Leica SL2-S Survey

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

1. Leica developed two versions of the SL2: one with 40MP and one with 47MP. The latter won-out, we don't know why. It may have had a lot to do with getting a product out faster.

1 (part 2). Are you seeing this in highlights, shadows, or both? Leica rates the sensor differently. Their ISO 50 is Panasonic's ISO 100, and so on all the way to ISO 25,000 (which behaves exactly the same as what Panasonic calls ISO 50,000). What this means in practice is that the SL2 has more shadow range than the S1-R, at the same nominal ISO, but it has less highlight range.

2. Different sensor, smaller images (less CPU and I/O)

3. Definitely not. The SL2 is for everyone who moaned and complained that Leica didn't offer a big-megapixel SL. The SL2-S is more of a traditional Leica camera: low-light, hand-held, etc... Same box, different contents.

In terms of number 3, this is why I ended up picking up the SL2-S.  
 

Q2-S, anyone?

[Advertisement]

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

[Daedalus2000]

13 hours ago, Dr. G said:

As much as I mostly agree, even those I know with little photographic and image science knowledge somehow prefer the look of the images from the SL2/APO Summucron-SL 50mm to that of the Canon R5/Canon RF 50mm f1.2 when both images are made at f2.   I did a comparison on a tripod with a few different relatively non demanding images but unfortunately on one set the shutter speeds were slightly off as I was trying to match the histograms.  I’ve refrained from posting the comparison because I’ve witnessed some relative intolerance to even the mention of other systems in the forum.

if there’s interest in seeing them, let me know and I can message them privately for anyone to come to their own conclusion.  My observation is that both pairings are very sharp, the Canon pairing has smoother out of focus rendering, the Leica has better micro contrast and better texture in the highlights and shadows.  
 

I would post them if anyone wants to see them, but as I awake this morning I think I’m going to take the leap of faith and collect the SL2-S.

I would be interested to see them because I am considering the R5 vs the SL2-S

[Daedalus2000]

32 minutes ago, Steven said:

DO you plan to use M lenses on the R5? Has anyone ever tried that ? I hear a lot about M lenses on Sonys but not R5. 

I used them with the Canon R and it was not good at all. I am more interested in R5+50 f1.2 vs SL2-S and the 50 SL summilux setup.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Daedalus2000

[Daedalus2000]

5 minutes ago, Steven said:

On paper, the Canon setup is far superior. 
In real life, very very few people will notice a difference. 
In essence, it’s all about which camera you’ll enjoy more using, and wether or not you believe in the Leica magic. I suppose you do if you’re hanging around here. 
 

do you plan to do any video ? 

As I agreed with you in the past, I do prefer the Leica experience and colors and the sense of 3d and microcontrast I get from using Leica lenses. I have checked R5 pics on the internet and I do not see the same "bite" and impact from them, but maybe I have not looked enough. But the Canon AF looks amazing. I used to use Canon many years ago, then I got an Leica M8 and I was hooked... I do have an M10-D as well, but over the years my eyes are getting worse and I think AF is the better solution. Also I have to admit, I find the Leica lens prices a bit too high, so I always look for alternatives...

I do not do video at all...

Edited December 20, 2020 by Daedalus2000

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Steven said:

DO you plan to use M lenses on the R5? Has anyone ever tried that ? I hear a lot about M lenses on Sonys but not R5. 

FYI: the best non-Leica camera for M lenses is likely Nikon Z 7 (thin glass stack).

[Dr. G]

16 hours ago, Daedalus2000 said:

I would be interested to see them because I am considering the R5 vs the SL2-S

I will post two pairs of images - in the first, the shutter speeds were different between the Canon R5 and the SL2 as I was trying to match exposures.  because the shutter speeds are different the shadow and highlight rendering probably shouldn't be scrutinized.  In the second set I adjusted the exposure compensation so that shutter speeds were matched.  Each image was taken on a tripod that I didn't reposition (interesting that even though they are both 50mm the FOV is slightly different between the two), ISO 100, electronic shutter to minimize shutter shock and vibration, shutter timer to avoid vibration and both are taken at f2.

First, the SL2 and 50mm APO Summicron-SL, f/2, 1/2000, ISO 100

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 20, 2020 by Dr. G

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Canon R5 with RF 50 1.2 taken at f2, 1/2500, ISO 100

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!

[Dr. G]

SL2 with 50mm APO Summicron-SL, 1/800, ISO 100

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!

[Dr. G]

5 hours ago, Daedalus2000 said:

As I agreed with you in the past, I do prefer the Leica experience and colors and the sense of 3d and microcontrast I get from using Leica lenses. I have checked R5 pics on the internet and I do not see the same "bite" and impact from them, but maybe I have not looked enough. But the Canon AF looks amazing. I used to use Canon many years ago, then I got an Leica M8 and I was hooked... I do have an M10-D as well, but over the years my eyes are getting worse and I think AF is the better solution. Also I have to admit, I find the Leica lens prices a bit too high, so I always look for alternatives...

I do not do video at all...

Again, these are with the SL2, not the SL2-S.  I was planning to repeat the comparison with the SL2-S and the R5 but it's snowing here a little bit right now.  If it clears up I will try to go out and set both up and get comparison images - but it will be with different subject material.  

Edited December 20, 2020 by Dr. G

[Photoworks]

2 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

Again, these are with the SL2, not the SL2-S.  I was planning to repeat the comparison with the SL2-S and the R5 but it's snowing here a little bit right now.  If it clears up I will try to go out and set both up and get comparison images - but it will be with different subject material.  

Looks like the 2 50s have different cropping.
I like the look of the Canon better in this samples.

Would be nice to see some raw files too if you can share them

[oka]

21 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

Here is a link to the the RAW files.  No in camera correction was applied to the Canon files, so you'll have to choose a profile in your editing software.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/21r0w3w6dllovkt/AAA0UYLVWAj_YksdQ5u2R0gJa?dl=0

If you want to show the difference between Leica and Canon, I suggest to shoot photos with wide range of tonality. Matte object or setting in shade doesn't make justice to Leica.

I've noticed that easiest way to notice the difference between the micro contrast is to shoot metallic / highly reflective surfaces when sun hits to the surface on opposite direction from the camera angle. Example shots from cars shows easily the Leica look from the rest, also Leica lenses has narrower depth of field so which is evident when the subject and background is closer each other.

[Daedalus2000]

35 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

Here is a link to the the RAW files.  No in camera correction was applied to the Canon files, so you'll have to choose a profile in your editing software.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/21r0w3w6dllovkt/AAA0UYLVWAj_YksdQ5u2R0gJa?dl=0

Thank you very much for these, they are extremely useful. Can I please verify if your intended point of focus was the eye on the first one and the bottle on the second one?

[Dr. G]

36 minutes ago, oka said:

If you want to show the difference between Leica and Canon, I suggest to shoot photos with wide range of tonality. Matte object or setting in shade doesn't make justice to Leica.

I've noticed that easiest way to notice the difference between the micro contrast is to shoot metallic / highly reflective surfaces when sun hits to the surface on opposite direction from the camera angle. Example shots from cars shows easily the Leica look from the rest, also Leica lenses has narrower depth of field so which is evident when the subject and background is closer each other.

I actually have a couple of shots like that from the sculpture park.  I don't think I nailed my exposure, and blew the highlights out a bit on the R5 file - but I can add the RAW files to the dropbox folder.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Dr. G

[Dr. G]

14 minutes ago, Daedalus2000 said:

Thank you very much for these, they are extremely useful. Can I please verify if your intended point of focus was the eye on the first one and the bottle on the second one?

Yes, on the little girl's eye for the first and the bottle label for there second.

[Dr. G]

Canon R5, Canon RF 50 1.2 @ f/2, 1/1250, ISO 100 - lens profile turned on in Lightroom

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 20, 2020 by Dr. G

[Dr. G]

SL2, 50mm APO Summicron-SL @ f/2, 1/1250, ISO 100

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 20, 2020 by Dr. G

[oka]

25 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

I actually have a couple of shots like that from the sculpture park.  I don't think I nailed my exposure, and blew the highlights out a bit on the R5 file - but I can add the RAW files to the dropbox folder.

Great! Now we see the difference, when I was testing my self R5 / SL it amazed me how similar and how different they render depending the on composition and use of light.

[Dr. G]

For anything reflective I'm still taking the SL2/SL2-S.  Although this isn't what you're talking about specifically, there is a metallic sculpture in the park that looks like a mirror and I took this one with the SL2/35mm APO Summicron-SL.  I love the Canon, but can't imagine it capturing it this way...

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[satijntje]

I think that both combo's are playing on the top of the range of IQ.
Some will like the Canon images more, others the SL images.
And if you post this in a Canon forum you will also get a different opinion of course.

So both cameras with their top of the range lenses are superb!

 

just my 2 ct 
John

[oka]

1 hour ago, Dr. G said:

For anything reflective I'm still taking the SL2/SL2-S.  Although this isn't what you're talking about specifically, there is a metallic sculpture in the park that looks like a mirror and I took this one with the SL2/35mm APO Summicron-SL.  I love the Canon, but can't imagine it capturing it this way...

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!

While Canon has progressed a lot lately, something is “wrong” with the current design. For my eye even EF lenses had slightly more 3D feel on it.

While RF lenses are sharp and “correct”, they produce flat looking images with lack of “punch”.