SL2 vs. SL feedback

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

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.

I respect your opinion and choice.

But please show comparison on images

over your claim rather than just blasting biased opinion over no evidences. This is a form for discussion to benefit all over facts and respect individual choices rather than the other way around. 

[Mr.Q]

I respect your opinion as well, but I don't share images of people that are close to me. 

[Jeff S]

35 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

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.

By flexibility, I meant not having to use high ISO, specifically comparing the SL2 to the SL (the thread topic), as well as the X1Dii, both of which lack IBIS.

All the options are terrific, depending on the task and goals.  Just tools, with many different user properties.  Choices are good.

Jeff

[sillbeers15]

17 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

I respect your opinion as well, but I don't share images of people that are close to me. 

Only cheap talk?

[Mr.Q]

3 minutes ago, sillbeers15 said:

Only cheap talk?

I've made a choice of not bringing any of my children or close ones to public attention. I don't post on Facebook or Instagram either. Too bad you feel the need to mock me for making this personal choice.

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, Mr.Q said:

I've made a choice of not bringing any of my children or close ones to public attention. I don't post on Facebook or Instagram either. Too bad you feel the need to mock me for making this personal choice.

There is no need or reason to compromise on the privacy of your family.

Based on your claim, certainly you could recreate the comparisons of the different cameras captured images of the same scene under controlled conditions to share your findings. 
But if that cannot be done, I would reconsider making statements to compare and claim which is better. 
Still think I am mocking you?

[Alistairm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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?

[PeterGA]

It so happened that I picked up my SL2 the evening before it was launched in Melbourne. I don't know what people's expectations are or what 'high ISO' is for different people but anyway - here are two photographs taken straight out of SL2  with no post processing first is ISO 4000 @ F2 with 75; and second is at ISO5000 @F2 with 75.I have images only up to ISO 6400 which are what i'd call very good - haven't gone any higher and am unlikely to in the near future..

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!

@ISO4000/F2/75

 

ISO5000@F2/75SL

 

The lousy high ISO meme is 'puzzling' to me.

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by PeterGA

[Alistairm]

Nice examples Peter. I agree with you about 6400! I think when you get the exposure right “in camera” you can comfortably shoot ISO6400 on the SL2 without worrying about noise in most scenes. But if an image needs heavy post processing, especially pulling shadows, then the higher resolution 35mm format sensor doesn’t provide the latitude that some lower resolution or larger format sensor cameras that I have used do. 

Having had the chance to use the camera on holidays and give it a good flogging over the past couple of weeks (and appreciating everyone has different thresholds for where noise bothers them), for my shooting I wouldn’t think twice about using the camera at ISO6400 for most scenes, provided that the scene is comfortably within the DR threshold for the camera. If I’m having to choose to underexpose part of the scene (eg to keep detail in a bright sky where I can’t setup with a graduated ND filter) and know I’ll be pulling the shadows up in post, then I’ll be choosing the lowest possible ISO to retain DR and malleability in post... which is where IBIS helps a great deal. 

I really like the detail and colour rendering on the SL2 and am enjoying the photos I can produce with it, but compared to the old gold standard sensor on the X1D you can’t just shoot a flat and underexposed RAW file at almost any ISO and do whatever the hell you want to it in post... some more care is required getting exposure right, and especially not drastically under exposing any shadows and especially as you crank the ISO up. Which is no bad thing!

All in all though, it’s a marvellous camera. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Alistairm

[PeterGA]

Good points well made re getting the exposure right as much as possible in camera Alistair - this becomes more important as pixel density increases cranking up the gain has diminishing returns past a certain point - fortunately that point is way way beyond the point I would use flash to stop action or a tripod to extend shutter duration....but I guess as they say OS YMMV.😉

 

This snap was ISO 6400 @ f2 / 125th -  I dont think the JPG does justice to how dark it was....again no processing straight out of camera

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!

/C1.

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, Alistairm said:

Nice examples Peter. I agree with you about 6400! I think when you get the exposure right “in camera” you can comfortably shoot ISO6400 on the SL2 without worrying about noise in most scenes. But if an image needs heavy post processing, especially pulling shadows, then the higher resolution 35mm format sensor doesn’t provide the latitude that some lower resolution or larger format sensor cameras that I have used do. 

Having had the chance to use the camera on holidays and give it a good flogging over the past couple of weeks (and appreciating everyone has different thresholds for where noise bothers them), for my shooting I wouldn’t think twice about using the camera at ISO6400 for most scenes, provided that the scene is comfortably within the DR threshold for the camera. If I’m having to choose to underexpose part of the scene (eg to keep detail in a bright sky where I can’t setup with a graduated ND filter) and know I’ll be pulling the shadows up in post, then I’ll be choosing the lowest possible ISO to retain DR and malleability in post... which is where IBIS helps a great deal. 

I really like the detail and colour rendering on the SL2 and am enjoying the photos I can produce with it, but compared to the old gold standard sensor on the X1D you can’t just shoot a flat and underexposed RAW file at almost any ISO and do whatever the hell you want to it in post... some more care is required getting exposure right, and especially not drastically under exposing any shadows and especially as you crank the ISO up. Which is no bad thing!

All in all though, it’s a marvellous camera. 

Thank you for telling half the story accurately. I say so because my recent experience in DR adjustments in LR on an image taken on my 24MPx M10 @ ISO800 did not do so well against noise. 
 

So my point is while we recognise that there is a difference in DR between the high resolution sensors ( as well as different camera makers as well that I have been hearing) against the lower 24MPx FF and 50MPx MF but by how much? It can be minor to some or it can be significant to others. Isn’t the best to have an image for comparison? That is the most objective way to resolve the issue and for all to have their own opinion.

[LocalHero1953]

I find reviewing mind-numbingly dull test photographs quickly makes me lose my will to live, and I can't understand those who seem to see it as the whole purpose of their photography - but it takes all sorts and if that's how they wish to do things, I have no right to tell them to do otherwise.
I prefer to hear from those users whose photography and writing I enjoy and, having compared my experience with theirs, whose opinion I now trust - even if (especially if) they don't post 'test' shots.

Edited January 6, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Fedro]

34 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I find reviewing mind-numbingly dull test photographs quickly makes me lose my will to live, and I can't understand those who seem to see it as the whole purpose of their photography - but it takes all sorts and if that's how they wish to do things, I have no right to tell them to do otherwise.
I prefer to hear from those users whose photography and writing I enjoy and, having compared my experience with theirs, whose opinion I now trust - even if (especially if) they don't post 'test' shots.

Hi Paul, I am totally with you. And just to add, there are good professional reviewers that do products a much better service than self styled experts that you find on forum sites. Some of the threads on this site have become unreadable - to me, that is of course. 99 out of a 100 times I would rather read about photographers' experiences and get inspired by their photos

[PeterGA]

@LocalHero1953 and @Fedro - well fellas, I apologise for presenting a few snaps which speak to the topic which others started about how 'poor' SL2 high ISO performance is - a nonsense that is being perpetuated in numerous threads on here. 

 

Have a good day.

Pete

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

@LocalHero1953 and @Fedro - well fellas, I apologise for presenting a few snaps which speak to the topic which others started about how 'poor' SL2 high ISO performance is - a nonsense that is being perpetuated in numerous threads on here. 

 

Have a good day.

Pete

I made it clear that if other people wish to post test shots, they are obviously welcome to do so. I don't have to look at them, and I will not do so if they are uninteresting as images. I avoid threads where that is the main purpose of the thread, like the Hasselblad/SL2 thread. I realise that others appreciate them. Test images are not the main purpose of this thread AFAIC though, and I am interested in the subject, so I'll keep reading here until test images drown out the rest.

I was responding, in a general sense, to a tetchy exchange earlier in the thread, in which one person took issue with another because the latter did not wish to post test images, but would rather express an opinion based on their experience in normal use. Some opinions are based on test shots; others are based on experience in use. I prefer the latter (more practical, taking more factors into account), using my own judgement as to whose opinion is worth listening to.

[marcolinger]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb sillbeers15:

Only cheap talk?

Why so agressive ?

 

[marcolinger]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Mr.Q:

I've made a choice of not bringing any of my children or close ones to public attention. I don't post on Facebook or Instagram either. Too bad you feel the need to mock me for making this personal choice.

Show us images with neutral content. 
Otherwise nobody can argue and comment your statement.

 

[sillbeers15]

10 minutes ago, marcolinger said:

Why so agressive ?

 

It is your choice to ignore if you take it as an aggresive statement. 

[Chaemono]

vor einer Stunde schrieb LocalHero1953:

[...]

Some opinions are based on test shots; others are based on experience in use. I prefer the latter (more practical, taking more factors into account),

[...]

And some are based on social media marketing spend.  See here in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_marketing

"Social media marketing is the use of social media platforms and websites to promote a product or service."  Who would have thought?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[PeterGA]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I made it clear that if other people wish to post test shots, they are obviously welcome to do so. I don't have to look at them, and I will not do so if they are uninteresting as images. I avoid threads where that is the main purpose of the thread, like the Hasselblad/SL2 thread. I realise that others appreciate them. Test images are not the main purpose of this thread AFAIC though, and I am interested in the subject, so I'll keep reading here until test images drown out the rest.

I was responding, in a general sense, to a tetchy exchange earlier in the thread, in which one person took issue with another because the latter did not wish to post test images, but would rather express an opinion based on their experience in normal use. Some opinions are based on test shots; others are based on experience in use. I prefer the latter (more practical, taking more factors into account), using my own judgement as to whose opinion is worth listening to.

What interest can you have in a thread about the SL2's shortcomings re high ISO performance? 

It is a fake news being given oxygen by a few nuff nuffs.