S 007 renders better than SL2

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Agent M10 said:

I have both the S007 and the SL2. I wouldn't say that the S007's photographs are "better." The renderings are a bit different, but it all depends on what you are looking to do. I wouldn't put one system over the other at this point. 

The images out of the S are better than those out of the SL in the same way that the images out of a medium or large format analogue camera are better than those out of a digital camera. However a digital camera is much easier to work with and can be almost as good if you know how to post process and you have have a 16bit colour file.

There is no objective better because aesthetics aren't objective but  people who spend a lot of time looking at images, like photo editors, will tell you in a heart beat that this image is better than that image and not just because of it's composition. They will tell you the difference between an analogue versus a digital, they will tell you they prefer analogue if possible but they also know it's no longer practical, and they will unequivocally know that the files out of an S versus and SL are better, all other things being equal.

[Agent M10]

5 hours ago, geetee1972 said:

The images out of the S are better than those out of the SL in the same way that the images out of a medium or large format analogue camera are better than those out of a digital camera. However a digital camera is much easier to work with and can be almost as good if you know how to post process and you have have a 16bit colour file.

There is no objective better because aesthetics aren't objective but  people who spend a lot of time looking at images, like photo editors, will tell you in a heart beat that this image is better than that image and not just because of it's composition. They will tell you the difference between an analogue versus a digital, they will tell you they prefer analogue if possible but they also know it's no longer practical, and they will unequivocally know that the files out of an S versus and SL are better, all other things being equal.

Where’s the proof of this? This is the stuff of photo forums. Name me two real-life professional editors who are on record saying that real-life photographs from an S are unequivocally better than any of those from an SL2. 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Agent M10

[setuporg]

@Agent M10 of course this is the stuff of the forums, we're comparing subjective notes here.  I feel the S always delivers better dynamic range, and somehow there's more information in each image and it has more acuity, more subtle variations of color and tonality, and this is overall "more interesting".  If Leica models were people, the S would be the Most Interesting Man on Earth!:)

[geetee1972]

9 hours ago, Agent M10 said:

Where’s the proof of this? This is the stuff of photo forums. Name me two real-life professional editors who are on record saying that real-life photographs from an S are unequivocally better than any of those from an SL2. 

There is no proof, which is why I used the word ‘like’ in the first paragraph, i.e. the way the S is better than the SL is ‘like’ the way film is better than digital, ergo, it’s entirely undefinable and beyond ‘proof’ and yet a great many people believe it to be true. It’s also why I stated at the start of the second paragraph that there is ‘no objective better’, it’s all subjective. 

But with regard to the photo editors being ‘on record’, there’s plenty of evidence for that at a tacit level, you just have to look around you. The Taylor Wessing Prize is a good example; it is the worlds pre-eminent photographic portrait prize With typically half or more of the final selection being from analogue photographers. The vast majority of the worlds most collectible photographers are still shooting on film and the vast majority of the worlds most highly regarded fine art photographers (whether they are collectible or not) shoot their personal work on film. In conversation with a number of photo editors from big publications such as The Guardian, Le Monte and the New Yorker, they all express their personal preference for film. In conversation with a number of very prominent and highly regarded photographers, they also say the same. 

Don’t get me wrong, it wrangles with me as well but that’s mostly because I wish I had the time, patience and skill to shoot 4x5 but I don’t; my talents don’t extend that far. 

[Agent M10]

2 hours ago, geetee1972 said:

There is no proof, which is why I used the word ‘like’ in the first paragraph, i.e. the way the S is better than the SL is ‘like’ the way film is better than digital, ergo, it’s entirely undefinable and beyond ‘proof’ and yet a great many people believe it to be true. It’s also why I stated at the start of the second paragraph that there is ‘no objective better’, it’s all subjective. 

But with regard to the photo editors being ‘on record’, there’s plenty of evidence for that at a tacit level, you just have to look around you. The Taylor Wessing Prize is a good example; it is the worlds pre-eminent photographic portrait prize With typically half or more of the final selection being from analogue photographers. The vast majority of the worlds most collectible photographers are still shooting on film and the vast majority of the worlds most highly regarded fine art photographers (whether they are collectible or not) shoot their personal work on film. In conversation with a number of photo editors from big publications such as The Guardian, Le Monte and the New Yorker, they all express their personal preference for film. In conversation with a number of very prominent and highly regarded photographers, they also say the same. 

Don’t get me wrong, it wrangles with me as well but that’s mostly because I wish I had the time, patience and skill to shoot 4x5 but I don’t; my talents don’t extend that far. 

Pppffft. Whatever. Personal preference does not equate to superiority or "better." And you've changed the goalposts from S v. SL2 to digital v. film. Like I wrote in my prior post, the difference between the SL2 with 47MP and the S with 37MP comes down to subjective preferences. If you want to say that you like the S better, fine, but leave it at that. 

[geetee1972]

1 hour ago, Agent M10 said:

Pppffft. Whatever. Personal preference does not equate to superiority or "better." And you've changed the goalposts from S v. SL2 to digital v. film. Like I wrote in my prior post, the difference between the SL2 with 47MP and the S with 37MP comes down to subjective preferences. If you want to say that you like the S better, fine, but leave it at that. 

I agree personal preference isn't objective. What about weight of expert opinion, does that equate to anything? At some point enough people having a consistent opinion on a thing that they make a living out of had to carry some weight. You can disagree with the experts of course; my only objective is to make you aware that this is generally what the fine art photography world and the world of photo editors tends to think. Digital still tends to rule for commercial work but for everything else analogue is disproportionately represented. 

Let's say I prefer the results from a 16 bit file rather than a 14bit one and leave it at that. Megapixels are meaningless and I don't believe at this point that the SL2 IQ will be improved by more dots. You can make a 10" wide print from a 6MP file at 300dpi. All you get from increasing the pixel count is the ability to make a bigger  at 300dpi. I'm sure you get that though right? 

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would pose this question, does anyone think the M10 image files at 24 mp are better or worse than the Leica CL files which are also 24 mp, but at an asp-c size?  I do not believe mp alone determines better or worse. It is true the dynamic range of the S007 is still ahead of the SL2 as published by Leica.  However I also think it is an amazing feat that the S and SL2 are so close to be compared. Not long ago the. M sensor was not in the same league.

[xiaubauu2009]

On 1/30/2020 at 12:47 AM, geetee1972 said:

I agree personal preference isn't objective. What about weight of expert opinion, does that equate to anything? At some point enough people having a consistent opinion on a thing that they make a living out of had to carry some weight. You can disagree with the experts of course; my only objective is to make you aware that this is generally what the fine art photography world and the world of photo editors tends to think. Digital still tends to rule for commercial work but for everything else analogue is disproportionately represented. 

Let's say I prefer the results from a 16 bit file rather than a 14bit one and leave it at that. Megapixels are meaningless and I don't believe at this point that the SL2 IQ will be improved by more dots. You can make a 10" wide print from a 6MP file at 300dpi. All you get from increasing the pixel count is the ability to make a bigger  at 300dpi. I'm sure you get that though right? 

agree with the 16 v 14 bit part. but megapixel makes a huge difference and increasing megapixxel does improve details though. so no matter what, it is not jut some kind of mindless marketing plot.

[frame-it]

On 1/31/2020 at 12:23 PM, davidmknoble said:

I would pose this question, does anyone think the M10 image files at 24 mp are better or worse than the Leica CL files which are also 24 mp, but at an asp-c size?  I do not believe mp alone determines better or worse. It is true the dynamic range of the S007 is still ahead of the SL2 as published by Leica.  However I also think it is an amazing feat that the S and SL2 are so close to be compared. Not long ago the. M sensor was not in the same league.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Leica M10,Leica S (Typ 007),Leica SL2

[Dr No]

The S is better than the SL2 just as the Fuji/Hasselblad is better than Canon/Nikon/Sony near 50MP. Just as Phase One 100MP is better than smaller Fuji 100MP.

Mainly seen in graduation of tone and colour, quality of colour. Lens drawing, focus graduation is always smoother with larger surfaces.

This is true. If you still require objective proof then hire the different systems to find (the same thing) for yourself.

The only other pertinent consideration is wether the increase is quality is warranted by the individual.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Dr No

[caissa]

What about the SL2 in multishot mode (187 MP) ?

Tests showed that the noise is reduced, dynamic range improved, quality of color improved and that it is better than the S1R which has nominally the same specs, but probably a less refined algorithm. All only with the best lenses (Apo Summicrons).

Yes, it cannot be used in some circumstances, but it works for landscape for example or still life.

Edited August 12, 2020 by caissa

[Stuart Richardson]

I had bought a used SL2, thinking that it would take me a long time to get the S3, but a deal that made sense for me came up, so I will have both in hand. I will let you know. I suspect the SL2 will outresolve the S3 in those circumstances, but that the look will be different. Basically, my time spent using the SL2 and 50mm Summicron SL suggest to me that it is a camera that is more than good enough for any reasonable purpose. For me, the biggest reason to get the S3 is for the viewfinder, the handling, character of the lenses, and the different rendering of the larger format sensor. I also think that it is going to be better than the SL2 in single shot mode, given the higher resolution and lower noise per given ISO rating. In any case, we'll see...

 

[helged]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I had bought a used SL2, thinking that it would take me a long time to get the S3, but a deal that made sense for me came up, so I will have both in hand. I will let you know. I suspect the SL2 will outresolve the S3 in those circumstances, but that the look will be different. Basically, my time spent using the SL2 and 50mm Summicron SL suggest to me that it is a camera that is more than good enough for any reasonable purpose. For me, the biggest reason to get the S3 is for the viewfinder, the handling, character of the lenses, and the different rendering of the larger format sensor. I also think that it is going to be better than the SL2 in single shot mode, given the higher resolution and lower noise per given ISO rating. In any case, we'll see...

 

In addition to the optical viewfinder and the rendering of the S-lenses, (much) improved highlight clipping is a big plus for S3 for me (as for M10-R compared to previous M-incarnations). 

[LeicaR10]

Helged,  I totally agree.  I tried using the SL2 for my clients requirements but quickly found they did not like the color and "too perfect" rendering.  So the SL2 system found new homes via eBay.  I went back to the S007 and now the S3.  Resulting in my clients return.  I found the M10-R renders very similar to the S3 and in both cases, my clients vote with their wallets.  I use the S3 and S lenses for most of my landscape photographs, but when the requirements entail long remote hikes, the M10-R becomes the work horse.  Also, there is nothing better for me than a S3 view finder as well.  Bottomline: My clients are really sold on the rendering of the S3 and  M10-R.  If they are happy, I am happy.  r/ Mark

Edited August 13, 2020 by LeicaR10

[Stuart Richardson]

In doing some basic test shots this morning, I would say two things: the color rendering is rather different between the two cameras, but I have not compared a custom profile of each (I plan to). If absolute maximum resolution is the goal, I would say that the SL2 in high resolution mode does outresolve the S3. It is hard to do a perfect direct comparison, but I compared with the 120mm lens at 5.6 on both bodies, and the SL2 won (it has a 1.2x magnification advantage, but I am confident that this was not the main reason). When I compared using the 50mm APO Summicron and the 30-90 zoom at roughly the equivalent focal length, it was clear that the zoom was not able to keep up with the SL lens, and the SL was sharper even at 47mp. I believe that with a better lens on the S, the comparison would slightly favor the S3, but I do not have lenses that match up perfectly per focal length and of the same quality. So. Basically I would say that the main use case for the S3 over the SL2 is in interface and the look. If you like using an SLR and the S lenses and like the look of the S colors, then it is a good bet. It certainly has more resolution and better ISO performance than my S006. But if you are not interested in the S system in particular and just want the maximum resolution out of Leica lenses, then I think the SL2 with the APO summicrons are the way to go, particularly in conjunction with the multi shot mode.

[John Smith]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In doing some basic test shots this morning, I would say two things: the color rendering is rather different between the two cameras, but I have not compared a custom profile of each (I plan to). If absolute maximum resolution is the goal, I would say that the SL2 in high resolution mode does outresolve the S3. It is hard to do a perfect direct comparison, but I compared with the 120mm lens at 5.6 on both bodies, and the SL2 won (it has a 1.2x magnification advantage, but I am confident that this was not the main reason). When I compared using the 50mm APO Summicron and the 30-90 zoom at roughly the equivalent focal length, it was clear that the zoom was not able to keep up with the SL lens, and the SL was sharper even at 47mp. I believe that with a better lens on the S, the comparison would slightly favor the S3, but I do not have lenses that match up perfectly per focal length and of the same quality. So. Basically I would say that the main use case for the S3 over the SL2 is in interface and the look. If you like using an SLR and the S lenses and like the look of the S colors, then it is a good bet. It certainly has more resolution and better ISO performance than my S006. But if you are not interested in the S system in particular and just want the maximum resolution out of Leica lenses, then I think the SL2 with the APO summicrons are the way to go, particularly in conjunction with the multi shot mode.

With the offerings now between 40MP and 64MP, it seems that the main differences are ‘look’ or rendering and ease of use for the project. It’s something else to think I’m carrying around an M that has more MPs than my 007. 

Edited August 14, 2020 by John Smith

[John Smith]

I know that this thread started with comparisons between the S3 and SL2. Now that the M10-R has 40MP, it might be prudent to include in as well. David Farkas, for instance, said that the 70mm Summarit’s design was based on the 50mm Summilux-M.

[jrp]

On 8/13/2020 at 8:42 AM, LeicaR10 said:

 I tried using the SL2 for my clients requirements but quickly found they did not like the color and "too perfect" rendering. 

The SL2 can certainly produce hyper-real images with the right sort of sharpening in particular.  I do wonder whether it would be possible to degrade the SL2 image with negative dehaze or clarity or texture or other local contrast sharpening filter to obtain similar results (whereupon the ergonomics of the two systems, notably weight, becomes the deciding factor).  High iso performance is also important, but the ibis on the SL2 obviates the need for it in a lot of cases, unless the subject is moving. 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, jrp said:

The SL2 can certainly produce hyper-real images with the right sort of sharpening in particular.  I do wonder whether it would be possible to degrade the SL2 image with negative dehaze or clarity or texture or other local contrast sharpening filter to obtain similar results (whereupon the ergonomics of the two systems, notably weight, becomes the deciding factor).  High iso performance is also important, but the ibis on the SL2 obviates the need for it in a lot of cases, unless the subject is moving. 

Of course, and using many other possible techniques.  I wouldn’t use the term ‘degrade’, however; one person’s ‘degrade’ is another’s ‘enhance’. Just a matter of interpretation, of which there are myriad possibilities.  If gear mandated results, we’d all produce the same looking pictures and prints.

Jeff

Edited August 19, 2020 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear