and helpful.

 

EDIT - with the SUPPLIED STRAP, the back of the camera can be against the body, leaning forward a bit. You can't really have the lens pointed downward, except quite awkwardly. (Sorry, I misread my own sentence you quoted and thought you were asking about Harry Benz's strap.)

Edited December 5, 2019 by johnbuckley

[Jeff S]

Thanks, John.  I’ll try the stock strap, but if it doesn’t suit, I’ll check out the Benz.  With M bodies and tiny lenses, there is no concern walking around with lens protruding.  But with an SL/SL2 and big lens, e.g., 24-90, I’d be concerned with the front glass element sticking out there (as I don’t plan to use hood or filter when off tripod).  The SL 75 Summicron, which is my first native lens, is smaller and has a somewhat recessed front element, so less of an issue.  

Jeff

Edited December 5, 2019 by Jeff S

[Chaemono]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

[...] also store the uncompressed originals on my NAS ..... just in case

Why?  It seems redundant.  “...lossless compression means that a RAW file is compressed like an archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, similar to what happens to archived data contained in a ZIP file.“

 https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-compressed-raw

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Why?  It seems redundant.  “...lossless compression means that a RAW file is compressed like an archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, similar to what happens to archived data contained in a ZIP file.“

 https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-compressed-raw

I am not sure that I would keep the originals, but the following could be reasons:

- Due to software or hardware issues, the compressed file could be damaged.

- You have to provide the original, unmodified raw file, to someone.

I personally do not bother with compressing Leica's DNG files.

 

[thighslapper]

22 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Why?  It seems redundant.  “...lossless compression means that a RAW file is compressed like an archive file without any loss of data. Once a losslessly compressed image is processed by post-processing software, the data is first decompressed, similar to what happens to archived data contained in a ZIP file.“

 https://photographylife.com/compressed-vs-uncompressed-vs-lossless-compressed-raw

Isn't all back up 'redundant' ?  

ps ..... I've just been reading some photo competition rules and they often require the original RAW files once shortlisted ..... and they are particularly picky about DNG's ..... you have to prove they are the original camera output as they are a source of 'cheating', so any tinkering with the originals, even innocent compression may be viewed as suspicious manipulation.

pps. I have been astonished by the restrictions in some competitions with regard to what is 'acceptable' ...... one states that even exposure changes greater than 1 stop up or down and changes of other parameters >10% is not allowed. So basically if you take a single image exposed for the highlights and bring up the shadows you are in breach of the rules...... but in the next breath they say HDR is allowed. And as for cloning out the odd stray blade of grass .... forget it. I'm all for avoiding genuine 'fakery' and over processing .... but some of the restrictions are just bizarre.

Edited December 5, 2019 by thighslapper

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

I am not sure that I would keep the originals, but the following could be reasons:

- Due to software or hardware issues, the compressed file could be damaged.

- You have to provide the original, unmodified raw file, to someone.

I personally do not bother with compressing Leica's DNG files.

 

Thanks. Neither do I.  ‘Lossless compression’ sounds like a contradiction in terms to me and I want to understand exactly what is going on when an image is compressed. How can it then be decompressed?

vor 2 Minuten schrieb thighslapper:

Isn't all back up 'redundant' ?  

I back up my laptop just in case it fails or breaks.  Keeping another set of RAW files, original sieze, in addition to backing up one’s laptop or computer drive sounds like you’re not 100 percent certain that the compression of the files is lossless after all. 

[thighslapper]

4 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Thanks. Neither do I.  ‘Lossless compression’ sounds like a contradiction in terms to me and I want to understand exactly what is going on when an image is compressed. How can it then be decompressed?

I back up my laptop just in case it fails or breaks.  Keeping another set of RAW files, original sieze, in addition to backing up one’s laptop or computer drive sounds like you’re not 100 percent certain that the compression of the files is lossless after all. 

I've become rather paranoid after I started transferring my ever increasing photo catalogue to a large capacity NAS. I discovered a significant proportion of images were corrupted ..... all of which seems to have occurred over a 6 month period last year and is fairly random in distribution but appears to have affected images that I have accessed the most often ..... which basically are my best photos. There are bits missing and often a big red stripe down the middle. Quite how this can happen by just accessing the photos beats me, but was obviously a HDD issue and aggravated by Time Machine overwriting my back-ups with corrupted data. I finally managed to salvage a complete set of uncorrupted files by amalgamating multiple old copies on various drives going back to 1999 and images I'd downloaded onto my iPad during 2018. Now I've got copies and backups stored all over the place, including the cloud, solid state, HDD and several old computers scattered over various sites and countries. These days I make multiple copies, never delete originals and don't rely on entirely automated back up solutions. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

30 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Thanks. Neither do I.  ‘Lossless compression’ sounds like a contradiction in terms to me and I want to understand exactly what is going on when an image is compressed. How can it then be decompressed?

I back up my laptop just in case it fails or breaks.  Keeping another set of RAW files, original sieze, in addition to backing up one’s laptop or computer drive sounds like you’re not 100 percent certain that the compression of the files is lossless after all. 

If available, I do use in-camera lossless compression.

About "lossless compression": when you download a program on your computer, it is typically downloaded in a lossless compressed format, e.g., ZIP. Decompressing it results in identical, uncompressed code that can execute correctly. The mathematics behind compression can be quite complex, information about it is available on the Web.