SL2 vs. SL feedback

[RoySmith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/7/2020 at 4:59 AM, Exodies said:

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.

 Like how some noise is music and some noise is just noise.

[scott kirkpatrick]

1 hour ago, caissa said:

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.

No, film had 10 stops -- factor of 1 to 1000 on these charts, just as Ansel said...

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!

Screen Shot 2020-01-08 at 4.08.38 PM by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr 

Of course Kodachrome (I used it back when it was ASA 10) had much less DR.

Incidentally, every stop increase in ISO is a stop less of dynamic range, so even 1600 costs four stops, and 6400 costs six stops of the original 12 in range, from deepest shadows to highlights and eventually, on screen or on paper, they need to be expressed in 8 stops or less.  So 1600 (8 stops range) should look just as good on screen as 100 with 12 stops range, if the scene has an even exposure.

[bags27]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

No, film had 10 stops -- factor of 1 to 1000 on these charts, just as Ansel said...

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!

Screen Shot 2020-01-08 at 4.08.38 PM by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr 

Of course Kodachrome (I used it back when it was ASA 10) had much less DR.

Incidentally, every stop increase in ISO is a stop less of dynamic range, so even 1600 costs four stops, and 6400 costs six stops of the original 12 in range, from deepest shadows to highlights and eventually, on screen or on paper, they need to be expressed in 8 stops or less.  So 1600 (8 stops range) should look just as good on screen as 100 with 12 stops range, if the scene has an even exposure.

 I always thought Adams's zone system had 11 stops: zero to X. Was zero not a stop?

Edited January 8, 2020 by bags27

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, caissa said:

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 ....

Creating a custom color profile, say with a ColorChecker Passport, is simple and, done once, it can be made a default setting.  Integration with LR is easy.

Jeff

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, helged said:

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? 

I have not studied ISO 50 vs ISO 100 on SL2 as I assume that there is the same issue as with Q2 (same sensor?). With Q2 I saw more highlight clipping with ISO 50 than with ISO 100, even though the camera has more DR with ISO 50.

I corresponded with Bill Claff about my observation and his response was:

Don't confuse metering with dynamic range. You may need some negative exposure compensation at ISO 50 but it measures as having more dynamic range than ISO 100.

It seems that ISO 50 on SL2 and Q2 needs some special handling. That is probably the reason why Auto ISO on both cameras starts at ISO 100 and not at ISO 50.

[Chaemono]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

Don't confuse metering with dynamic range. You may need some negative exposure compensation at ISO 50 but it measures as having more dynamic range than ISO 100.

And yet it doesn’t.  One can’t recover as many highlight details and one get more easily shadow artifacts at ISO 50 than at ISO 100.  The SL2 ISO 100 files have more adjustment latitude/‘push-ability’ in this respect which in my book is DR.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, bags27 said:

 I always thought Adams's zone system had 11 stops: zero to X. Was zero not a stop?

Zone zero and zone 10 are separated by 10 stops. You can label 1 to 1024 with 11 stops, giving the same 10 stop range.

[SrMi]

18 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

And yet it doesn’t.  One can’t recover as many highlight details and one get more easily shadow artifacts at ISO 50 than at ISO 100.  The SL2 ISO 100 files have more adjustment latitude/‘push-ability’ in this respect which in my book is DR.

Did you underexpose appropriately with ISO 50?

[Chaemono]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

Did you underexpose appropriately with ISO 50?

No, but I ETTRed in this scene here equally at ISO 50 and ISO 100.  See which file has more DR when one actually attempts to recover highlight details.  Link for DNG download ist provided.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-tzdLng/

SL2 + 35 Summicron-SL opened in LR and exported as JPEG, not touched. DNG download here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g11576374-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=BJLV7gSeX6iQtuVCZ3H3pOldQoT_wbLZST2aMzZA0Wo=

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!

ISO 50 f/2 @1/20 sec.

SL2 + 35 Summicron-SL opened in LR and exported as JPEG, not touched. DNG download here: https://cc2032.zenfolio.com/img/g332911839-o750076470.dat?dl=2&tk=swwbK_HIUvbrI6mTRRx3usXZoJA2-wm9E8vjBYpNV74=

ISO 100 f/2 @1/40 sec.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Chaemono

[Chaemono]

And now with Highlights -100, Shadows +100, and in the ISO 100 file NR +20.  Look at the mannequin's face.

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-tzdLng/

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!

ISO 50 f/2 @1/20 sec. Highlights -100, Shadows +100

ISO 100 f/2 @1/40 sec. Highlights -100, Shadows +100, NR +20

[Chaemono]

It's not just the mannequin's face, look at the purse.  DR of ISO 100 files is much better than of ISO 50 files, obviously. 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-tzdLng/

Crop from #92

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!

ISO 50 f/2 @1/20 sec.

Crop from #92ISO 100 f/2 @1/40 sec.

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

It's not just the mannequin's face, look at the purse.  DR of ISO 100 files is much better than of ISO 50 files, obviously. 

Less compressed JPEGs here: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-tzdLng/

Crop from #92

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!

ISO 50 f/2 @1/20 sec.

Crop from #92ISO 100 f/2 @1/40 sec.

As Bill said, I think you are confusing exposure with dynamic range. Bill’s measurements are theoretical and very reliable.

However, for practical purposes, ISO 50 may have less usable dynamic range. I need to run some more tests to wrap my head around it. 

 

[Chaemono]

Gerade eben schrieb SrMi:

As Bill said, I think you are confusing exposure with dynamic range. Bill’s measurements are theoretical and very reliable.

However, for practical purposes, ISO 50 may have less usable dynamic range. I need to run some more tests to wrap my head around it. 

 

How am I confusing exposure with DR?  The ISO 50 and the ISO 100 files are equally exposed.

[SrMi]

57 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

How am I confusing exposure with DR?  The ISO 50 and the ISO 100 files are equally exposed.

Because you are not talking about dynamic range per se, but about the dynamic range of a properly exposed image. Granted your discussion may be more relevant than the theoretical one.

The best dynamic range may apparently not always be achievable with correct exposure.

[Aktenschrank]

53 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

How am I confusing exposure with DR?  The ISO 50 and the ISO 100 files are equally exposed.

What I have found in my personal (unscientific but persistent:) tests is that ISO 50 has just a tad more usable DR. About 1/3-2/3 of a stop when underexposed accordingly. One needs to underexpose the ISO 50 shot by about 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop to get the same highlight recoverability as ISO 100, then lift the overall exposure by the same amount in post. This will result in the same highlight recoverability with the ISO 50 file, but slightly cleaner shadows. Now, the difference is not that big and, just like probably many on this thread, I´m still debating if it's worth even doing😀

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

No, film had 10 stops -- factor of 1 to 1000 on these charts, just as Ansel said...

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!

Screen Shot 2020-01-08 at 4.08.38 PM by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr 

Of course Kodachrome (I used it back when it was ASA 10) had much less DR.

Incidentally, every stop increase in ISO is a stop less of dynamic range, so even 1600 costs four stops, and 6400 costs six stops of the original 12 in range, from deepest shadows to highlights and eventually, on screen or on paper, they need to be expressed in 8 stops or less.  So 1600 (8 stops range) should look just as good on screen as 100 with 12 stops range, if the scene has an even exposure.

Some black and white films could have 10 stops. Developing chemistry and techniques played a big roll in how much DR we got from a film.

Colour films had less, especially slides (positives). 6 stops was pretty god for some. I commercially printed Cibachromes and if I never see a contrast neg again it will be too soon.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I'm not sure Michael Reichman wanted us to blow the highlights when he and Jeff Schewe proposed ETTR as an exposure technique all those years ago. And as modern sensors have improved, we're fortunate to have to make the decision of what to clip less often.

Several years ago I shifted from ETTR to *protect the highlights*. It's a subtle difference in though process but I have found that exposing the highest tones you need to keep at 245 is an easy way to maximise the amount of data you need to work with. And with modern sensors I only do this in extreme situations. Maybe about 5% of the time. the other 95% I just put the histogram somewhere to the upper end and let it be. Some cameras (I haven't looked at the SL2 yet) allow you to use the zebra patterns to really easily expose to protect the highlights. By PtH (trademark pending  )as a though process rather than ETTR I push things a bit less. To me clipping highlights is the devil.... unless it's deliberate. Much like shooting slides but with more to play with.

My bias is that I'm also an old slide film shooter. Fujifilm in my case. Velvia at ISO32 for landscapes, Astia for portraits and NPH for weddings. I don't like, at all, the HDR look. Sometimes blacks are meant to be black. Personally I feel a bit spoiled by modern sensors. Not limited by them.

Gordon

p.s. ISO 50 is my go to ISO on the SL/S1R. Over 50% of shots from my last trip were at ISO 50. It's in my nature to shoot the lowest ISO available to me if possible. I rarely shoot above ISO 800.

Edited January 8, 2020 by FlashGordonPhotography
speeeling errors

[Jeff S]

27 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I'm not sure Michael Reichman wanted us to blow the highlights when he and Jeff Schewe proposed ETTR as an exposure technique all those years ago. And as modern sensors have improved, we're fortunate to have to make the decision of what to clip less often.

Several years ago I shifted from ETTR to *protect the highlights*. It's a subtle difference in though process but I have found that exposing the highest tones you need to keep at 245 is an easy way to maximise the amount of data you need to work with. And with modern sensors I only do this in extreme situations. Maybe about 5% of the time. the other 95% I just put the histogram somewhere to the upper end and let it be. Some cameras (I haven't looked at the SL2 yet) allow you to use the zebra patterns to really easily expose to protect the highlights. By PtH (trademark pending  )as a though process rather than ETTR I push things a bit less. To me clipping highlights is the devil.... unless it's deliberate. Much like shooting slides but with more to play with.

My bias is that I'm also an old slide film shooter. Fujifilm in my case. Velvia at ISO32 for landscapes, Astia for portraits and NPH for weddings. I don't like, at all, the HDR look. Sometimes blacks are meant to be black. Personally I feel a bit spoiled by modern sensors. Not limited by them.

Gordon

p.s. ISO 50 is my go to ISO on the SL/S1R. Over 50% of shots from my last trip were at ISO 50. It's in my nature to shoot the lowest ISO available to me if possible. I rarely shoot above ISO 800.

Gordon, you might have read Ctein’s posts a while back on TOP...

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

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

4 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Gordon, you might have read Ctein’s posts a while back on TOP...

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

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I have seen it. And I apply a similar curve as well, although I pull the mids a bit more than he does (three points on the curve). Twas nice to see Ctein confirm my findings. haha.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[thighslapper]

ETTR is not a bunch of bull ..... it's just that the rationale usually used to justify it is wrong ..... and it doesn't apply in all situations.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Emil Martinec/noise-p3.html

This and the preceding and following pages go into all this business quite exhaustively. I had not realised just how complicated and numerous the factors were involved in trying to achieve good image quality from a sensor ......

Edited January 8, 2020 by thighslapper