SL2 vs. SL feedback

[Exodies]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, thighslapper said:

<snip>careful technique and choice of subject/conditions may be more of an aid in getting good images than changing cameras .... 

Sometimes...

I’m looking forward to getting some splendidly noisy images from my new SL2 as I find it vastly less hideous than noise on my M240.

[sillbeers15]

On 1/6/2020 at 1:25 PM, Alistairm said:

Guys, all of the demands for people to post extensive test shots, RAW files etc or otherwise refrain from expressing an opinion are getting very tiring as they derail multiple threads. 

Can’t we leave it to each forum member to determine whose opinion they value on any given issue and just be pleasant with each other please?

It depends if you are the one who wishes to judge for your self what are facts against biased opinion by exploring comparision pictures. Otherwise you are are merely entertained by voices of opinion by others without getting a chance to determine one yourself.

[Chaemono]

‘Stop posting links to RAW files, you SOB.  Let us roam freely and spread our BS.’  Right  😂

 

[Alistairm]

I guess there are two sides to every troll... 

[Chaemono]

I'm just preparing some ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 shots SL2 vs. Z7.

[Alistairm]

11 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

I'm just preparing some ISO 3200 and ISO 6400 shots SL2 vs. Z7.

Thank you. That’s just what an SL v SL2 thread needs. 

[hoppyman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the SL2 has many improvements over the SL I had, just starting with the comfort, control, ease of handling and the extra resolution . Teamed with the SL Summicron 35 used wide open, I am thrilled with what it produces in available light as well. Noise reduction if I want it is implemented in developing in Lr.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Unfortunately, most of the user testing from members of this site with be either limited or flawed. I've seen too many examples of *tests* here that go against my own testing or that of established testers to really trust any of those comparisons completely. Any shots I make for myself I know are flawed. I test my gear extensively. But I'm testing one camera, one lens, on one day in one set of shooting conditions. I know how that works for what I like to shoot but posting them here is wrong because you can't verify my testing methodology. You don't know if my testing methods are consistent or comprehensive. You almost certainly don't shoot what I shoot, the way I shoot it. It is highly likely that some of the samples presented on this and other sites are wrong and potentially misleading due to mistakes or bias in the testing set up. I know I've done my own tests where I've got home and the results fly in the face of logic. Usually I've had a major unnoticed flaw in the way I've conducted the test. If I do it then I have to assume others do too. How can we logically believe any of these samples are 100% accurate? So really, they're all just visual opinions anyway, sometimes presented as fact.

For example... Recently here a comparison between two lenses showed that one exhibited purple fringing and the other did not. I own both lenses and I know I can get both lenses to show PF, if I try hard enough. I also know it's so rarely an issue as to be mute. But I don't know if that's just my copies of the lenses in question. I don't know how often there would be a difference. Most of the time I consider both of them to be near perfect. Maybe I just don't shoot in places where only one shows PF?  Maybe I use different software to process the images and the lens profiles handle the raw data differently? That's a lot of ifs and what if's..... 

If I want empirical testing, I go to testing sites I trust. Not DPReview. Unfortunately their pro Sony and anti Leica bias pushing sales through the Amazon mother ship doesn't sit well with me. So for bodies it's Photons to Photos and Lenses is Lens rentals. Why rely on speculation and poor testing methodology of single sample owners when accurate information is already available? 

Two final points. Firstly, there are no bad sensors in the current market. If a new sensor comes out with great DR, why is is that some people instantly claim that every other sensor is now shit? There's absolutely nothing wrong with the SL2 sensor. Or the SL sensor, which was slammed for being "years behind". It wasn't and actually isn't still. While the zelots went crazy telling us how the SL sensor was so bad I made enough money shooting with that camera to buy a couple of houses. None of my clients ever came back and said, " too bad you didn't do that job with your Sony's, Gordon". Hell, I shot some theatre with an M9 to which the producer claimed they had the best tones he's ever seen in promo photos. If you can't shoot theatre or other low light with the SL2 then it's on you, not the camera. Don't worry about what it can't do. Learn it thoroughly and learn what it can do and go exploit that. An example. People bitch about smaller sensor not having as much *bokeh* as a larger sensor (which is technically incorrect, I know). But what if you crave MORE DoF at a given exposure. Now a 4/3 sensor is superior to a 24x36mm one. Here's a low light photo...

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!

PA181338.jpg by Gordon Cahill, on Flickr

and another...

PA181354.jpg by Gordon Cahill, on Flickr

both taken on micro 4/3. In my camera bag was an X1D as well but the Pen F was the right camera to get these shots.

When people start complaining about sensors being poor I just shake my head.......

Finally, when I did my sales training last century, I was taught that people make most purchase decisions with emotions and then defend those purchase decisions with logic. We're all biased. More so if we think we're not. I like my Leicas and Hasselblads. I know I get just a smidge defensive when someone has a crack at the gear I own. The logical me has a full set of Sony cameras and lenses. The emotional me doesn't enjoy using them. So I find it a bit bizarre when we argue whether the SL or SL2 sensor is better when they're both bested by a Sony. If sensor performance is your only metric then you bought the wrong brand.

Gordon

 

[Chaemono]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb Alistairm:

Thank you. That’s just what an SL v SL2 thread needs. 

Who said I would be posting them here.  There are plenty of threads on the SL2’s high ISO performance.  I think I’ll include them in the ‘Leica SL2 dynamic range thread,’ though.  There are so many nice RAW files there,  SL2 vs. α7 III/IV. 

[Chaemono]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb hoppyman:

For me the SL2 has many improvements over the SL I had, just starting with the comfort, control, ease of handling and the extra resolution . Teamed with the SL Summicron 35 used wide open, I am thrilled with what it produces in available light as well. Noise reduction if I want it is implemented in developing in Lr.

+1.  That’s the SL lens I just used vs. the Z7 with the Z 35/1.8 S at f/2, ISO 3200 and ISO 6400.  I totally agree, with equal amount of NR applied to both, the SL2 does terrifically for color and detail vs. the 46 MPx BSI sensor Z7.  The SL2 needs to be exposed about 1/3 stops further to the right than the Z7 in order to keep details in pushed shadows about equally clean.  But the highlight recovery of the SL2 is great.  I did -90 for Highlights on the SL2 and -70 for the Z7 because of that 1/3 stop more exposure.  The SL2 files can take pulling back the highlights easily.

[thighslapper]

56 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The logical me has a full set of Sony cameras and lenses. The emotional me doesn't enjoy using them. So I find it a bit bizarre when we argue whether the SL or SL2 sensor is better when they're both bested by a Sony. If sensor performance is your only metric then you bought the wrong brand.

again ...... this basically sums up everything regarding current camera choice. 

...... and they day after you bought it there will be something 'better' and someone telling you what you are using is inferior.....

[Jeff S]

In a new blog post, Erwin Puts questions any lens tests on the SL2...

https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/5840dcea86bd056bd4f4dbe72eb5b9bc-147.html

Jeff

[sillbeers15]

3 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Unfortunately, most of the user testing from members of this site with be either limited or flawed. I've seen too many examples of *tests* here that go against my own testing or that of established testers to really trust any of those comparisons completely. Any shots I make for myself I know are flawed. I test my gear extensively. But I'm testing one camera, one lens, on one day in one set of shooting conditions. I know how that works for what I like to shoot but posting them here is wrong because you can't verify my testing methodology. You don't know if my testing methods are consistent or comprehensive. You almost certainly don't shoot what I shoot, the way I shoot it. It is highly likely that some of the samples presented on this and other sites are wrong and potentially misleading due to mistakes or bias in the testing set up. I know I've done my own tests where I've got home and the results fly in the face of logic. Usually I've had a major unnoticed flaw in the way I've conducted the test. If I do it then I have to assume others do too. How can we logically believe any of these samples are 100% accurate? So really, they're all just visual opinions anyway, sometimes presented as fact.

For example... Recently here a comparison between two lenses showed that one exhibited purple fringing and the other did not. I own both lenses and I know I can get both lenses to show PF, if I try hard enough. I also know it's so rarely an issue as to be mute. But I don't know if that's just my copies of the lenses in question. I don't know how often there would be a difference. Most of the time I consider both of them to be near perfect. Maybe I just don't shoot in places where only one shows PF?  Maybe I use different software to process the images and the lens profiles handle the raw data differently? That's a lot of ifs and what if's..... 

If I want empirical testing, I go to testing sites I trust. Not DPReview. Unfortunately their pro Sony and anti Leica bias pushing sales through the Amazon mother ship doesn't sit well with me. So for bodies it's Photons to Photos and Lenses is Lens rentals. Why rely on speculation and poor testing methodology of single sample owners when accurate information is already available? 

Two final points. Firstly, there are no bad sensors in the current market. If a new sensor comes out with great DR, why is is that some people instantly claim that every other sensor is now shit? There's absolutely nothing wrong with the SL2 sensor. Or the SL sensor, which was slammed for being "years behind". It wasn't and actually isn't still. While the zelots went crazy telling us how the SL sensor was so bad I made enough money shooting with that camera to buy a couple of houses. None of my clients ever came back and said, " too bad you didn't do that job with your Sony's, Gordon". Hell, I shot some theatre with an M9 to which the producer claimed they had the best tones he's ever seen in promo photos. If you can't shoot theatre or other low light with the SL2 then it's on you, not the camera. Don't worry about what it can't do. Learn it thoroughly and learn what it can do and go exploit that. An example. People bitch about smaller sensor not having as much *bokeh* as a larger sensor (which is technically incorrect, I know). But what if you crave MORE DoF at a given exposure. Now a 4/3 sensor is superior to a 24x36mm one. Here's a low light photo...

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!

PA181338.jpg by Gordon Cahill, on Flickr

and another...

PA181354.jpg by Gordon Cahill, on Flickr

both taken on micro 4/3. In my camera bag was an X1D as well but the Pen F was the right camera to get these shots.

When people start complaining about sensors being poor I just shake my head.......

Finally, when I did my sales training last century, I was taught that people make most purchase decisions with emotions and then defend those purchase decisions with logic. We're all biased. More so if we think we're not. I like my Leicas and Hasselblads. I know I get just a smidge defensive when someone has a crack at the gear I own. The logical me has a full set of Sony cameras and lenses. The emotional me doesn't enjoy using them. So I find it a bit bizarre when we argue whether the SL or SL2 sensor is better when they're both bested by a Sony. If sensor performance is your only metric then you bought the wrong brand.

Gordon

 

I agree mostly with what you wrote Gordon. It is precisely that there are loads of varied comments about SL2 (AF, sensor, weight, size,..), I would think while the test shots might not be scientifically perfect for comparison but it brings credibility along with comments made and that will easily allow others to comment otherwise if it is due to certain conditions present or absent. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb sillbeers15:

I agree mostly with what you wrote Gordon. It is precisely that there are loads of varied comments about SL2 (AF, sensor, weight, size,..),

....high ISO noise performance.  Test shots when accompanied by RAW files or JPEGs with full EXIF data so that everyone can see the changes applied beat hearsay like ‘this lens doesn’t fringe,’ ‘the Z7’s ISO 3200 has significantly less noise than the SL2’s,’ ‘a7R III/IV pushed to max shadows of base ISO files are clean,’ and so on.   ❤️  to the test shots.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Chaemono

[sillbeers15]

5 minutes ago, Artin said:

Nothing but splitting hairs here , The files coming out this Camara are stunning. It is what it is. I am sure everyone wanting to buy this camera will soon be able to go to a dealer and test the camera for themselves. Just find a store that has a demo take your sad card and your favourite lens and go test it 

To do test yourself is always the best choice. Short of that, information sharing and awareness of situation is what a forum platform best provides. 
like I’ve said earlier, if you only want entertainment and do not want an opinion yourself follow hearsays. Otherwise your own opinion built on facts are the best to have. Yes, splitting hair is non value add. But one needs facts to determine if it were ‘split hair situation’ which one can choose to ignore. I say so cause I do so myself.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

4 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

I agree mostly with what you wrote Gordon. It is precisely that there are loads of varied comments about SL2 (AF, sensor, weight, size,..), I would think while the test shots might not be scientifically perfect for comparison but it brings credibility along with comments made and that will easily allow others to comment otherwise if it is due to certain conditions present or absent. Just my 2 cents worth.

Credible evidence is readily available. Just not on this site.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Actual testing clearly shows the SL2 to be nearly the same as the SL at noise performance and DR, just with more resolution. Both are a stop(ish) behind the latest high res sensors from Sony.

Gordon

[Chaemono]

How good a sensor is in practice, at the end also depends on the ‘exposure latitude’ it affords. 
 

See here from DPR’s test of the original SL: https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3

Exposure Latitude

In our first test, we look to see how well the Raw files tolerate pushing. We've done this by exposing our scene with increasingly lower exposures at the camera's base ISO of 100, then pushing them back to the correct brightness using Adobe Camera Raw. Taking a look at the effects on shadow areas allows us to assess the exposure latitude (essentially the dynamic range) of the Raw files.

This is not captured by sensor charts like the one above.  The SL and the SL2 are worlds apart at base ISO with regards to exposure latitude/‘push-ability’ of files.  The SL2 beats the α7R III/IV in this respect, too.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

How good a sensor is in practice, at the end also depends on the ‘exposure latitude’ it affords. 
 

See here from DPR’s test of the original SL: https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/leica-sl-typ601-in-depth-camera-review/3

Exposure Latitude

In our first test, we look to see how well the Raw files tolerate pushing. We've done this by exposing our scene with increasingly lower exposures at the camera's base ISO of 100, then pushing them back to the correct brightness using Adobe Camera Raw. Taking a look at the effects on shadow areas allows us to assess the exposure latitude (essentially the dynamic range) of the Raw files.

This is not captured by sensor charts like the one above.  The SL and the SL2 are worlds apart at base ISO with regards to exposure latitude/‘push-ability’ of files.  The SL2 beats the α7R III/IV in this respect, too.

Odd. Considering the chart I linked to was a chart measuring actual DR vs ISO off actual raw data? Hmmmm.....

I still remember the tiny woman's hand holding the SL as DPReview called it a giant camera while a few pages away praising the portability of the D810.

DPReview has a pretty strong anti Leica bias. They don't get sales off Leica like they do with Sony. Photons to Photos has a few different metrics worth looking at. They all show the sensor between the SL and SL2 to have similar DR and noise performance. The testing there is widely regarded to have more neutral testing than DPReview or DXO. DPReview is the bunch that wrote several articles on how the 33x44mm sensor had a minimal improvement over the A7R3 when almost every other review site and most users saw a noticable difference in DR and noise performance. They give *gold* and *silver* seemingly randomly regardless of the numeric score and actual performance. Since Phil Askey sold it to Amazon I can no longer truely trust anything they *review*. You're welcome to rely on them. I certainly do not. They also have a seemingly total disregard for usability, menus, ergonomics and handling.

Also the review was written before several significant firmware updates, some of which dealt with file quality, including raw.

DR on the SL maxes out at ISO 50 not 100. Same for the SL2/S1R.

Not all manufacturers put all the headroom into the shadows. Some cameras recover highlights better. Some shadows. Some are pretty even. Raw data is also affected by the processor and profile used by the manufacturer.

Reducing exposure and pushing files with exposure in software isn't as reliable as DPReview like to state. Different software can report different results. Look at Lightrooms treatment of XTrans sensors for example. To do this via a simple software push test DPReview would have to run the test in every software available and publish the best result and it'd still be not perfect. And since they've added a lens to the equation they'd have to find a way to usethe same exact lens for every test to ensure it didn't contribute to the test results.

Photons to Photos is as close to empirical data as we're going to get.

Gordon

[helged]

3 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Credible evidence is readily available. Just not on this site.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Actual testing clearly shows the SL2 to be nearly the same as the SL at noise performance and DR, just with more resolution. Both are a stop(ish) behind the latest high res sensors from Sony.

Gordon

Rather than starting another thread - can someone explain difference(s) you (subjectively 😉) see between ISO 50 and ISO 100 on the SL2?

The Photons2Photos link above shows a higher DR at ISO 50 than at ISO 100. However, my shooting experience with the SL2 indicates increased chances for highlight clipping and more easily shadow artefacts (in post processing) when using ISO 50 compared to ISO 100. Thus, in good light or with static subjects or on tripod, I tend to stay at ISO 100, ensuring that highlights don't clip, lifting shadows in post. ISO 50 is primarily used if a longer exposure time is desired (in the absence of ND filter). 

So, any thoughts about using ISO 50 or ISO 100 as 'base' ISO on the SL2? What are your experiences? 

Edited January 8, 2020 by helged

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[caissa]

Just a thought. Looking back to film days I was always a bit lazy and stayed often with the not up-to-date Kodachrom films (mainly 64). I liked the color rendering (yes, maybe too red.) Did the users here often switch films and try to get the "best" film emulsion ? Maybe yes. Unimaginable for me, because I was glad to know the film and know what I could expect.

Now in digital I'm still lazy. I have the Leica lenses, so I use the Leica cameras. I know what colors I can expect (the SL2 is a Leica, but a little bit different than the SL, maybe I should carefully try to customize the EVF, but I'm still too lazy.) The S1R is also OK. but for me the colors are not exactly the same. Not bad, but I prefer the SL/SL2. I could never prove this, even if I was not too lazy to try it.   And the Sonys ? I simply find their colors disgusting, but I never tried the A7R IV (I also hate their names). And yes. I cannot prove it. But it's clear for me. For the topics that are important to me I prefer the Leica colors (whatever that is).   (I also do not like the X1D colors. Too sugary for portraits, but probably ok for landscape.)  Do I care about DR ? This is for me like the story of changing films. Maybe there are "better" products. But what would it help me to switch to one of those products ? More DR (that I obviously don't need) and in the case of Sony faster AF. (AF getting better and better since at least 4 generations, maybe even 6. But people still seem to long for even better AF. So many users seem to be almost addicted to AF speed. Does this produce more interesting pics ? No comment.) I would loose the colors I know and the (for me) simple interface. And maybe also the design I like, or better the haptics (important if you touch a camera for hours).

So I'm still lazy and stay where I am and use ISO currently only up to ISO 1600 (a big step up from 64) (completely ignorant of all the much better products, so to say blind to the world).     And yes, for me the SL2 is a clear step up from the SL (just the missing exposure preview...) not necessarily in DR, but in many other respects (USB power !).

And I'm bad at editing pics in LR or whatever. So the SL2 is a very good-natured camera for me. (No reason to correct colors in post.)

And for action camera lovers, you know in which direction you have to go ..... No reason to make the SL/SL2 maggoty. 

 

The films had a DR of 6 stops ? Or maybe more ? (I doubt it.) Nowadays we have 12 stops or still 9-10 at 1600. And resolution is phantastic. This should be enough, with a little exercise. And OIS or now IBIS helps.   If this is not enough for publishing in the web or the news, then ....

Edited January 8, 2020 by caissa