Quick Test of Multishot Mode

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

<snip>

For me, the "purity" of an image that lacks digital artefacts like false color is what I think is particularly helped by the high res mode. For images of (say) mountain landscapes that have very fine rocks in the distance or glaciers etc can often attract that digital mess, and in that scenario i think high res mode will be superbly useful for me.

<snip>

The haze in the air (movements) can mess up a high resolution shot. It is to be seen how well SL2 handles those.

[Advertisement]

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

[Arrow]

Crop of a Moissanite crystal. 90 Cron SL

1st multi shot.

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!

Edited June 20, 2020 by Arrow

[Arrow]

Here is the original version.

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!

[scott kirkpatrick]

Following the example I posted yesterday, I wanted to see what difference the motion compensation makes.  Here's the stopwatch second hand without motion compensation:

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!

U1040004 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

You can see that the duration of the 8 shots is actually about 600 msec.  Motion compensation narrows it.  The example I showed looked like a 400 msec difference between the initial shot and the result produced by motion comp.  On another try I estimated 200 msec.  So the fancier algorithm collects data and moves it toward the sharpest point, which could be anywhere in the time range of the 8 shots.  Incidentally, the computation is heavy.  Turning off motion comp means that you get the camera back 5 seconds earlier.

[Stuart Richardson]

9 hours ago, SrMi said:

The haze in the air (movements) can mess up a high resolution shot. It is to be seen how well SL2 handles those.

I think this is a significant issue in terms of multishot camera utility, at least for landscape work at infinity. I have seen increased aliasing in both the S1 and SL2 in these circumstances. It may be insurmountable until the time between shots becomes short enough to mimic a typical photographic exposure. Or at least maybe until they improve the jagged pixels that result. I know people probably think that it is crazy to nitpick at a 187mp file, but I find that the addded resolution is very subtle, and not comparable to what one might expect from a true 150+ megapixel file. Furthermore, I think that in certain situations, better results might be obtained by taking the extremely high quality original 47mp file and interpolating it using photoshop and preserve details 2.0 and properly employing sharpening. Clearly there are some bonuses it cannot provide, like the elimination of the moire in Jon's photos, but sometimes the motion artifacts and stitching errors are worse than the moire. So essentially, it is a very nice tool to have in the toolbox, but not a panacea. I am glad it is there, and hopefully it will continue to improve over time, as the possibilities of the technology are exciting.

[Stuart Richardson]

In any case, I look forward to testing it more in the coming days. I just had a trip that would have been a perfect test, but hopefully I will be on the road again soon. I think I will probably try it using my wooden tripod that I use for large format...I have a feeling that it is almost impossible to be stable enough for this to work perfectly...flimsy tripods are not going work so well for this technique.

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, i think it is a great tool that Leica has produced here. I took some more images outside today ....there was a sufficient wind to cause leaves on trees to be in obvious and constant flutter, and i also took images of a river that was flowing. I would guess those are very tricky scenarios for a multi shot. The SL2 handled it better than i expected. Perfect, no, not for the leaves in full motion IMHO (but it is a 15km speed wind here today!). A bird was in flight in one shot, a train was passing by in another - both captured fine in high res mode to my eyes.  I suspect that the holy grail for landscapes and leaves in constant flutter is probably still a try medium format back, ie, something like a Phase One 150mp. But for my needs, what Leica has done here is super useful and seems to work perfectly for CERTAIN situations ....ie, static subjects, architecture, indoor studio work, etc. A casual snapshot is below using the high res mode ....this is the type of subject where i can't find anything to criticise regarding how the SL2 has handled it, even the water that was flowing under the bridge looks spot on and without any weird artefacts from the pixel shifting. The brick work and rivets in this bridge are all absolutely perfectly rendered IMHO, with nothing that I can fault at its native 55" size or even when resized to (say) 70". I doubt my 5x4 film and a drum scan would have captured it with higher resolution. Again, SL2 + SL 50 APO + relatively lightweight Gitzo GT1542 and Arca P0 head. Oh, the seemingly never-ending messages that the SL2 flags when i'm trying to compose about the need to stabilise the camera was driving me bonkers though ....   

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!

Edited June 20, 2020 by Jon Warwick

[scott kirkpatrick]

Here's an outdoor shot, middle distances.  The original stored on Flickr is 15000x10000 (click through twice)

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!

U1040032 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr SL2 multishot, 35 SL SC@f/2.8

and here's a crop which should show at close to 100% if you click through

U1040032 2 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

The Monastery of the Holy Cross is situated where it is believed that Adam's head was buried (long ago, but a site was consecrated here around 400 CE).  That nourished the roots of the tree from which the wood was cut for the cross on which Christ was crucified.  The present monastery was started around 1000-1100 CE by Georgians, all of whom were executed by Sultan Beybars.  The Georgians got it back about 100 years later, but sold it to the Greeks to cover their debts.  Life is quieter there now.  As you can see, they even have en suite plumbing.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[Tailwagger]

I was out shooting this morning with the idea of comparing multishot to MF.  With the Karbe optics, under the correct circumstances, it is frankly incredible. It's just a PITA to deal with due to that stupid message... yeah I'm not going to let that one go. Anyhoo, I posted a  comparsion shot plus crops  vs the X1D in that thread for those that are interested.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tailwagger

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think this is a significant issue in terms of multishot camera utility, at least for landscape work at infinity. I have seen increased aliasing in both the S1 and SL2 in these circumstances. It may be insurmountable until the time between shots becomes short enough to mimic a typical photographic exposure. Or at least maybe until they improve the jagged pixels that result. I know people probably think that it is crazy to nitpick at a 187mp file, but I find that the addded resolution is very subtle, and not comparable to what one might expect from a true 150+ megapixel file. Furthermore, I think that in certain situations, better results might be obtained by taking the extremely high quality original 47mp file and interpolating it using photoshop and preserve details 2.0 and properly employing sharpening. Clearly there are some bonuses it cannot provide, like the elimination of the moire in Jon's photos, but sometimes the motion artifacts and stitching errors are worse than the moire. So essentially, it is a very nice tool to have in the toolbox, but not a panacea. I am glad it is there, and hopefully it will continue to improve over time, as the possibilities of the technology are exciting.

I agree it is not a panacea, and one has to learn how to apply the multishot best. A well-executed multishot (187Mp), compared to a single shot (47Mp), has the advantage of less noise, smoother colors, and better detail. IMO, the most significant disadvantages are the movement challenges (objects and camera) and slow post-processing. 

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In any case, I look forward to testing it more in the coming days. I just had a trip that would have been a perfect test, but hopefully I will be on the road again soon. I think I will probably try it using my wooden tripod that I use for large format...I have a feeling that it is almost impossible to be stable enough for this to work perfectly...flimsy tripods are not going work so well for this technique.

Seems to work well with my RRS carbon fibre tripod, the same one I use for my other 100Mp cameras. The key is to have stable grounds (e.g, no shooting from bridges) and only little wind. But as they say: YMMV.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've been just using a Manfrotto table-top tripod braced on a convenient stone wall, or on my desk.  But because of the stupid error message, I have to set up for single shot, compose and focus, then switch over to multiple shot, decide if I do or do not want motion correction, and then take my shot.  When I am working in tight quarters, and can barely see the back of the camera, even with live view and Fotos remote, this is annoying and awkward.

[Arrow]

The process one is obviously supposed to follow in order to get the shot is somehow reminiscent of large format. Focus, compose, cock the shutter, put the film holder in, remove the slider, wait for the whole thing to stop moving ...... expose. Maybe, Leica wants us to get this large format feel  

Is there a SL2 to Linhof adapter?

Edited June 20, 2020 by Arrow

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

But for my needs, what Leica has done here is super useful and seems to work perfectly for CERTAIN situations ....ie, static subjects, architecture, indoor studio work, etc.

I have to concur with this. I've seen plenty of examples with artifacts that were less than satisfying coming out of the S1s, but after a few hours shooting even outdoors, admittedly in calm conditions, I've come away impressed. It is indeed a useful addition, if for no other reason than digital zooming.  2k 100% crop:

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!

 

 

[Tailwagger]

From this shot: (which looks a lot better here (scaling?) in both cases if clicked on)

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!

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tailwagger

[Stuart Richardson]

I did a comparison out my window last night of high resolution mode versus interpolation using preserve details 2.0. I optimized sharpening for both files separately, but I figured I would show the results at 100% and 300%. In any case, I found it interesting. The High Resolution mode certainly does add a bit of detail and in certain areas it had a cleaner detail (such as removing a slight bit of moire in a mountainside on the upper right. I believe this was taken at f5.0 on the 50mm APO Summicron and I was using a heavy wooden Riis tripod. I cannot remember which version this was...the one with motion correction or without, but it was the better of the two. I believe it is with, as the water in the other had more artifacts. It is smoother than the single capture, however.

Two things are clear to me:

1. Leica seems to have done a better job with this than Panasonic did on the S1. At least in the version I have tested. I am noticing fewer artifacts and better fidelity, though I have not compared side to side. That is just my feeling.

2. The overall pixel quality of the 47mp file is outstanding, and among the best I have seen. Normally higher resolution sensors seem to have less acutance than their lower resolution counterparts, but this sensor is very very sharp. As such, interpolation works very well. So in this case, I would say that people needing large prints but who cannot use the high resolution mode because of motion or artifacts are probably not giving up ALL that much, other than the detail at extraordinary print sizes. The high resolution image is mostly maxing out the printer at 80x120cm (360dpi). In the past, I would use 120dpi as a good rule of thumb for image quality in very large prints. At that size it is around 240x350cm. At those sizes the differences would be clear, but frankly, at those sizes the printing technology is unlikely able to keep up, unless you print strips with a smaller high end inkjet.

In summary: the SL2 with the best primes and a stable platform is extraordinary.

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!

[sillbeers15]

Apart from more details large prints, higher resolution pics also result in more depth.

[jaapv]

Could you please explain the mechanism behind that observation? I see no difference between my 10 MP DMR and my current 24 MP cameras in this respect. Maybe I misunderstood your use of "depth". I assume that you mean the quality of sharpness falloff through DOF.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sillbeers15]

I’m not familiar with 10MP DMR. On comparing 24MP & 47.3MP and now into Multishot high resolution, the details and contrast increased also produce a more province depth effect on a two dimensional display screen / print. It is like putting on a pair of glasses vs none.

[Stuart Richardson]

I have not noticed this yet, but would be interested to see if it pans out. Personally, based on my experience with printers, my guess is that there will not be a difference at smaller print sizes, as the cameras are maxing out the printer below 40x60cm (47x71 for 300dpi like Canon etc). I realize that one can print at 720dpi, but generally the differences are not visible except on extremely close inspection, and then only in things like wires and thin, hard edges.