SL2 vs. SL feedback

[anonimo_svizzero]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I apologize for what will come across as naive to some - but I do need help from people who have used the SL2. I am a low light/high ISO shooter (at least for a lot of my photos). I use an SL and a Panasonic S1. The SL produces what I consider gorgeous ISO 6400 files, with the right balance of noise and color (again, for my taste); the S1can easily handle ISO 25,600 and has amazing dynamic range, but the color - while very good - is not as "satisfactory" as the SL.  I am wait-listed for an SL2, and will probably have a chance to buy it in the next few weeks. Reading the various threads, I am confused: some indicate that - at high ISO - SL2 noise is much worse than the the SL, others say they see no discernible difference and some that the SL2 has more saturated color/less noise.

May I please ask people who have used both SL and SL2  to give me their view on noise and color at ISO 6400 and above? In the end, this is the main reason to trade in (or not) the SL for the SL2.

Thank you.

[jaapv]

Dont expect the same high-ISO performance from a high-resolution sensor as from a lower resolution sensor with similar technology. In your case I would be very hesitant to exchange a camera that gives  good results for an unknown and less performing (in this aspect) camera.

[thighslapper]

22 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Dont expect the same high-ISO performance from a high-resolution sensor as from a lower resolution sensor with similar technology. In your case I would be very hesitant to exchange a camera that gives  good results for an unknown and less performing (in this aspect) camera.

Ditto.

How much 'noise' you find tolerable in an image is entirely subjective and personal. From a landscape perspective I get depressed by the image quality when I hit 800 on the SL2 and mortified when I use 1600.....  and even more so on the S1R.

As has been pointed out before on the SL threads, any reduced or similar noise performance is somewhat counteracted by the increased image resolution .... when viewed at the SAME IMAGE SIZE. 

I think the general consensus is that at mid/high ISO's things end up just about the same when comparing the two. So you are gaining resolution with little, if any ISO performance cost and have the benefits of IBIS.......  which is not to be discounted in low light use. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by thighslapper

[Jk1002]

I have same concerns but am also recognizing that improved display, evf, usb c port and refreshed menu system add some value. I do not have an SL though but did join one of the walks tomtry out the SL2 for a few hours.

Same topic came up when Q2 was launched so am perusing those threads and reviews.

Cheers

JK

[Luca]

I still have SL (but will sell shortly)  but also SL2, and Im  really happy about it.

Huge improvement to me, I would have no doubts to get SL2, also considering new firmwares coming and relevant improvements.

To me upto 6400 iso performance is really good and improved from SL and you can use much lower ISO with IBIS.

 

[Aktenschrank]

What has helped me a lot in the past when trying to answer a similar question is the studio scene comparison tool from dpreview. Here's for example the S1 compared to the SL and the S1R at ISO 6400 (they don't have the SL2 as of today, but S1R is roughly comparable, since they use the same sensor). Please note the three choices at the top right, that let you compare full size and also "comparative" size (all images downsized to the resolution of the smallest file).

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcs1&attr13_1=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_2=leica_sl_typ601&attr13_3=sony_a7riv&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.607842018149649&y=-0.9029971821364529

something to keep in mind is that dpreview is not applying any colour or luminance noise suppression to these images. The colour noise is easy to remove though for example in Lightroom. You can also download the respective RAW files and compare them for yourself with your editing software of choice!

Edited January 3, 2020 by Aktenschrank

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

To the thread owner:

The SL2 is not finished, yet. I expect improvements in firmware over the next few versions. (that means probably 2-3 years).  I expect this, because that happened with the SL a few years ago.
So I expect that the high ISOs will get better. Currently for "highest quality" I use ISO 1600 as the maximum. And if possible I try to stay at ISO 800. Usually I can manage, because the new IBIS is very well implemented.

You ask for the obvious, that has been written in many places. A lowres camera (24 Mp) has less noise (nominally), but also less resolution than a highres camera (47 Mp). If you look at the whole picture (not just on pixel level) then both have in the end about the same "noise level". And if you are looking for the last bit of details and quality you can use the ETTR method. This is probably popular in landscape photography, but too time consuming for "normal" daily work (at least for me).

So I am very happy with the SL2. But I use it differently than the SL (mainly because of IBIS and the higher resolution). And the SL2 is generally much faster. Which I like very much (I could never tolerate the incredible Buddhist-like slowness of a X1D.)

The only thing that SL2 and X1D have in common is the new "problem" with battery life. The SL2 has new features that use a lot of power (mainly pre-focus). If you turn off pre-focus, then it is not much worse than the SL. But you can run the SL2 from external USB power packs that have many times the capacity of the internal battery and are cheap and readily available. (To be kept in the warm coat pocket during winter.) And in analogy to the SL I expect here also an improvement over time (see firmware upgrades).

Edited January 4, 2020 by caissa

[Robert E]

Hey, don’t knock the X1D. I love mine and think of it as my compact view camera. 😊

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, Artin said:

I find  the SL2 good up to ISO 3200 , the noise that I see. In my point of view is not degrading the image it’s more like grain on on 400 Asa transparency.I always try to photograph as close to Base ISO as possible, and as mentioned above IBIS really helps it works very well on the SL2.

That is if you do not need to lift shadow and exposure in post. The DR is much better in low ISO. But the 24MPx sensor in M10 is not so tolerable at high ISO as well from my experience.

[michali]

Having been weaned on Kodachrome 25ASA and then Fuji Velvia 50ASA for most of my life, I try to avoid shooting at high ISO values like the plague.  However I do find the SL2 images very useable up to ISO 1600.   As a subjective comparison, when I had the S1R I found it noisier at the same values.

Here are 2 examples from earlier this week:

1. Straight out of camera unprocessed DNG:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

2. Same image, only difference is increased exposure slider to +1.60

 

 

 

[Macberg]

I haven't used the SL(1), but I have used the SL2 and I also think, that ISO-noise (which becomes noticable with a  - for me - disturbing amount from around ISO 3200 onwards, sometimes earlier/later, strongly depending on your subject) looks more like film grain of the older days with the Q2 and the SL2, compared to the noise produced by, for example, the Q1 (which I traded in for the Q2) because it is much finer and more homogenous.
I also read in the German forum, that the sensor of the SL2 is ISO-invariant which means that you can underexpose quite a lot and push the low-lights afterwards with less disturbing (disturbing because of inhomogeneity or effects like banding) noise than letting the camera-processor do the pushing when taking the picture and choosing a high ISO value. I guess, however, that the quality of the results when doing so, depends on the RAW-converter you use. I will remember and try that in the future...

So far, I am very pleased with the results I get. Here is an example under very bad light conditions (only the artists' faces had enough light, everything else was much too dark) - taken with the SL2 and the M-Summicron 90mm APO Asph. at ISO 1600, with low lights pushed by the value 20 (which I would definitely not recommend) and sharpness increased a lot (four thirds of the way of the adjuster, which I also wouldn't recommend) in Capture One Pro 20:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 4, 2020 by Macberg

[Macberg]

If you look at the cropped image detail, I think that the ISO-Noise (in-camera-noise reduction was turned off and no noise reduction was used afterwards in Capture One) looks more like film grain. Again, low lights were pushed by the value 20 and sharpness increased excessively (C1) and please note that the image quality also suffered a bit because of the data size limit in this forum.
The noise/grain you see here would most probably be also irrelevant when using this picture, as you would never crop as excessively as I did here.
@anonimo_svizzero Just have a look at the full picture above (again, with a strongly reduced image quality because of the data limit here) - I guess I could still create a fairly large print with a satisfying image quality despite the bad light conditions under which the image was taken.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited January 6, 2020 by Macberg

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, Macberg said:

If you look at the cropped image detail, I think that the ISO-Noise (no noise reduction was used) looks more like film grain. Again, low lights were pushed by the value 20 and sharpness increased excessively (C1) and please note that the image quality also suffered a bit because of the data size limit in this forum. The noise/grain you see here would most probably be also irrelevant when using this picture, as you would never crop as excessively as I did here.
@anonimo_svizzero Just have a look at the full picture above (again, with a strongly reduced image quality because of the data limit here) - I guess I could still create fairly large prints with a satisfying image quality despite the bad light conditions under which the image was taken.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I agree with your comment regarding the SL2’s high ISO noise looking rather like film grain. IMHO it’s rather attractive, especially  given I prefer film’s aesthetic over “squeaky-clean” digital. The high ISO noise on the SL2 also looks more like film grain than several 3rd party “film simulation” plug-ins I’ve tried. 

Edited January 4, 2020 by Jon Warwick

[Macberg]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Jon Warwick:

I agree with your comment regarding the SL2’s high ISO noise looking rather like film grain. IMHO it’s rather attractive, especially  given I prefer film’s aesthetic over “squeaky-clean” digital.

And I also prefer higher detail (even with a rather high level of homogenous, grain-like noise) over aggressively noise-reduced, smoothed-out, flat pictures with lack of details delivered by some competitors (and modern smartphones, by the way). The SL2 gives me exactly that.

[wjdrijfhout]

Having used both SL and SL2 now, my subjective impression is that noise performance is slightly worse on the SL2, but not by much. And perhaps as suggested before, some of this can be improved through firmware upgrades. But currently I would not like to use the SL2 routinely at 6400.

So from noise-level perspective I would not recommend upgrading. 

In your use-case you might still benefit from the SL2’s IBIS though. It allows significantly longer hand-held shutter speeds. So if that is an option for you, it may be the reason to upgrade. This also depends on the lens you use. If you already use the 24-90, the difference is not that much as the lens has a pretty capable OIS. But if you use for example M-summiluxes or other non-stabilized lenses, you will see a several stops benefit.

As so often with these things, it ultimately comes down to your specific use-case.

 

 

[jrp]

The dpreview link posted above gives a good impression of reality. Even downresed the SL2 is not up to the standard of the SL (or other 24Mpx bodies). However, IBIS allows you to shoot at lower iso so, if your subject is stillish, you may be able to get a better result in practice. 

[DrM]

Hi

i don’t know if this was discussed before, but i found the (though limited) comparison of Thomas Berger somewhat helpful for a first impression (SL/SL2/X1D):
https://www.macfilos.com/2019/11/13/first-experiences-with-the-new-milestone-the-leica-sl2/

Still agree with the larger pixel size S/N ratio arguments..

Best regards 

Marc

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by DrM

[Mr.Q]

I currently shoot with a SL, Q-P, Q2, X1DII, and Sony A9. I also have a SL2 in my possession because I forgot to cancel one of my preorders. (will be up for sale after I finish posting this)

As far as high ISO performance goes, it's

X1D >> A9 >>> Q/SL > Q2/SL2

the SL2/Q2 is very poor. I often find ISO 3200 unusable in some situations. The original Q and SL are a bit better, but the sensor shows it's age. It was a poor performing 24MP sensor even back 4 years ago. The A9 is a huge step up. I feel quite comfortable leaving the upper limit of auto ISO at ISO 10000. The X1DII is at least a half stop to a full stop better than the Sony.

[Jeff S]

That’s where IBIS in the SL2 can provide significant flexibility.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Mr.Q]

Well the thing is, the sensor in the SL2 and Q2 performs slightly worse than even the latest APS-C sensors (ie A6500, Leica CL, Fuji X-T3) in terms of high ISO and dynamic range.

If the condition requires flexibility in low light (like shooting children indoors) full frame 24MP sensors with IBIS will absolutely smoke the SL2. Even the X1D will do better if high ISO is required.

I have quite steady hands with good technique, and I value high ISO capabilities over stabilization in most situations. (Having both is ideal of course) That's why I chose the X1D II and A9.