SL2 vs. SL feedback

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

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?

You were too selective in quoting my post. I went on to write "using my own judgement as to whose opinion is worth listening to". I apply that to all social media.

[LocalHero1953]

41 minutes ago, PeterGA said:

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.

Because I own the SL and I might wish to replace it with the SL2 at some time in the future. I shoot a lot in low light (drama, music & other performance, plus the usual family/social). And because the OP's question was "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?".

I have nothing to offer as a response, but I am curious to see the opinions of others. I will exercise my own judgement on how valid those opinions are.

 

Edit: and I should add that your photos do not fall into the category I labelled as Uninteresting Test Shots - rather they appear to be interesting sample shots taken from your own work.
 

Edited January 6, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

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

[anickpick]

I can only compare the files from the M10 to the ones from the SL2 (sold my SL a few months ago). 

Some observations:

- ISO 1600 with the SL 2 seems to be about ISO 2200 with the M10 (same lens, same exposure).

- Standard noise reduction in Lightroom is lower for the SL 2 than the M10.

- I can increase noise reduction in the SL2 files (SL Crons) quite a bit until micro contrast reaches the (lower) level of the M10 files. By then, the SL 2 files look just as clean, even on pixel level.

My conlusion: The SL 2 is absolutely usable at ISO 6400 and above, but more work is required in post. If most of my photographs were taken at ISO levels higher than 3200, I would probably look for another solution (less work in post).

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by anickpick

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, anickpick said:

I can only compare the files from the M10 to the ones from the SL2 (sold my SL a few months ago). 

Some observations:

- ISO 1600 with the SL 2 seems to be about ISO 2200 with the M10 (same lens, same exposure).

- Standard noise reduction in Lightroom is lower for the SL 2 than the M10.

- I can increase noise reduction in the SL2 files (SL Crons) quite a bit until micro contrast reaches the (lower) level of the M10 files. By then, the SL 2 files look just as clean, even on pixel level.

My conlusion: The SL 2 is absolutely usable at ISO 6400 and above, but more work is required in post. If most of my photographs were taken at ISO levels higher than 3200, I would probably look for another solution (less work in post).

I think this is the crux of the noise evaluation with raw files: how well can we handle noise in post processing. The 'straight-out-of-camera' (SOC) raw file state should not be relevant for people using RAW files. 'SOC' often means using default noise reduction values of the post-processing software. AFAIK, some cameras have even noise reduction baked into the raw files.

The final results counts, not what we get out of the camera (except for JPG files, which typically are the final result). 

With all the tests that we are doing here, one should remember the old saying: "Wer misst, misst Mist!" ("Who measures measures rubbish!").

[Fedro]

5 hours 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

Hey Pete, there is nothing wrong with you posting a couple of images to support your opinion.

Mine was more of a general comment. I really dont think that Paul's comment was necessarily directed at you either so wouldn't take offence ..

Fedro

Edited January 6, 2020 by Fedro

[Macberg]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb SrMi:

[...] AFAIK, some cameras have even noise reduction baked into the raw files. [...]

Does anyone know, whether it makes a difference for the level of noise in the SL2's RAW files depending on LENR being turned on or off?
Unfortunately, I can't try it out myself at the moment, because I am not at home (where the machine is) until tomorrow.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 minutes ago, Macberg said:

Does anyone know, whether it makes a difference for the level of noise in the SL2's RAW files depending on LENR being turned on or off?
Unfortunately, I can't try it out myself at the moment, because I am not at home (where the machine is) until tomorrow.

LENR helps prevent noise caused by long exposures (>= 5 sec). The high ISO noise discussed here is not affected by LENR setting. See also page 91 of English manual.

Edited January 6, 2020 by SrMi
(measured time when LENR kicks in)

[thighslapper]

...... well I think anyone wishing to comment on image noise would do well to read and fully digest the article on DPreview .... https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise which someone on a recent thread kindly posted a link to.

The take home is:  'Most of the noise you encounter wasn't contributed by your camera: it was shot noise from the light you captured and is primarily dictated by shutter speed, f-number and sensor (pixel) size. The rest of the noise business is much more complicated than I, and I suspect many here, realise.......

 

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by thighslapper

[anickpick]

hmmm, that's interesting... and complicated.... my take home is: expose to the right and hope for the best........

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, anickpick said:

hmmm, that's interesting... and complicated.... my take home is: expose to the right and hope for the best........

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/10/expose-to-the-right-is-a-bunch-of-bull.html

Jeff

[anickpick]

one can be obsessed by the fear of blown highlights

 

[anonimo_svizzero]

First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread.  You all took time to think about my somewhat fuzzy question and did your respective best to answer. I would like to also recognize that different people will look at the same file and draw different conclusions on usability, quality, etc. There are "fact-based" analysis out (for example, Photons to Photos), but they do not capture comments like the ones about the "film grain-like" look of noise, or the quality of color.

If you would like to know what my conclusion is (at least based on your collective wisdom), is that I need to take a second look at the SL2. I had decided to forego it, largely because I shoot in very low light and many of my photos have people in them (hence IBIS matters only to some extent). However, I think a better solution is to go to the local Leica store, where hopefully they will let me shoot a demo body. I will bring along my SL, shoot with the same lens and high ISO, and then bring home my card and figure out whether the SL2 is worth buying (for me, as I do not presume to offer judgement for anyone else).

 

Once again, thank you to everyone for taking the time to help me.

[Exodies]

4 hours ago, thighslapper said:

...... well I think anyone wishing to comment on image noise would do well to read a fully digest the article on DPreview .... https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise which someone on a recent thread kindly posted a link to.

The take home is:  'Most of the noise you encounter wasn't contributed by your camera: it was shot noise from the light you captured and is primarily dictated by shutter speed, f-number and sensor (pixel) size. The rest of the noise business is much more complicated than I, and I suspect many here, realise.......

 

 

 

 

You say sensor (pixel) size but doesn’t the article claim that sensor size is a factor?

[sillbeers15]

4 hours ago, anonimo_svizzero said:

First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread.  You all took time to think about my somewhat fuzzy question and did your respective best to answer. I would like to also recognize that different people will look at the same file and draw different conclusions on usability, quality, etc. There are "fact-based" analysis out (for example, Photons to Photos), but they do not capture comments like the ones about the "film grain-like" look of noise, or the quality of color.

If you would like to know what my conclusion is (at least based on your collective wisdom), is that I need to take a second look at the SL2. I had decided to forego it, largely because I shoot in very low light and many of my photos have people in them (hence IBIS matters only to some extent). However, I think a better solution is to go to the local Leica store, where hopefully they will let me shoot a demo body. I will bring along my SL, shoot with the same lens and high ISO, and then bring home my card and figure out whether the SL2 is worth buying (for me, as I do not presume to offer judgement for anyone else).

 

Once again, thank you to everyone for taking the time to help me.

When in doubt, go test out the camera to judge and decide for yourself. In forums, opinions varied and not all are relevant to you ....don’t fall victim to ‘blind leading the blind’.

[Macberg]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb anonimo_svizzero:

First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread.  You all took time to think about my somewhat fuzzy question and did your respective best to answer. I would like to also recognize that different people will look at the same file and draw different conclusions on usability, quality, etc. There are "fact-based" analysis out (for example, Photons to Photos), but they do not capture comments like the ones about the "film grain-like" look of noise, or the quality of color.

If you would like to know what my conclusion is (at least based on your collective wisdom), is that I need to take a second look at the SL2. I had decided to forego it, largely because I shoot in very low light and many of my photos have people in them (hence IBIS matters only to some extent). However, I think a better solution is to go to the local Leica store, where hopefully they will let me shoot a demo body. I will bring along my SL, shoot with the same lens and high ISO, and then bring home my card and figure out whether the SL2 is worth buying (for me, as I do not presume to offer judgement for anyone else).

 

Once again, thank you to everyone for taking the time to help me.

Would you mind letting us know about your experience at the Leica Store afterwards? Thank you.

[frame-it]

12 hours ago, anonimo_svizzero said:

 I had decided to forego it, largely because I shoot in very low light and many of my photos have people in them (hence IBIS matters only to some extent).

if like me you shoot on the street at night in available light ? IBIS is zero help for people, but great for static subjects/buildings etc etc

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, Exodies said:

You say sensor (pixel) size but doesn’t the article claim that sensor size is a factor?

It does, but in the context of the amount of light that is being 'sensed', the pixel size is also important: hence the development of back side illuminated sensors which have bigger pixels.

[Exodies]

Yes, that makes perfect sensor (tee hee). I don’t understand dpreview’s claim that sensor size affects noise. It is a pixel phenomenon not a global one.

[LocalHero1953]

I understood that to be indirectly because larger sensors usually have bigger pixels. I agree that simply spreading out the same number and same size pixels over a larger area would not affect noise.

Edited January 7, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

10 hours ago, Exodies said:

You say sensor (pixel) size but doesn’t the article claim that sensor size is a factor?

That may be pedantically correct but I added 'pixel' for clarification as all the discussion clearly assumes the same number of pixels on different sized sensors. Otherwise you could claim a MF sensor with 1000 pixels is better than a FF sensor with 4 pixels just because it's bigger, which is clearly rubbish. 

The interesting corollary to all this is that presumably there comes a point where 'shot noise' is statistically inevitable and no amount of sensor improvement will eradicate it ...... all you do is mitigate the added crap from amplification and background electronic noise. The astro guys get round this by long exposure times and multiple stacked images to minimise shot noise and average out the background variability, but that is no help to the rest of us in low light. 

Unless you can actively modify the sensitivity of the pixels ..... as the receptors in the retina do ..... there must also be a limit to DR improvement with current sensor technology. 

The reason I highlighted this article is that much of the variation in the high ISO images shown probably has more to do with the subject matter and the way the photo was taken rather than the inherent characteristics of the camera....... and that careful technique and choice of subject/conditions may be more of an aid in getting good images than changing cameras .... 

Edited January 7, 2020 by thighslapper