PhotonsToPhotos: Leica SL2 sensor measurements

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those who are interested, Bill has added Leica SL2's data to his site. The graph is very similar to Q2's graph. Here is the comparison of SL2, Q2 and S1R:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica Q2,Leica SL2,Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Mr.Q]

Looks to be an ideal camera to pair with the Q2, sharing the same battery with identical IQ.

[Chaemono]

At the end of the day, what also matters for all practical purposes is ‘push-ability’ of the files and there the SL2 does great at base ISO.  See here: 

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

For AutoISO users, it shows that you can let 50 be the minimum ISO without having jumps or bends in characteristics of the camera cause the highlights be pushed away.

[Donzo98]

S1 and S1R.... both have higher DR than SL2..

Makes those cameras look even better... especially at their price.

 

 

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Donzo98:

S1 and S1R.... both have higher DR than SL2..

Makes those cameras look even better... especially at their price.

 

 

The S1R has more limited ‘push-ability’ of files than either the SL2 or the S1. That’s why you switched to the S1 in the first place.  The SL2 has more ‘crop-ability’ than the S1 which means that you’re not getting the max out of of your 50 Summicron-SL now that you’ve sold the SL 75.  😂

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

For AutoISO users, it shows that you can let 50 be the minimum ISO without having jumps or bends in characteristics of the camera cause the highlights be pushed away.

But you can’t. Q2 and SL2 do not allowed ISO 50 as base in Auto ISO. Only 100. 
 

However it is quite a disappointment that they behave the same. It means that SL2 will be limited to ISO 12,500 only. 
With Q2 25,000 & 50,000 ISO look very very bad. Worst than CL’s APS-C sensor at the same setting. 
 

So to sum up SL2 vs CL. You lose 1 stop of high ISO against IBIS giving you up to 5 stops for static subject only. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by nicci78

[scott kirkpatrick]

I didn't know that, but I see that you can't set min ISO, only the max ISO.  On the M10, min ISO was moved up in a firmware update because the original value didn't protect highlights.  Looking at the nice straight line in the P2P chart it seemed like that problem wouldn't occur.  Don't have the camera with me at the moment.

 

[nicci78]

Q2 ISO 50 is super weird. It blows highlights.
Metering behave differently because it is not WYSIWYG ! It is so annoying to have to chimp every time I shot at 50.

I just gave up ISO 50 because of that. 

And by the way, it not real 50. Only 64. 
 

I think that Leica knows that something does not add up at 50. So they kept it away of Auto ISO. Same as ISO 100 with the M10. 
 

However you get more DR overall at ISO 50. But more in the shadows and less in the highlights, compare to ISO 100. 

Edited December 15, 2019 by nicci78

[Chaemono]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

However you get more DR overall at ISO 50. But more in the shadows and less in the highlights, compare to ISO 100. 

+1.  ISO 100 in high contrast scenes provides a slightly better overall exposed picture.  It comes with a bit more noise as shadows are lifted, though.  I still prefer it to ISO 50 because the camera captures highlight details more effortlessly this way.

vor 55 Minuten schrieb nicci78:

However it is quite a disappointment that they behave the same. It means that SL2 will be limited to ISO 12,500 only. 
With Q2 25,000 & 50,000 ISO look very very bad. Worst than CL’s APS-C sensor at the same setting. 

‘Push-ability’ of high ISO files is the most disappointing aspect of the SL2, IMO.  Fortunately, this is offset with great ‘push-ability’ at lower ISO and amazing highlight detail capture at ISO 100.  Overall, the SL2 is still very impressive in terms of DR.

[Jon Warwick]

36 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Fortunately, this is offset with great ‘push-ability’ at lower ISO and amazing highlight detail capture at ISO 100.  Overall, the SL2 is still very impressive in terms of DR.

When I tried it in pretty harsh and contrasty winter light, I thought the SL2 handled highlights really well .... certainly far better, and much more naturally, than I feel my M240 ever did. I thought the highlights’ shoulder seemed far more film like on the SL2.

Do you think the S1R handles highlights as well as the SL2?

Edited December 15, 2019 by Jon Warwick

[Donzo98]

3 hours ago, Chaemono said:

The S1R has more limited ‘push-ability’ of files than either the SL2 or the S1. That’s why you switched to the S1 in the first place.  The SL2 has more ‘crop-ability’ than the S1 which means that you’re not getting the max out of of your 50 Summicron-SL now that you’ve sold the SL 75.  😂

I switched to the S1 because of the better HIGH ISO performance compared to the S1R. 

Yup, sold the 75. Felt it was too close the 50 in terms of focal length. 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Donzo98

[Chaemono]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb Jon Warwick:

When I tried it in pretty harsh and contrasty winter light, I thought the SL2 handled highlights really well .... certainly far better, and much more naturally, than I feel my M240 ever did. I thought the highlights’ shoulder seemed far more film like on the SL2.

Do you think the S1R handles highlights as well as the SL2?

Based on a few shots in high contrast scenes I took with S1R and the SL2 side by side, my impression is that both cameras capture highlight details really well at base ISO and details in what look to be blown highlights can be recovered equally with both.  Each camera is impressive at base ISO in this respect.  However, the S1R requires a slightly slower shutter speed to achieve the same result in equally lighted scenes because its sensor has one more layer of glass and/or the SL2 sensor uses different micro-lenses which supposedly capture light more effectively.  See #32 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/303396-leica-sl2-dynamic-range/page/2/#comments

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Donzo98:

I switched to the S1 because of the better HIGH ISO performance compared to the S1R. 

 

Unless you’re shooting in-door sports, this is a moot point with IBIS.  It was really the cleaner pushed files of the S1 that attracted you.  And there I’m telling you that the SL2’s ‘push-ability’ is better than the S1R’s.  See #33 and #34 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/303396-leica-sl2-dynamic-range/page/2/#comments

Make sure you listen to the song in #34, too. 😁

 

[helged]

45 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Based on a few shots in high contrast scenes I took with S1R and the SL2 side by side, my impression is that both cameras capture highlight details really well at base ISO and details in what look to be blown highlights can be recovered equally with both.  Each camera is impressive at base ISO in this respect.  However, the S1R requires a slightly slower shutter speed to achieve the same result in equally lighted scenes because its sensor has one more layer of glass and/or the SL2 sensor uses different micro-lenses which supposedly capture light more effectively.  See #32 here: https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/303396-leica-sl2-dynamic-range/page/2/#comments

Using both S1R and SL2, my impression is that the two systems produce a rather smooth transition from defined highlights to blown-out highlights. Highlights are generally (much) more pleasantly represented by film, but S1R and SL2 are the closest I have seen from digital sensors (based on Leica M, CL, SL and S, and Nikon DSRLs).

Edited December 15, 2019 by helged