SL2 + SL16-35VE vs M10R + WATE

[sillbeers15]

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?

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!

untitled-1001471 by sillbeers15

untitled-1020091 by sillbeers15

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

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 December 25, 2020 by frame-it

[sillbeers15]

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.

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!

untitled-1020094 by sillbeers15

[Robert E]

Actually I prefer the second one of the initial shot above. Much better color retention and detail in shadows and foreground. 😊

[scott kirkpatrick]

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. 

[Photoworks]

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

[Einst_Stein]

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? 

[beewee]

The SL2-S looks to have about 1-2 stops higher DR than the already very impressive M10-R

[jrp]

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

[Guest 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.

[tom0511]

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.

[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.

[tom0511]

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?

[sillbeers15]

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.

[helged]

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....

[sillbeers15]

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.

[LocalHero1953]

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? 

[sillbeers15]

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.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jrp]

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

[Guga Millet]

Curious to see the WATE at the SL2 ins this comparison.