SL2-S

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

46 minutes ago, Slender said:

So DP review got IP52 showing at the bottom plate of their camera in this video

At what time does the video show the bottom plate? Can anyone who has SL2-S check whether the bottom plate says IP52 or IP54?

[SrMi]

20 minutes ago, Pixeleater said:

I'm curious to know how the sensor in the SL2 and SL2-S is compromised when used with an M lens?

Very, very little. See Sean Reid's site (subscription) for detailed analysis.

[Advertisement]

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

[Kim Dahl]

39 minutes ago, Pixeleater said:

I'm curious to know how the sensor in the SL2 and SL2-S is compromised when used with an M lens?

Reid Reviews has not tested the SL2-s yet.  But it will surely come.  I'm also curious if the SL2-s is good for M optics

[Slender]

30 minutes ago, SrMi said:

At what time does the video show the bottom plate? Can anyone who has SL2-S check whether the bottom plate says IP52 or IP54?

4:47

[la1402]

39 minutes ago, SrMi said:

At what time does the video show the bottom plate? Can anyone who has SL2-S check whether the bottom plate says IP52 or IP54?

IP54 for mine

[SrMi]

15 minutes ago, Slender said:

4:47

Good catch :)!

It seems that IP52 was only on pre-production cameras.

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!

[Steven]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

56 minutes ago, SrMi said:

At what time does the video show the bottom plate? Can anyone who has SL2-S check whether the bottom plate says IP52 or IP54?

I checked. Mine says IP54.

[nicci78]

@Pixeleater Look at Jono Slack SL2 review. Leica M10 is still the best for M lenses.

 

Let’s say that M10 series sensors’ microlenses are fully offset on the corner for non telecentric M lenses. 
Whereas SL/SL2/SL2-S microlenses cannot be totally offset in order to be used with telecentric SL lenses. 
 

To sum M10 series are non compromise 100% made for M lenses. 
But SL series are a compromise to fit both SL lenses and M lenses. With a priority for SL lenses support. That’s why wide angle M lenses will not be as good as with M10. 
Lumix S and Sigma fp do not care about M lenses. That’s why they not as good as SL series for M lenses. I guess that they lack offset microlenses  

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by nicci78

[nicci78]

For example M10 is fine with pre-2016 Elmarit-M 28mm asph and Summicron-M 28mm asph. 
But SL will required 2016 Elmarit-M 28mm asph and Summicron-M 28mm asph for good performance. 

http://www.slack.co.uk/leica-m-resolution.html

 

[Radost]

On 12/10/2020 at 11:15 PM, Mr.Q said:

Ok thanks, I'm not interested then.

Why not?

[Radost]

Does anybody have actual Prores out of camera original video samples?

[Mr.Q]

8 hours ago, Radost said:

Why not?

Because I own the SL2 already and I'm not interested in video. If the SL2-S came with PDAF it could have potentially replaced my Sony A9 for non-static stuff but that's not the case, so this new camera presents nothing new to the the table, at least for me.

[Radost]

19 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Because I own the SL2 already and I'm not interested in video. If the SL2-S came with PDAF it could have potentially replaced my Sony A9 for non-static stuff but that's not the case, so this new camera presents nothing new to the the table, at least for me.

makes sense.

I can overlook the autofocus but not rolling shutter.

Shooting prores in camera is the number one reason I want the camera. 

[Dr. G]

On 12/18/2020 at 7:09 AM, Mr.Q said:

Because I own the SL2 already and I'm not interested in video. If the SL2-S came with PDAF it could have potentially replaced my Sony A9 for non-static stuff but that's not the case, so this new camera presents nothing new to the the table, at least for me.

I had the a9ii with some great glass (Sigma 14-24 f2.8, GM 24 1.4, ZEISS Sony 50 1.4 ZA, Sigma 35 1.2, Sigma 105 1.4, Sony 100-400 GM, Sony 200-600G and the 1.4x and 2x TC). I spent way too much time working on my a9ii files in post in terms of color adjustments.  I also have the SL2 with the APO Summicron-SL 35, 50 and 90.  Those images require little work in post but I have more images that are out of critical focus with the Leica system when using relatively shallow DOF and dealing with moving subjects (even slower moving subjects).  The AF system can’t compete with the Eye-AF of the Sony.

Last week I tried the Canon R5 with the RF 50 1.2 and compared it to the SL2/APO Summicron-SL 50mm combination.  I shot static images on a tripod, ISO 100, e shutter to avoid shutter shock and used a shutter timer to avoid vibration.  I shot both at f2 to compare them.  In one set I was trying to match histograms, so my shutter speeds were off - the Leica at 1/2000 and the Canon at 1/2500 so not a true comparison and what I perceive to be the differences between the two images may be attributed to the shutter speeds.  The second pair has shutter speed, ISO and apertures matched.  I can post the image pairs if anyone would like to see.

The R5 and RF 50 1.2 comes closer to the look of the SL2 than the Sony system can.  I’m supposed to pick up my SL2-S in a few hours.  It has the low light advantage over the SL2 that I would welcome, but I’m still weary of the AF performance, particularly AFc.  But there’s still something about the images with SL2/APO Summicron-SL lens combination that I would miss by going strictly with the Canon system.  The AF system of the R5 is almost on par with the a9ii.  My conclusion is that you can get 95% of the way towards the Look of the Leica images with the R5 - much closer than with the a9ii (or a7r iv, which I had as well).

Edited December 19, 2020 by Dr. G

[caissa]

On 12/16/2020 at 8:21 PM, nicci78 said:

For example M10 is fine with pre-2016 Elmarit-M 28mm asph and Summicron-M 28mm asph. 
But SL will required 2016 Elmarit-M 28mm asph and Summicron-M 28mm asph for good performance. 

http://www.slack.co.uk/leica-m-resolution.html

 

Did you ever subscribe to Reid Reviews, where most of these comparisons in the beginning come from ? (Jono is just a photographer, not an in depth tester. Sorry Jono, but I think you will agree.)
You should, because then you would see the real differences. The pre 2016 with SL (SL2) is "worse" than the later lens. The difference is mainly visible at infinity, and is tiny and only visible in the corners. So there are not many occasions that you have a chance to see this difference. And only if all your other parameters are perfect.
On a M the pre 2016 is about equal, maybe a tiny bit "better".   And it is not about good performance, but about near perfect IQ.

So it is a bit crazy to talk of being "better or worse". For most photographers under most circumstances there is no difference visible.

It is not even clear that the Asph version is the "best". I still have a version 4 Elmarit (the last pre asph). And in my own "comparisons" I cannot see a difference in quality. And in fora others get the same impression.   Maybe my lens is better than average (haha) or I can see worse than average (haha) or whatever.  Anyway this 'good or bad play' is stupid but produces a lot of business (because people get the impression they definitely need something better ....)

If you really want to see the scientific physical differences, then subscribe to Reid Reviews. And forget all other "personal impressions".

I don't know a single living photographer whose works are so great that this tiny difference in the lenses would make out of a piece of art suddenly a second class product. And then still a lot can be achieved with post processing.

Edited December 19, 2020 by caissa

[oka]

My first very crude test shot between SL2 and SL2-S, I did not expect such big difference. I tested with quite typical edit, highlight recovery and boost on the shadows / black to see malleability of the RAW. I'll test later against M10R and M10P also, but even first test shot has made my mind. I'll sell the SL2, most of my work are shot in high iso and there is simply no contest as the difference is so big (as it's battery life is much better and the camera works much faster with the bursts and is snappier).

SL2: Even ISO6400 is too much for my taste. It loses DR and colors start to shift (noticeable on boosted shadows).

SL2S: Looks like SL2S has at least two stop advantage compared to SL2. ISO12500 looks much better than SL2 ISO6400 shot.

C1 21. Highlights -60, Shadows +5, Black +30, ProStandard color profile. 50 Summicron-SL.

1. SL2 ISO6400
2. SL2-S ISO6400
3. SL2-S ISO12500

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 December 19, 2020 by oka

[SrMi]

26 minutes ago, oka said:

My first very crude test shot between SL2 and SL2-S, I did not expect such big difference. I tested with quite typical edit, highlight recovery and boost on the shadows / black to see malleability of the RAW. I'll test later against M10R and M10P also, but even first test shot has made my mind. I'll sell the SL2, most of my work are shot in high iso and there is simply no contest as the difference is so big (as it's battery life is much better and the camera works much faster with the bursts and is snappier).

SL2: Even ISO6400 is too much for my taste. It loses DR and colors start to shift (noticeable on boosted shadows).

SL2S: Looks like SL2S has at least two stop advantage compared to SL2. ISO12500 looks much better than SL2 ISO6400 shot.

C1 21. Highlights -60, Shadows +5, Black +30, ProStandard color profile. 50 Summicron-SL.

1. SL2 ISO6400
2. SL2-S ISO6400
3. SL2-S ISO12500

 

Thank you for the comparison, very helpful! I checked that you used proper exposure as well  (1/60, f/5.6 at ISO 6400 and 1/125, f/5.6 at ISO 12800). Can you verify that your software has the same noise reduction settings for both cameras?

[Slender]

did you scale dowm the SL2?

[Steven]

2 minutes ago, Slender said:

did you scale dowm the SL2?

😂

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Steven]

1 hour ago, oka said:

My first very crude test shot between SL2 and SL2-S, I did not expect such big difference. I tested with quite typical edit, highlight recovery and boost on the shadows / black to see malleability of the RAW. I'll test later against M10R and M10P also, but even first test shot has made my mind. I'll sell the SL2, most of my work are shot in high iso and there is simply no contest as the difference is so big (as it's battery life is much better and the camera works much faster with the bursts and is snappier).

SL2: Even ISO6400 is too much for my taste. It loses DR and colors start to shift (noticeable on boosted shadows).

SL2S: Looks like SL2S has at least two stop advantage compared to SL2. ISO12500 looks much better than SL2 ISO6400 shot.

C1 21. Highlights -60, Shadows +5, Black +30, ProStandard color profile. 50 Summicron-SL.

1. SL2 ISO6400
2. SL2-S ISO6400
3. SL2-S ISO12500

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!

 

And you still have no idea. Go out in dark street today with your SL2-S and you will understand. It can see in the dark. Like the A7SIII, except that it retains the colour way better. I consider the SL2 -S one of the best low light camera ive ever tried, and the files are so gorgeous and easy to manipulate.