Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sillbeers15

SL2 + SL16-35VE vs M10R + WATE

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Two shots taken same day within a couple of minutes apart.

One shot was taken with the SL2 single shot with SL16-35 and another with M10R with WATE. 

Both shots taken at ISO100 / M mode / F9 / 1/20 sec on tripod.

Can you tell which shot is taken with SL2 + SL16-35mm lens?

untitled-1001471 by sillbeers15

untitled-1020091 by sillbeers15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the top one with the burnt out sky behind the towers is with the M10r, the lower one is with the SL2, i like the M10r/WATE shot..feels less clinical

Edited by frame-it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, frame-it said:

the top one with the burnt out sky behind the towers is with the M10r, the lower one is with the SL2, i like the M10r/WATE shot..feels less clinical

You got it correct.

Both sensors & lenses have different strength.

The M10R handles blow out highlight better even both shots were taken with Singhray variable ND filter to reduce the strong highlight.

However the SL16-35mm does handle flare better than the WATE as the afternoon sun was at 10 'O' clock position out of frame and flare is visible on pic 1. The details on the stone and leaves at the foreground were more visible from the 16-35mm. However the lens can appear to be too clinical as you've commented.

Below is a Multi shot version for comparison.

untitled-1020094 by sillbeers15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also prefer the second shot, since both foreground and the sky details are rendered more clearly.

When it is finally available, it would be interesting to add the new small Sigma 24/3.5 L-mount lens to this comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the M10-R has more texture of light in the trees, you eyes lead more to the middle. 

It almost looks like the SL2 had a Pola filter on it.

Could you share the DNG files. I like to see how much the M-10R can by pushed in post and if it is time to update from M10-P

thanks for sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I look at the water spring and the foreground rock, the 2nd shot severely compressed the contrast between the two.  And yet the trees on the two side show less texture.

I wonder if this is the camera/sensor or the lens.  Do you have a third shot with WATE on SL2? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WATE seems to have a touch of purple fringing but at this resolution there is little difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not certain if it’s possible to recollect....but which image represented better what you were seeing in situ?

To my eyes all of the shots have something about not being ‘quite right’ about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 36 Minuten schrieb BlackBarn:

Not certain if it’s possible to recollect....but which image represented better what you were seeing in situ?

To my eyes all of the shots have something about not being ‘quite right’ about them.

I agree, both look artificial IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some Lightroom processing (same amount) on lifting shadows for all three shots to keep the comparison meaningful. Only Exp was reduced by half a stop more than the other two shots as somehow the same exp settings gained more light in Multishot mode. 
Polariser + ND grad filters were applied to all shots.

No I did not mounted WATE on SL2 for a third shot. I use SL lenses on SL2 and M lenses on M10R. Both lenses produce great IQ in my opinion as a user. I am uncertain about the M10R but there is certainly image correction done to shots taken on 16-35mm on SL2. 
It is also clear that the flare control on the 16-35 over WATE is better. There are more details produced on the building and the foreground rock from the 16-35mm over the WATE. 
However I will still take the WATE, 35lux & 90 Cron with my M10R as my travel companion as I just love the compactness of the package since the IQ isn’t that great a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 8 Stunden schrieb sillbeers15:

There were some Lightroom processing (same amount) on lifting shadows for all three shots to keep the comparison meaningful. Only Exp was reduced by half a stop more than the other two shots as somehow the same exp settings gained more light in Multishot mode. 
Polariser + ND grad filters were applied to all shots.

No I did not mounted WATE on SL2 for a third shot. I use SL lenses on SL2 and M lenses on M10R. Both lenses produce great IQ in my opinion as a user. I am uncertain about the M10R but there is certainly image correction done to shots taken on 16-35mm on SL2. 
It is also clear that the flare control on the 16-35 over WATE is better. There are more details produced on the building and the foreground rock from the 16-35mm over the WATE. 
However I will still take the WATE, 35lux & 90 Cron with my M10R as my travel companion as I just love the compactness of the package since the IQ isn’t that great a difference.

I think the gihlight shifting is what I saw.

I also own the M10r and the SL2, my feeling is the M10r shows somewhat less saturated and little cooler color. Do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

I think the gihlight shifting is what I saw.

I also own the M10r and the SL2, my feeling is the M10r shows somewhat less saturated and little cooler color. Do you agree?

I did adjusted the WB on the pic out of my M10R to reflect what my eyes saw and align it with what the SL2 produced ( more accurate in the scene I captured).

I wanted to share 3 pics as close as possible in terms of WB, exp, shadow, highlight to what I saw. So the other differences produced by both set of camera & lens combo can be compared (in other words, parameters you cannot or cannot easily adjust in post processing).

Btw both lenses cost on par while the M10R is costlier than the SL2 by 20%, not a great deal different. So I suppose it is down to meeting the desire and aspersions of the user now that the IQ showed not that great a difference. But then again ‘ bang for buck’, the SL2 reinforces it’s position as ‘Workhorse’ to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And certainly, the flare resistance of SL16-35 is remarkable for a wide angle lens, not to mention a wide angle zoom lens. This, together with a reasonable filter size and no 'ballon' front element, are big pluses for me. WATE is smallish in comparison, but no love-affair for me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, helged said:

And certainly, the flare resistance of SL16-35 is remarkable for a wide angle lens, not to mention a wide angle zoom lens. This, together with a reasonable filter size and no 'ballon' front element, are big pluses for me. WATE is smallish in comparison, but no love-affair for me....

You touched on the practical aspect of M lens limitation for landscape application using filters. I only finally decided on picking up the WATE after I’ve found that I could block off the unwanted light on the Leica 67mm filter adapter with the light shade provided. Adding an additional 67-82mm adapter, I can share my existing set of filters I use on 16-35mm. The M camera has a problem of leaking light through through the lens mount. I use my wife’s hair band as light seal for long exposures now that M10R which now allows max 15mins exp at base ISO. With all these fixes, I still attempt to turn my M camera into a landscape photography tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the lighting changed between the two images: the foreground rock looks in shade in the first, but in sunlight in the second; the green vegetation between the rock and fountain has a sharp shadow line across it in the first, but not in the second. Is that a real difference in lighting, or has processing created it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Looks like the lighting changed between the two images: the foreground rock looks in shade in the first, but in sunlight in the second; the green vegetation between the rock and fountain has a sharp shadow line across it in the first, but not in the second. Is that a real difference in lighting, or has processing created it? 

The only variability was the movement of the clouds which I have no control about. No post processing done specifically in a portion of any pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how the Panasonic LUMIX compares to these. It is certainly more compact than the Leica equivalent. What do you lose?

Share this post


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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Aaron Daniel
      Hi all, I've noticed there isn't a dedicated thread for editing L-Log footage, so I will begin one here. I realize that colouring and re-touching video is a very subjective field, but I wanted to see how others work within Leica's limited literature surrounding post-production in video.
      I've just updated my Atomos Ninja V to the latest firmware, which now allows for L-Log recording from leica (the past year with the SL2 was a little tedious working with both internally and externally recorded video footage). Now, with this update, BT2020 seems a lot nicer.
      I've just done my first video about this update here:
       
    • By augustwest100
      I was wondering if anyone has done side by side comparisons of the Sigma L mount 24-70 with the Leica Vario Elmarit 24-90.
      I find that I use my Sony a9 mostly as follows:
      75% of the time I have the excellent 55mm Sony Zeiss 1.8 on it due to the best balance of size, weight, sharpness, bokeh, every day use
      20% of the time I use the excellent zeiss batis 25mm 1.8
      5% of the time I think about using my 70-200 f4 Sony or my excellent 24-70 Sony G master f2.8...and then decide I don't really want to carry it around, so I take the 25mm and the 55mm instead and alternate use. This can be a pain when I need to swap them back and forth but is lighter option and sometimes I just take one.
       
      So I am trying to figure out where I would start with a Leica SL2 system, as I only have a Leica M 35 summicron presently:
      Go with a 24-90mm Leica Vario Elmarit (costly and heavy) and use my M lens when I want a lighter setup to walk around with.
      Go with a Sigma 24-70 for general use, and then put money towards an autofocus Leica 35mm or Leica 50mm.
      Neither of these setups will address the 70-200 lens that would be missing, but I rarely used it, so I can do without I think and either pick up a used 135mm manual focus lens, or maybe a 100mm macro lens and crop it.
      At any rate, would be nice to get some feedback on the image quality of the Sigma 24-70 as that might help me decide. I am continually trying to choose between the SL2, SL2s and M10r and it doesn't seem to make sense to get the SL2 system without at least one autofocus general purpose lens. Otherwise, might as well just go with the M!
      Thanks, all!
       
       
       
       
       
    • By DJGR33R
      Hi Photogs 
      Can anyone explain how the SL2 processes it’s multi shot images when set in multi-shot mode?
      I understand that the camera takes 8 different shots by moving the sensor 0.5 pixels each time. My question is does the camera merge these 8 images to produce the final 187 MB image or does it interpolate between each of the 8 images to produce the final result ?
      A couple of my multi-shots look like they have had mild HDR treatment which is not to everyone’s taste. Is that the intention or consequence of multi-shot images?
      Any advice welcome !
      Thanks
       
      David
       
    • By augustwest100
      Hello there,
      I am looking to get some advice coming from a Sony A9, which I got not because I shoot action, but because I was drawn to the "no blackout" EVF. I have used and owned many Leicas in my day, including the MP film camera, the M9, M240,  Q, and M10, and am currently "between" Leicas. I am wondering whether anyone can guide me with my next decision: Whether to sell the Sony A9 and the glass I own for it in order to get a Leica SL2 or SL2S, or to get the Leica M10R. I absolutely love the experience of looking through a glass viewfinder at the real world and I like to take a minimalist approach to what gear I carry. I never "spray and pray," even with the A9, at most I focus once, recompose and shoot. 
       I don't always hit focus with the M cameras, and sometimes I get a little stressed by the fact that you cannot see the exact framing of the image, and many of the lenses (such as the Summicron 35mm M I still own) do not focus on close subjects. So I guess what I am saying is that I am struggling with the pros and cons of both systems. The M system is near and dear to me, but I don't always get focus or framing when under a little pressure. The SL2S intrigues me as a good way to replace my Sony A9, sacrificing Sony's autofocus madness, button layout, and pages of frustrating menus, for a more sublime Leica experience, but seems a little heavy.  The reason I was thinking of SL2S versus M10R is that the resolution of the  M10R would allow me to "fix" the framing if I don't get it perfect, where on the SL2S I would be seeing exactly what I would get before I shoot, so the extra resolution would probably not be needed as much. 
      Of course I would love to own both someday
      Note: I am not a professional photographer. I like shooting street, landscape and sometimes non-studio portraits. I like Leica because of the simplicity of use, the connection to film days, and because of the dedicated dials for ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture. If the M10D had a film advance lever that worked, I probably would have pulled the plug on that baby! And if the Sony A9 had dedicated dials (and less of them) and about 10 pages less of options (animal eye auto focus - wow!) I would consider keeping it.
      Thanks for any advice you may have!
       
×
×
  • Create New...