Jump to content

Leica SL2 Firmware 2.0: 187 MP Multishot Mode


LUF Admin

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Luca said:

I need one clarification.

Why turning off ''motion artifacts correction '''  in multi-shot ?

Not very clear to me 

thanks

If you have completely static subject, turn motion artifact correction Off for better details. If you have slight motions, e.g., leaves moving in the wind, turn motion artifact correction On to prevent strange movement effects, but you may get slightly less detail than with the correction Off.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, michali said:

+1.  I found exactly the same yesterday, both with the VE 24-90mm as well as the Sigma 135mm f1.8,  at f5.6 and at f8 with both lenses. I don't think it's your lens or the tripod. I'm sure there's something else going on here. I used both a tripod and a bean bag on a table, results were the same, mediocre.  Subject was static, a bronze sculpture.

The results @ 47MP were far superior to the Multishot mode.  I'll try again with a couple of M lenses today and report back. 

<snip>

 

FWIW, I was blown away by the quality of images in Multishot mode, using M-lenses, both outdoors in slight wind, and indoors. I have not tried it on S1R. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Arrow said:

Interesting. I also tend to rather underexpose to get better results. Did not know why. It just proved to give better results. :)

Yes, same behavior was observed with Leica Q2.

PhotonsToPhotos chart indicates that ISO 50 is native (better DR). 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, michali said:

+1.  I found exactly the same yesterday, both with the VE 24-90mm as well as the Sigma 135mm f1.8,  at f5.6 and at f8 with both lenses. I don't think it's your lens or the tripod. I'm sure there's something else going on here. I used both a tripod and a bean bag on a table, results were the same, mediocre.  Subject was static, a bronze sculpture.

The results @ 47MP were far superior to the Multishot mode.  I'll try again with a couple of M lenses today and report back. 

FWIW I'd given up on Multishot mode after trying it out when I had the S1R.  See my comments here:

<snip>

I am getting much better results with 90-280 @90mm than with 24-90 @ 90mm. Still not as good as APO-Summicron 90/2 ASPH but close enough to be usable.

It must be an issue with my 24-90 :(.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@FlashGordonPhotography -- here's an example of the relatively crude interpolation that the S1R uses for its multishot compared with what Leica does in its new firmware.  Leica on the left, Lumix on the right:

Screen Shot 2020-06-21 at 10.54.23 PM (2) by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Subject for further study -- what, really, are the differences between motion compensating and straight multishot in this firmware.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Yes, same behavior was observed with Leica Q2.

PhotonsToPhotos chart indicates that ISO 50 is native (better DR). 

Based on my experience, highlights are more easily washed out at ISO50; I therefore use ISO100 as base ISO (and typically underexpose a little to maintain highlight details).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

I am getting much better results with 90-280 @90mm than with 24-90 @ 90mm. Still not as good as APO-Summicron 90/2 ASPH but close enough to be usable.

It must be an issue with my 24-90 :(.

Again based on my experience, in this case based on SL24-90, SL90-280, SL75 and S120): The SL24-90 is generally excellent (and mazingly good at the wide end), but it is the weakest of the mentioned lenses at/near 90 mm. I only see this when I run tests, otherwise the SL24-90 looks great at 90mm as well. There could be sample variations, and my tests may not be water proof. But this is what I see. That being said, the SL24-90 is likely my most used lens on the SL/SL2 since it covers 'all' standard focal lengths.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, helged said:

Again based on my experience, in this case based on SL24-90, SL90-280, SL75 and S120): The SL24-90 is generally excellent (and mazingly good at the wide end), but it is the weakest of the mentioned lenses at/near 90 mm. I only see this when I run tests, otherwise the SL24-90 looks great at 90mm as well. There could be sample variations, and my tests may not be water proof. But this is what I see. That being said, the SL24-90 is likely my most used lens on the SL/SL2 since it covers 'all' standard focal lengths.

SL24-90 is also my most used lens, and I am happy with the 47Mp results. For some reason Multishot results do not look that good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, helged said:

Based on my experience, highlights are more easily washed out at ISO50; I therefore use ISO100 as base ISO (and typically underexpose a little to maintain highlight details).

The highlights are 'washed out' because you must underexpose more at ISO 50. There is more DR at ISO50 than at ISO100. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, helged said:

Again based on my experience, in this case based on SL24-90, SL90-280, SL75 and S120): The SL24-90 is generally excellent (and mazingly good at the wide end), but it is the weakest of the mentioned lenses at/near 90 mm. I only see this when I run tests, otherwise the SL24-90 looks great at 90mm as well. There could be sample variations, and my tests may not be water proof. But this is what I see. That being said, the SL24-90 is likely my most used lens on the SL/SL2 since it covers 'all' standard focal lengths.

Consistent with Roger’s Law on wide angle  zooms (although the 24-90 isn’t so wide)...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2020 at 11:40 AM, blakley said:

Is there any word on whether the issue raised in this thread has been resolved

 

Update: the "pixel rain" issue is now fixed, according to mathphotographer, who is the guy who reported it in the first place.

Details in his new video:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SrMi said:

The highlights are 'washed out' because you must underexpose more at ISO 50. There is more DR at ISO50 than at ISO100. 

Oh dear, now I'm confused. I've read in several places that the general opinion is that the "base" iso is 100, and that ISO 50 is  therefore a "pulled" setting. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's a comparison of multishot in still air.  35 SL SC was used, shot with motion artifact correctionON (on the left) and OFF (on the right).  Rendered in Capture One at 100%, then blown up to 400% in Preview.

Screen Shot 2020-06-22 at 11.08.47 AM (2) by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

What seems to be happening is that the extra processing on the motion side enhances contrast a bit but loses a little resolution.  And of course when there is motion to be corrected it does a nice job of collapsing eight images into one and sharpening a bit.  See my post with the stopwatch second hand moving for an example of that.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, masjah said:

Oh dear, now I'm confused. I've read in several places that the general opinion is that the "base" iso is 100, and that ISO 50 is  therefore a "pulled" setting. 

Quite many have run real-world tests of the SL2 sensor at ISO50, 100, 200, etc. The best I can say is to treat ISO100 as the base ISO, and you get the most out of the sensor (see also the video in post 112 at about 17:40). At ISO50 you have to underexpose quite a bit more than at ISO100 in order to preserve highlights, so I am quite confident that the added DR at ISO50 is (more than) lost compared to ISO100.

For the SL, on the contrary, ISO50 and ISO200 are preferable compared to ISO100 based on a compromise between DR and highlight clipping. Therefore, on SL, I hardly use ISO100 at all. Certainly confusing, but this is how it is (for me, at least)...

Edited by helged
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, masjah said:

Oh dear, now I'm confused. I've read in several places that the general opinion is that the "base" iso is 100, and that ISO 50 is  therefore a "pulled" setting. 

 

I’ve not experience on Leica camera. I’m waiting my new SL 2. I know all my Cameras, Nikon, Sony have the minimal ISO value (50) as pulled. This is the result of the capacity of highlight recovering of the sensor.  For this i think is a normal behaviour of the camera. (Sorry for my terrible english)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stefanomattia said:

Hi all!

Do you now if this will be available in the near future also for the Leica Q2?

Will be really a great think, especially for landscape, with the 28 mm.

Do you see any technical limitation to this?

Thanks.

Stefano

The Q2 does not have sensor stabilization, so it will not work. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, helged said:

At ISO50 you have to underexpose quite a bit more than at ISO100 in order to preserve highlights

Is it perhaps exactly 1 f-stop more?

As far as I know, the SL2's sensor doesn't have variable gain at all ISOs (only Canon does that for now), so 50 is the same as 100, with the curve shifted by 1 f-stop. In other words, 50 gives you less room in the highlights, and more in the shadows, compared to 100.

I wouldn't be surprised if the main reason to offer 50 ISO was to allow Noctilux use in full daylight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...