SL2-S

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, padam said:

It does not matter, if the quality, rolling shutter, 1.09x crop is exactly the same as the S1R, it is the same thing, e.g. pixel binning with a puffed-up name. Only the codecs and the presence of Log which are different. It does not mean that the SL2 is not a quantum leap over previous Leicas for video.

A couple of comments. Isn't the "1.09x crop" just the difference between the 3:2 (1.5:1) still ratio and 16:9 (1.77:1) video ratio? If so, it's hardly worth mentioning, given that every "full frame 35mm" still sensor has a 3:2 ratio.

"Pixel Binning" was term used a lot during the HD days. It's not as accurate here, since there is a necessary conversion between RGGB Bayer data and RGB video. You can call it over-sampling instead; each RGB pixel uses colour information from 4 pixels instead of 3. It's really nothing new, or special. The Arriflex Alexa did this from day 1, as have many other high-end video cameras. You need the additional samples in order to get clean colour information for green-screen/blue-screen/compositing work. I am just nit-picking, of course, but "pixel binning" has negative connotations, which aren't accurate here.

[ZHNL]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I find it interesting at all the criticism directed towards the camera. Leica is doing what every single other company has done, which is to sell a lower res version of the same body to market to people who: 1. Do not care about resolution. 2. Prefer better high ISO performance. 3. Want better video. 4. Want to pay as little as possible for the modern tech. If you don't want to do that, you can get the more expensive higher resolution model, which in this case is the SL2. They are doing literally the exact same thing as Sony, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon. Clearly this is a strategy that works...you save on all the tooling and R&D of creating a completely different body, and you satisfy a greater proportion of users. If you introduce the more expensive one first, you get more buyers at a higher profit as well, as you sell cameras to the people who would want that body, but also to the people who would be satisfied with the cheaper one, but prefer to buy the newer model immediately. Those same people might still buy the lower rez body later, meaning you get two sales. Once you are done satisfying demand for the higher rez body, the lower cost one comes out and you get a wider group of buyers as well as some of the initial group who might have wanted it as a backup or for the low light/video abilities. It seems like this is one of those cases where everybody wins...buyers get more choice and the company gets more sales for minimum additional effort.

The negative is not about this offer itself but the features offered and the price ratio between High Res vs Low Res one. Yes it has been a nice model used by others. Nikon Z: 3300Z7(or 3000Z72)/2000Z6, Canon R 3900R5/2500R6, Sony A 3500A7R4/2000A73. Panasonic 3500S1R/ 2500S1or2000S5.  Here with Leica is 6000/5000.

If there is new features such as smaller size, flip screen, it would be justified. Just saying. As a SL2 owner, I am happy to see this happen so I don't need to struggle to pick which one, it is a very easy decision for me, TBH.  

Edited December 8, 2020 by ZHNL

[padam]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

A couple of comments. Isn't the "1.09x crop" just the difference between the 3:2 (1.5:1) still ratio and 16:9 (1.77:1) video ratio? If so, it's hardly worth mentioning, given that every "full frame 35mm" still sensor has a 3:2 ratio.

"Pixel Binning" was term used a lot during the HD days. It's not as accurate here, since there is a necessary conversion between RGGB Bayer data and RGB video. You can call it over-sampling instead; each RGB pixel uses colour information from 4 pixels instead of 3. It's really nothing new, or special. The Arriflex Alexa did this from day 1, as have many other high-end video cameras. You need the additional samples in order to get clean colour information for green-screen/blue-screen/compositing work. I am just nit-picking, of course, but "pixel binning" has negative connotations, which aren't accurate here.

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!

Of course not, no crop means full width of the sensor with whatever aspect ratio the camera is recording at. (For instance some Canon cameras use Cinema 4k so for 16:9 one has to crop in slightly from the full width to achieve that)
This is the S1R, the SL2 seems to be a mystery as even full reviews don't seem to talk about it but I don't see a lot of vignetting so I assume it is slightly cropped in.
I can't find anything reliable about it other than it can record in C4K as well as UHD, I would tend to think in the first case it would be the red area except very slightly cropped in top and bottom.

In any case, the camera throws away a handful amount of data, and you can see the effect of that in the previous video.
It's not bad overall, but there is aliasing, more noise and less dynamic range (does not tolerate under- or overexposure), compared to using all the available pixels to record video, which is just a little bit slower readout, but it can provide a fairly clean video image even at ISO 25600.
Some may ask, is that actually useful?
The answer is a definite yes. It does provide the benefit of using more depth-of-field in low-light if necessary, not forced to using apertures f/2 or lower, which is fine for nailing one single image, but pretty shallow for FF video at close range, where it might constantly drift in and out of focus. Same with vignetting or uneven bokeh in the background, appealing for stills but it may be a bit distracting for video as cinema lenses are known to have a very even rendering across the frame (and of course as I wrote the 1.4-1.5x 1:1 crop (C4K/UHD) might have external ProRes RAW video recording enabled later on, which is another potentially big benefit).
 

OK finally found it, as expected it is the same 1.09x crop as the S1R.

The SL2-S will not have any crop on the sensor width (and it does actually matter if one is shooting with primes, which is a likely scenario with Leica lenses).

Edited December 8, 2020 by padam

[Coast to Coast Photo]

On 10/29/2020 at 9:26 AM, BernardC said:

Leica probably knows exactly what market share they want, and I would be surprised if their ideal share made them into a mainstream player. An important part of that strategy is not trying to be everything to everybody. There's an oft-reoccurring thread here in which people demand (demand!) that Leica release super-telephotos, the like of which only Nikon and Canon have ever been able to sell. You'll read fortellings of doom if Leica doesn't design/productise/manufacture/sell these lenses right away.

I'm sure it happens in every brand forum: "I absolutely need a feature that is offered by a different brand. My brand should drop everything and implement it right now!" There is no perfect camera.

If you want some reach, put a Hasselblad HC 300 on a Leica S. There's a reason I sold my Canon big white lenses.

[Coast to Coast Photo]

On 12/5/2020 at 10:17 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

That is the voice of reason, and I wouldn't criticise it - it's what I aspire to. But all the fans of the S system give as their primary justification the gorgeous image quality. One day I'm just going to have to borrow or rent one to try for myself.

I bought an S 007 new at the end of 2016. I have the 24, 45, 70CS, 100 and 180. Also via the S to H adaptor, I have the HC 35, 50-110, and 300. I have an SL with 16-35, 24-90, and 90-280. I have a holdover Otus 55mm that I use on the SL with a Novoflex adaptor. I sold 3 Canons- 2 5DSR's and 1 5D4 plus eleven of Canon's best lenses for the SL and 3 lenses. That was a good decision. Regarding the S, it easily best the SL and Canons. The 5DSR with the Otus attached had more resolution and produced a nice look, but you would likely choose the S over anything mentioned above when comparing images side-by-side. 

[jplomley]

Now, if only they could get the WA Summicrons out. The continuous delay indicates sales of the primes are not what they had hoped. 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And Leica Rumors wrongly predicted a size difference.  This is the third time they messed up on predicting a compact Leica, having done it twice regarding the phantom C/M. And they (Peter) also twice wrongly predicted the timing of the SL launch, eventually being almost a year early. Not hard to outperform their reporting the last couple of years.

Jeff

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, padam said:

OK finally found it, as expected it is the same 1.09x crop as the S1R.

Thanks. In that case it's done so they can get an even number of pixels for over-sampling.

According to specifications, the SL2 has 8368 pixels horizontally. UHD is 3840 pixels across. Double that (=7680), and multiply by 1.09. The actual crop ratio is 1.0896 (if the pixel numbers are correct), which is close enough to 1.09.

In other words, they over-sample by a ratio of 2:1 to get UHD out of the 47MP sensor. Which is exactly what anyone would do with the same sensor, since oversampling 2.17916667:1 would give you more aliasing. Try resizing an image by 8.96% in an image editor to get an idea of what would happen.

[Stuart Richardson]

36 minutes ago, Steven said:

18 days before the rumour websites ! What else do you guys want to know ? 😜😂😂

If I recall correctly, you stated specifically who your source was, didn't you? People at Leica read these threads, so if you want to protect your source (or at least not cause trouble for them), as well as keep getting information, you might have to be a bit more discreet. Then again, maybe I misremembered what you said!

[BernardC]

6 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Leica Rumors wrongly predicted a size difference.

They translated a Japanese web site. I guess Japanese uses similar phrasing for MP count and for LxWxH dimensions. Not a big deal, especially since they almost always mention their source and provide a link.

They often keep Chinese or Japanese phrasings, which makes it clear that they are providing a machine translation. Anyone who wants to read the source in its original language is free to do so.

[scott kirkpatrick]

SL2 had several promised functions that did not appear until firmware 20, about 6 months into the product life.  This is getting to be a pattern -- get the product out, state the goals, and then work over time to deliver all of them, but not all at once...  I'll bet some of the SL2-S video facilities take their time arriving.

[padam]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

Thanks. In that case it's done so they can get an even number of pixels for over-sampling.

According to specifications, the SL2 has 8368 pixels horizontally. UHD is 3840 pixels across. Double that (=7680), and multiply by 1.09. The actual crop ratio is 1.0896 (if the pixel numbers are correct), which is close enough to 1.09.

In other words, they over-sample by a ratio of 2:1 to get UHD out of the 47MP sensor. Which is exactly what anyone would do with the same sensor, since oversampling 2.17916667:1 would give you more aliasing. Try resizing an image by 8.96% in an image editor to get an idea of what would happen.

Unfortunately this is not the case. In that case, the SL2 4K image would be 'perfect' and it clearly isn't (but it is still fairly good overall)

There is only one camera that can do full oversampling at such a high megapixel count and that is the Canon EOS R5 and with the cutting edge AF system, it is a camera that may sway away some potential customers. Unfortunately, maybe intentionally they did not provide the appropritate cooling, so it will have a strong tendency to overheat.
The next generation of the Sony A9 line (A9III?) is also rumoured to do that. But oversampling only applies to the 8k30p or 4k HQ 30p mode, FF 4k60p will be a big step down in terms of quality (so that could be comparable to the SL2, but there is the possibility to use the 5K oversampled crop mode instead)
In theory, with active sensor heating, the sensors in these cameras should be fast enough to read out the whole sensor at twice the frame rate.

Unfortunately the SL2 sensor isn't nearly as advanced, the readout is not this blazing fast.
The APS-C mode which can be recorded in 5K you can see below is a lot sharper and less noisy in the SL2 so only that is when oversampling is active, otherwise in this specific case it is probably a 2x2 pixel binning in FF mode which is a decent way to throw away data, that is why there is that 1.09x crop, otherwise it would be worse still.
 

In conclusion: the SL2-S FF 4k30p video will be a lot sharper and less noisy with better dynamic range.
It will be even superior to the 5K shown here, because it will be derived from 6K without cropping and the ISO sensitivity for video will be right at that top level.

Edited December 8, 2020 by padam

[scott kirkpatrick]

9 hours ago, Steven said:

Scott, if I remember correctly you shoot on the sl2 and the M10R ? How has that been going for you ? 

I'm happy with both.  I'm sending off my SL[601]s and little-used Fuji gear to pay for an SL2-S   Then, once again, I will tell myself I am set for life.  I'll try to keep one SL[601] around long enough to see how the three SL chips compare.  I had given up on Leica for video (the two M4/3 platforms do an excellent job and I have some Olympus equipment) but will try again with the SL2-S once its firmware is complete early next year.

Edited December 9, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[sebben]

Video from Leica thus far has been sub par. Either aliasing, bad codecs, poor noise  performance or shoddy noise reduction.

 It’s an embarrassment that they keep pretending to have professional quality when they clearly don’t.  

perhaps this time they have managed to get it to the same level as the S1. 

[lx1713]

19 minutes ago, sebben said:

Video from Leica thus far has been sub par. Either aliasing, bad codecs, poor noise  performance or shoddy noise reduction.

 It’s an embarrassment that they keep pretending to have professional quality when they clearly don’t.  

perhaps this time they have managed to get it to the same level as the S1. 

I do video on a very limited basis. My clients and I've been pretty happy with the Leica files. I'm interested in which codecs you would like to see implemented that mades a difference 😊

[sebben]

I'm a professional cinematographer shooting commercials, features and documentaries so my requirements are higher than most. Let's put it this way. Panasonic have managed to make a good mirrorless camera for professional use with the S1H. If Leica is serious about video they would at least match those specifications. 

 

[sebben]

I don't use mirrorless cameras for professional work. It would be nice to have a small light camera for some applications to use with the Leica M lenses.

[kengai]

who benefits from the fewest pixels?

Edited December 9, 2020 by kengai

[caissa]

9 minutes ago, Steven said:

Quick question, if you use you mirrorless for professional video work, have you considered the A7SIII? Cause that's a real video beast! 

The a7s iii is overrated in my eyes. The colors in high iso are just as bad as in the predecessors. Hardly any improvement after so many years. Canon D6 looked the same already x years ago. (x = 6-8, I can’t remember exactly, so long ago).

Edited December 9, 2020 by caissa

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[sebben]

Quote

 

Only problem: it's a Sony camera. It's uninspiring. It doesn't procure you the sensations of a Leica. 

This is indeed the problem, it doesn't have prestige like the red dot and far too many buttons

Edited December 9, 2020 by sebben