Sl2 or Sl2-S - Advice Appreciated

[NightPix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

55 minutes ago, jrp said:

What is wrong with the Sony’s now that they have some cracking G Master lenses. 

I can’t really say that there’s anything wrong with the Sonys per se. In fact, the 24/1.4 GM on the a7iii is the best astro setup I have ever found. Aside from shooting long exposures in the dark, though, the shooting experience with the Leica’s is just so much better for me. Menus on Sony are a mess, and even though I can program all the various buttons sprinkled around the a7riii body, I really prefer the more minimalist layout of the Leicas. I started with the Q2M, and I found I spent less time time fiddling with the camera and more time just enjoying the process of making the shot. I purchased an SL2-S with 24-70 and am evaluating it right now, but I may return it for an SL2. Either way, it’s just a different and more pleasurable experience to shoot with the Leica compared with the Sony. I’ll probably keep the a7riii if I decide to keep the SL2-S I’m currently evaluating. If I decide to go with the SL2, I’ll probably sell the a7riii but keep some of the good Sony lenses to use with the a7iii.

Edited September 4, 2021 by NightPix

[beewee]

For low light astro and high dynamic range daytime shooting, the SL2-S is amazing. There are times I wish I had more resolution, especially when shooting with the APO SL primes which can definitely keep up with a higher resolution sensor. The only other time that I feel I would prefer an SL2 is when I wish I could go with a smaller wide angle zoom like the 11-23mm TL and still get decent resolution (20MP on the SL2). Aside from that, I’m very happy with the SL2-S. I also haven’t shot with the SL2 so it’s possible that I would be annoyed at some of the tradeoffs and negatives of the SL2 like bigger file sizes, poorer low light performance, poorer dynamic range, and slower and potentially less reliable focusing. So far, the SL2-S is so good that I don’t feel a need to get the SL2. I would probably take an SL2 if there were none of the tradeoffs except for larger file sizes but a big reason why I like the SL2-S is because of the dynamic range and low light performance which doesn’t exist on the SL2.

[NightPix]

17 hours ago, beewee said:

For low light astro and high dynamic range daytime shooting, the SL2-S is amazing. There are times I wish I had more resolution, especially when shooting with the APO SL primes which can definitely keep up with a higher resolution sensor. The only other time that I feel I would prefer an SL2 is when I wish I could go with a smaller wide angle zoom like the 11-23mm TL and still get decent resolution (20MP on the SL2). Aside from that, I’m very happy with the SL2-S. I also haven’t shot with the SL2 so it’s possible that I would be annoyed at some of the tradeoffs and negatives of the SL2 like bigger file sizes, poorer low light performance, poorer dynamic range, and slower and potentially less reliable focusing. So far, the SL2-S is so good that I don’t feel a need to get the SL2. I would probably take an SL2 if there were none of the tradeoffs except for larger file sizes but a big reason why I like the SL2-S is because of the dynamic range and low light performance which doesn’t exist on the SL2.

Thanks for the very helpful comments. Everything I’ve heard and read about the SL2-S says its a better camera than the SL2 except for the SL2’s higher resolution sensor. I have the a7riii which is 42 MP, so I’m already used to working with large file sizes. In fact, it has made me lazy because I know I can always crop the heck out of a poorly composed shot. To be honest, I was a bit let down when I tried the SL2-S because the AF was awful compared to the Sony. Upgrading the SL2-S firmware to 2.0 solved that so not an issue any more. For some reason Leica hasn’t been able to provide the same firmware upgrade (yet?) for the SL2, so that’s a big issue. It’s reassuring to hear that you are getting great dynamic range with the SL2-S. I am waiting for some sunny days to test for myself. In the end I will probably keep the SL2-S and just put a long lens on the a7riii for wildlife. 

[beewee]

6 hours ago, NightPix said:

I am waiting for some sunny days to test for myself. In the end I will probably keep the SL2-S and just put a long lens on the a7riii for wildlife. 

This makes a lot of sense and I would do the same if I had a Sony Alpha system. If I were in your shoes, I’d use the A7R3 when I need good AF tracking and/or high resolution. The main reason I still keep my Canon 5Dii around is for wildlife since it works so well with the 300/2.8 IS.

[LBJ2]

On 1/17/2021 at 10:08 AM, ualbertin said:

I agonized over this decision as well, and went back and forth more than a few times, especially since the price of a used SL2 right now is about the same as a new SL2-S. For me the decision came down to whether the low light performance of the SL2-S was something I really needed. I also own a Canon R5, so I was interested in how the dynamic range performance of the SL2 compared with the SL2-S and the R5 that I owned. The only information I found with a reasonable apples-to-apples comparison was on the Photons-to-photos website where you could graph the performance of all the cameras together:

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!

I rarely 

    Interestingly the SL2-S, Canon R5, and Canon R6 all have similar dynamic ranges at high iso, but the SL2 is only about one stop worse, except for the interesting case of 
ISO400 where the R5 and R6 have an advantage. Since I shoot mostly daylight and stationary objects with the Leica at low f-stop, the one stop disadvantage was not that bad for me, so in the end I went with the SL2, and am very happy with my decision. Having the extra resolution on the sensor has been fantastic when printing large prints. To keep my budget down I only own one lens for the R5 - the 24-240, which covers most of my needs. I shoot it for anything subject that moves, and I shoot the Leica with prime lenses for any subjects that are more or less stationary. And as many others have said, the Leica is way more fun to shoot with!

It is a tough decision though.

 

Ditto. How much is a one stop DR advantage/disadvantage real-world anyway?

As a FF Sony/Leica shooter and someone who refers to Photons to Photos often particularly to compare Dynamic Range, I have to say my decision to go with the SL2 instead of the SL2-S was an eye opener. In no way do I question the validity of the Photons to Photos data presented, rather My Own interpretation of what this comparative data means to me in real-world handling and file production has changed with the SL2. 

I've seen, used and referenced the same chart many times and in the end as someone who has been shooting high resolution FF sensors for some years, the higher resolution SL2 won me over when making the decision between SL2 and SL2-S even though I am someone who would normally gravitate to the newer sensor tech in the SL2-S and someone who is also a fan of BSI technology. *I am confident we will be seeing more BSI sensors in many more Leica cameras in the future. 

I surprised myself when I found I am extremely happy with the push pull quality of the SL2 files. Even the low light capabilities of this camera B&W and Colour. * If I feel I need that extra oomph of DR, "engineered" ISO 50 on the SL2 gets you right up there with the best, just have to mind the blinkies as seen through the EVF for important areas of the imagine. 

Otherwise call me tickled with the SL2 files output and really scratching my head over my own interpretation of these charts I've relied upon for so many years. Oh and yes, I am jealous the SL2-S received the latest CDAF/DFD firmware update for some time now compared to the flagship SL2 wink, wink. Patience is overrated. 

Edited September 6, 2021 by LBJ2

[Slender]

44 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

I am jealous the SL2-S received the latest CDAF/DFD firmware update for some time now compared to the flagship SL2 wink, wink. Patience is overrated. 

Sign up for beta-testing and next time you can get it months in advance lol....

[LBJ2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Slender said:

Sign up for beta-testing and next time you can get it months in advance lol....

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!

[hansvons]

I do not own the SL2, but I've shot thousands of snaps with the SL2-S, plus a few video projects. As advertised, the SL2-S is an ideal hybrid camera for journalistic work when you want Leica colours. For the full Leica experience, the 24-90 is the journalist's perfect companion for the SL2-S: Leica dimensionality and sharpness, plus a fast AF. 

I think Leica nails it when they state: 

"Following the footsteps of the Leica SL2, the new Leica SL2-S enables photographers and videographers to achieve the legendary Leica look in a fast and capable camera without compromise. Combining a new 24MP CMOS-BSI sensor, the latest Maestro III processor, and two separate shooting modes for photo and video, the Leica SL2-S offers an unparalleled, intuitive hybrid photography experience and the best of two worlds."

What they don't say: as said many above, the SL2-S' less resolving sensor has about 1-2 stops more sensitivity compared to the SL2, which is a welcome addition for documentary work when in a pinch. What's more, the camera's processor deals with much less data, allowing for faster postproduction but also faster in-camera processing. This makes the camera snappy and a joy to work with when time is a factor - and pays into the video capabilities considerably. 

24 megapixels is plenty enough for anything journalistic and many other applications. But if I were to shoot landscapes for print, portraiture in the studio, anything commercially in a controlled environment, I'd choose the SL2. 

 

[LBJ2]

43 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I do not own the SL2, but I've shot thousands of snaps with the SL2-S, plus a few video projects. As advertised, the SL2-S is an ideal hybrid camera for journalistic work when you want Leica colours. For the full Leica experience, the 24-90 is the journalist's perfect companion for the SL2-S: Leica dimensionality and sharpness, plus a fast AF. 

I think Leica nails it when they state: 

"Following the footsteps of the Leica SL2, the new Leica SL2-S enables photographers and videographers to achieve the legendary Leica look in a fast and capable camera without compromise. Combining a new 24MP CMOS-BSI sensor, the latest Maestro III processor, and two separate shooting modes for photo and video, the Leica SL2-S offers an unparalleled, intuitive hybrid photography experience and the best of two worlds."

What they don't say: as said many above, the SL2-S' less resolving sensor has about 1-2 stops more sensitivity compared to the SL2, which is a welcome addition for documentary work when in a pinch. What's more, the camera's processor deals with much less data, allowing for faster postproduction but also faster in-camera processing. This makes the camera snappy and a joy to work with when time is a factor - and pays into the video capabilities considerably. 

24 megapixels is plenty enough for anything journalistic and many other applications. But if I were to shoot landscapes for print, portraiture in the studio, anything commercially in a controlled environment, I'd choose the SL2. 

 

FWIW an awful lot to like about the SL2-S and you and others have done a great job highlighting many of those attributes and scenarios. The SL2-S includes Leica's  latest greatest FF sensor tech with all the SL lessons learned from the SL system to date. None of which went unnoticed or un-weighed in my own purchase decision.  

Edited September 6, 2021 by LBJ2

[beewee]

6 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

How much is a one stop DR advantage/disadvantage real-world anyway?

It depends on which end of the ISO vs PDR curve you’re talking about.

On the high ISO end for astrophotography, I’m normally shutter speed limited in that, I need to maintain a sub 30s exposure length to avoid smeared stars. So this means you either have a high enough ISO to get point-sharp stars with acceptable noise (which is possible at ISO 12800 on the SL2-S) or not. SL2-S’s PDR at ISO12800 is equivalent to the SL2’s PDR at ~ISO 5000 which is 1.5 stops and that’s after accounting for the SL2’s in-camera software noise reduction added to the DNGs as compared to the SL2-S’s files which does not have any internal/in-camear software noise reduction. At ISO 5000, the SL2 would have required a 60+ second long exposure which would have guaranteed smeared stars without a star tracking mount. The alternative would be to stack multiple exposures which then involves a hell of a lot of masking and post processing for foreground and sky exposures. See my example below which was shot at ISO 12800 for a 24s exposure in an area that’s known for its dark sky that is similar to other dark sky reserves. In this example, I was able to lift the foreground just enough to get a bit of colour without too much colour and luminance noise.

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!

On the other end of the ISO vs PDR curve, the SL2 can match the SL2-S’s ~11 stop dynamic range if shot at ISO50 on the SL2 and this is comparable to ISO100 on the SL2-S.

In my experience, the only time I’ve run into dynamic range limits is when shooting in the mountains with very bright fresh snow in the background and people with medium skin tones in the foreground that are not traveling on snow and either shot while in the shade or if they’re side/back lit. In this case, if I expose to avoid blowing out the snow in the background, the skin tones, once lifted sufficiently, can start to look a bit noisy. This isn’t a problem if the subject is traveling on snow or very light colored rocks since the snow and light colored rocks will act as a reflector and provide some fill in the shadows.

Over the past few months shooting with the SL2-S, I noticed the huge dynamic range of the files have changed the way I process DNGs in Lightroom. These days, for high dynamic range scenes like what I mentioned above, I often underexpose by about 1 stop to ensure I capture details in the highlights, and then I do the following:

1. Keep exposure slider near 0
2. Max out the highlight and shadow recovery sliders to flatten out the image
3. Push the black point slider to further flatten the image to recover as much shadow detail as possible
4. Then apply a custom tone curve to bring back contrast and make the scene look natural

The above steps are basically the same technique as what someone shooting video in L-log would do. My steps 1-3 is basically the same as generating a L-log equivalent flat image and then step 4 is equivalent to applying a LUT. This works quite well and allows me to achieve really nice contrast and colors while maintaining details in both highlights and shadows. Notice how the trees in the lower left corner of the image below, although very dark because they are in the shade, still has texture to differentiate between each tree.

Edited September 6, 2021 by beewee

[beewee]

Just for fun, here’s the original (unadjusted) image from Lightroom before my edits.

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!

[NightPix]

3 hours ago, beewee said:

It depends on which end of the ISO vs PDR curve you’re talking about.

On the high ISO end for astrophotography, I’m normally shutter speed limited in that, I need to maintain a sub 30s exposure length to avoid smeared stars. So this means you either have a high enough ISO to get point-sharp stars with acceptable noise (which is possible at ISO 12800 on the SL2-S) or not. SL2-S’s PDR at ISO12800 is equivalent to the SL2’s PDR at ~ISO 5000 which is 1.5 stops and that’s after accounting for the SL2’s in-camera software noise reduction added to the DNGs as compared to the SL2-S’s files which does not have any internal/in-camear software noise reduction. At ISO 5000, the SL2 would have required a 60+ second long exposure which would have guaranteed smeared stars without a star tracking mount. The alternative would be to stack multiple exposures which then involves a hell of a lot of masking and post processing for foreground and sky exposures. See my example below which was shot at ISO 12800 for a 24s exposure in an area that’s known for its dark sky that is similar to other dark sky reserves. In this example, I was able to lift the foreground just enough to get a bit of colour without too much colour and luminance noise.

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!

On the other end of the ISO vs PDR curve, the SL2 can match the SL2-S’s ~11 stop dynamic range if shot at ISO50 on the SL2 and this is comparable to ISO100 on the SL2-S.

In my experience, the only time I’ve run into dynamic range limits is when shooting in the mountains with very bright fresh snow in the background and people with medium skin tones in the foreground that are not traveling on snow and either shot while in the shade or if they’re side/back lit. In this case, if I expose to avoid blowing out the snow in the background, the skin tones, once lifted sufficiently, can start to look a bit noisy. This isn’t a problem if the subject is traveling on snow or very light colored rocks since the snow and light colored rocks will act as a reflector and provide some fill in the shadows.

Over the past few months shooting with the SL2-S, I noticed the huge dynamic range of the files have changed the way I process DNGs in Lightroom. These days, for high dynamic range scenes like what I mentioned above, I often underexpose by about 1 stop to ensure I capture details in the highlights, and then I do the following:

1. Keep exposure slider near 0
2. Max out the highlight and shadow recovery sliders to flatten out the image
3. Push the black point slider to further flatten the image to recover as much shadow detail as possible
4. Then apply a custom tone curve to bring back contrast and make the scene look natural

The above steps are basically the same technique as what someone shooting video in L-log would do. My steps 1-3 is basically the same as generating a L-log equivalent flat image and then step 4 is equivalent to applying a LUT. This works quite well and allows me to achieve really nice contrast and colors while maintaining details in both highlights and shadows. Notice how the trees in the lower left corner of the image below, although very dark because they are in the shade, still has texture to differentiate between each tree.

Again thanks so much for the helpful comments. Those are some beautiful shots which, if I read your post correctly, were from the SL2-S. I’ve been experimenting with my Sony a7iii and the SL2-S side by side in low light conditions, and noticed something interesting. The a7iii had a Sony 24 f1.4 GM lens mounted and the SL2-S the Leica 24-70 Elmarit f2.8. Both lenses were set to f2.8. Shutter was 1/50 (tripod mount), ISO 12,500 Leica, 12,800 Sony. The interesting (to me at least) result was that in low light the SL2-S’s raw images SOOC were noticeably cleaner with less noise than the images from the a7iii. But when I went to even lower light, (f2.8, 10sec, ISO 12,500/12,800) the situation reversed, with the a7iii images slightly better. So the a7iii will probably stay as my astro kit, but for other low-light situations the SL2-S reigns supreme.  Maybe this difference is related to heat dissipation from the sensor during long exposures? Still, both cameras performed really well under severe low light conditions. One big take away - working with the cameras side by side really accentuated the differences in build quality and menu systems between the Leica and Sony. I can see my kids inheriting the Leica long after the Sony is in a landfill somewhere 🙂.

Edited September 6, 2021 by NightPix

[beewee]

17 minutes ago, NightPix said:

Again thanks so much for the helpful comments. Those are some beautiful shots which, if I read your post correctly, were from the SL2-S. I’ve been experimenting with my Sony a7iii and the SL2-S side by side in low light conditions, and noticed something interesting. The a7iii had a Sony 24 f1.4 GM lens mounted and the SL2-S the Leica 24-70 Elmarit f2.8. Both lenses were set to f2.8. Shutter was 1/50 (tripod mount), ISO 12,500 Leica, 12,800 Sony. The interesting (to me at least) result was that in low light the SL2-S’s raw images SOOC were cleaner with less noise than the images from the a7iii. But when I went to even lower light, (f2.8, 10sec, ISO 12,500/12,800) the situation reversed, with the a7iii images slightly better. Maybe this is related to heat dissipation from the sensor during long exposures? Still, both cameras performed really well under severe low light conditions. One big take away - working with the cameras side by side really accentuated the differences in build quality and menu systems between the Leica and Sony. 

Yeah, the shots I shared were from the SL2-S. I’ve been shooting with the SL2-S almost exclusively since February, trying to learn how to get the most out of the camera and lenses.

That’s interesting you mention the comparison between the a7iii and SL2-S. At least according to photonstophotos, the a7iii has a 0.1 stop noise improvement compared to the SL2-S and based on the curves shown, it looks like this advantage is fairly consistent across all ISO settings which points to something more to the sensor itself. If Leica did buy the sensor from Sony as is much speculated, it’s possible the differences come down to the bayer filter material, all else being equal. This could explain why some people feel they prefer the colors of the SL2-S as compared to the Sony equivalent. There’s a tradeoff in getting more color fidelity in that the color filters that make up the bayer array on the sensor needs to reject more out-of-band light which also means there’s less energy being transferred to the photosites on the sensor. A weaker color filter will result in higher sensitivity and less color fidelity. Taken to the extreme, you end up with a monochrome sensor with no color fidelity but much higher light sensitivity which is why some really like the monochrome cameras for black and white.

Edited September 6, 2021 by beewee

[NightPix]

2 minutes ago, beewee said:

Yeah, the shots I shared were from the SL2-S. I’ve been shooting with the SL2-S almost exclusively since February, trying to learn how to get the most out of the camera and lenses.

That’s interesting you mention the comparison between the a7iii and SL2-S. At least according to photonstophotos, the a7iii has a 0.1 stop noise improvement compared to the SL2-S and based on the curves shown, it looks like this advantage is fairly consistent across all ISO settings which points to something more to the sensor itself. If Leica did buy the sensor from Sony as is much speculated, it’s possible the differences come down to the bayer filter material, all else being equal. This could explain why some people feel they prefer the colors of the SL2-S as compared to the Sony equivalent. There’s a tradeoff in getting more color fidelity in that the color filters that make up the bayer array on the sensor needs to reject more out-of-band light which also means there’s less energy being transferred to the photosites on the sensor. A weaker color filter will result in higher sensitivity and less color fidelity. Taken to the extreme, you end up with a monochrome sensor with no color fidelity but much higher light sensitivity which is why some really like the monochrome cameras for black and white.

Very good points. I was expecting things to be very close because I also suspected both cameras use the same sensor. Most evaluations of high ISO performance are made with short exposures - only us astro guys are out there in the cold shooting when we should be sleeping. I do actually get really great night exposures from my Q2M, but b&w shots of the Milky Way are kinda meh. Moon lit nightscapes, on the other hand, can be awesome in b&w and there the Q2M bests the a7iii. Besides, human eyes don’t see color so well at night so nightscapes look more natural in b&w. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Sony tends to do more pre-raw processing than a company like Leica, whose philosophy is more that the users should be the ones to decide how much noise reduction is applied, though it is a bit of a moot point, since Adobe or C1 have their own defaults, and that is how most users tend to leave it...

I would say that if you print over 16x20 or 20x24, then get the SL2. If you don't print, save your money and get the SL2S. I think you would find if you had both cameras to compare side by side, the differences between them would be much smaller than you might anticipate based on what users talk about. The SL2S is also newer, so people are more excited by it. Personally, I think the extra megapixels of the SL2 are completely worth it for the better tonality, higher sharpness, lower incidence of moire and greater ability to crop. The DR is not an issue for me, nor is the noise, which I think is pretty good for a modern high resolution camera. If you want to see what your money gets you in lenses like the APO Summicrons, the SL2 is the way to go...

[LBJ2]

14 hours ago, beewee said:

It depends on which end of the ISO vs PDR curve you’re talking about.

On the high ISO end for astrophotography, I’m normally shutter speed limited in that, I need to maintain a sub 30s exposure length to avoid smeared stars. So this means you either have a high enough ISO to get point-sharp stars with acceptable noise (which is possible at ISO 12800 on the SL2-S) or not. SL2-S’s PDR at ISO12800 is equivalent to the SL2’s PDR at ~ISO 5000 which is 1.5 stops and that’s after accounting for the SL2’s in-camera software noise reduction added to the DNGs as compared to the SL2-S’s files which does not have any internal/in-camear software noise reduction. At ISO 5000, the SL2 would have required a 60+ second long exposure which would have guaranteed smeared stars without a star tracking mount. The alternative would be to stack multiple exposures which then involves a hell of a lot of masking and post processing for foreground and sky exposures. See my example below which was shot at ISO 12800 for a 24s exposure in an area that’s known for its dark sky that is similar to other dark sky reserves. In this example, I was able to lift the foreground just enough to get a bit of colour without too much colour and luminance noise.

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!

On the other end of the ISO vs PDR curve, the SL2 can match the SL2-S’s ~11 stop dynamic range if shot at ISO50 on the SL2 and this is comparable to ISO100 on the SL2-S.

In my experience, the only time I’ve run into dynamic range limits is when shooting in the mountains with very bright fresh snow in the background and people with medium skin tones in the foreground that are not traveling on snow and either shot while in the shade or if they’re side/back lit. In this case, if I expose to avoid blowing out the snow in the background, the skin tones, once lifted sufficiently, can start to look a bit noisy. This isn’t a problem if the subject is traveling on snow or very light colored rocks since the snow and light colored rocks will act as a reflector and provide some fill in the shadows.

Over the past few months shooting with the SL2-S, I noticed the huge dynamic range of the files have changed the way I process DNGs in Lightroom. These days, for high dynamic range scenes like what I mentioned above, I often underexpose by about 1 stop to ensure I capture details in the highlights, and then I do the following:

1. Keep exposure slider near 0
2. Max out the highlight and shadow recovery sliders to flatten out the image
3. Push the black point slider to further flatten the image to recover as much shadow detail as possible
4. Then apply a custom tone curve to bring back contrast and make the scene look natural

The above steps are basically the same technique as what someone shooting video in L-log would do. My steps 1-3 is basically the same as generating a L-log equivalent flat image and then step 4 is equivalent to applying a LUT. This works quite well and allows me to achieve really nice contrast and colors while maintaining details in both highlights and shadows. Notice how the trees in the lower left corner of the image below, although very dark because they are in the shade, still has texture to differentiate between each tree.

I am very familiar with BSI sensors and their capabilities for some years now using Sony FF cameras which is why I was excited to see Leica include this technology in the SL2-S and now that the BSI cat is out of the bag, I fully expect to see more Leica cameras with BSI sensors int he future even guess the same for the M11. I am not surprised to see the enthusiasm fro the SL2-S for good reason! 

My point earlier was how surprised I was at the quality of the non BSI SL2 files after comparing Photons to Photos SL2 DR data to other BSI cameras like the SL2-S. However, in order to truly see, I would need to see a side by side SL2/SL2-S file comparison with samples along the lines of what you posted here with your SL2-S.

For me, I already knew my SL2 system would be a Leica SL prime only kit and that's one of the main reasons I went with the higher resolution SL2. To date ,very happy with my choice of going with the higher resolution sensor and the glorious SL primes and because I knew I was giving up the BSI tech by not going with the SL2-S, my big bonus surprise was what I found in the SL2 files which I described earlier, but that's just me. 

The SL2-S is a major advance for the Leica SL system IMO leading the way for a very bright future for the SL platform. A platform I am happy to invest in 2021 via the Leica SL Primes with confidence in the old saying something along the lines of "date the cameras marry the lenses"? 

[LBJ2]

12 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Sony tends to do more pre-raw processing than a company like Leica, whose philosophy is more that the users should be the ones to decide how much noise reduction is applied, though it is a bit of a moot point, since Adobe or C1 have their own defaults, and that is how most users tend to leave it...

I would say that if you print over 16x20 or 20x24, then get the SL2. If you don't print, save your money and get the SL2S. I think you would find if you had both cameras to compare side by side, the differences between them would be much smaller than you might anticipate based on what users talk about. The SL2S is also newer, so people are more excited by it. Personally, I think the extra megapixels of the SL2 are completely worth it for the better tonality, higher sharpness, lower incidence of moire and greater ability to crop. The DR is not an issue for me, nor is the noise, which I think is pretty good for a modern high resolution camera. If you want to see what your money gets you in lenses like the APO Summicrons, the SL2 is the way to go...

Well balanced advice for those pondering a buy decision between these two cameras. I think you are providing a good practical decision tree. I'm not so sure about your Sony pre-raw processing theory though, but with your print background, I'll happily acquiesce 😉 Like you wrote, makes no difference once Adobe or C1 interpretation has a go at these files. 

Off topic, but curious. Any idea how best retain true camera colors for a RAW/DNG photo file in Lightroom or C1? I've read some suggest select the Adobe Neutral profile, or the camera's Neutral profile in Lightroom? 

Edited September 7, 2021 by LBJ2

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't think there really are "true camera colors". All sensors are B&W and it is the bayer demosaic algorithm that determines the colors. C1 and Lightroom use different techniques, and the profiles are also critical for determining the "look" of the colors. The camera profiles that Adobe and C1 offer seemed to be geared towards pleasing color rather than totally accurate color, though C1 seems to be more focused on accuracy, because they are more skewed to the professional markets with their backs. They have art directors and curators wondering why the colors don't look exactly the same as in person, so they have the profiles to achieve that. For Adobe, you can look into custom profiles. The best ones I have used so far (which includes making my own) are by Cobalt Image. They look very natural to me. I have only used them for the Leica S3. I found the Abobe stock profile for the SL2 to be quite good, so I have not bought it for that camera.

[LBJ2]

22 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I don't think there really are "true camera colors". All sensors are B&W and it is the bayer demosaic algorithm that determines the colors. C1 and Lightroom use different techniques, and the profiles are also critical for determining the "look" of the colors. The camera profiles that Adobe and C1 offer seemed to be geared towards pleasing color rather than totally accurate color, though C1 seems to be more focused on accuracy, because they are more skewed to the professional markets with their backs. They have art directors and curators wondering why the colors don't look exactly the same as in person, so they have the profiles to achieve that. For Adobe, you can look into custom profiles. The best ones I have used so far (which includes making my own) are by Cobalt Image. They look very natural to me. I have only used them for the Leica S3. I found the Abobe stock profile for the SL2 to be quite good, so I have not bought it for that camera.

I tread lightly on camera colour discussions in forums 😉 realizing I am mostly dealing with someone's or other people's interpretations of color once I import the file for processing into the various editing apps.Thank you for you input to my original question. Do I understand correctly the file leaves the camera with color data but we have no way to actually see how the camera manufacturers interprets what those final colors to be just depends on how the various apps process? 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Stuart Richardson]

Jpegs would be one way. But camera companies usually work with Adobe and Capture One to tell them what they want. Abobe's "Camera Standard" etc are interpretations of manufacturer's profiles that they provide for jpegs. In Leica's case, they have input on how the Adobe profile works, but I think how much that is, is unanswerable by anyone outside of Leica and Adobe...I am sure that it is a compromise on both ends. Some companies have their own raw software, which would allow you to see what they think. At the end of the day, I think it is not super important who does it and what the companies intend, more important is which ones work best for you.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Stuart Richardson