Sl2-S low light performance compared to SL2

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Compared to SL2, when does the superior low light performance of SL-2-S start to become evident?

sat at 800iso or 3200iso?

Or is it only apparent at 5000iso or 10,000 iso where one can start to see that the low light capabilities of Sl-2-S is superior to the SL2?

[LD_50]

There are tests available that show the various ISO levels. 

Sean Reid’s site is an example. 

The answer to your question is dependent on a number of factors (exposure level, subject matter, color or B&W, viewing or print size, etc). 

Performance also needs definition. Are you referring to color noise, luminance noise, color, EVF clarity, etc? 

[Advertisement]

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

[LikameLeica]

Owning the original SL, the SL2 and now the SL2-S, my opinion is that the differences start at ISO 800 and there is no comparison at 6400 and above.  I even find that in lower ISO's with properly exposed pictures in good lighting the shadow recovery of the SL2-S are superior to the SL2.  As has been said on many posts around this topic, there are use cases for both cameras, with the SL2 resolution for daytime landscape/city scapes being amazing in terms of resolution and crop ability.  I have started using both cameras based on the shooting situation I am planning.  For example, this past weekend I went out for Mardi Gras and took the SL2-S due to street shooting, low light capability, less need to high resolution and smaller file size.  The prior weekend we were driving across some amazing landscapes and took the SL2.  I have even started carrying both cameras in some situations, but obviously a commitment in terms of weight/size and of course $$$  Budget  $$$.  I think I will be keeping both, but for me if I could only have one camera, it would be the SL2-S.  I loved (love) my original SL and the SL2-S has all the benefits of the new design with the enhanced features such as improved sensor, better high ISO/low light performance, image stabilization, and blacked out letter that makes the Leica branding less in your face.  I will forever miss the built in GPS of the Leica SL.

[Slender]

If you output the 48MP SL2 files down to 24MP, with proper exposure and little NR with topaz, I honestly pushed my confidence level of using this camera at settings (6400, 12500iso) that were previously unthinkable for me (I am a Kodachrome initiated as a kid -64iso- Provia trained as a teen -400iso- and Leica M9 user -800/1600iso- as a young adult).

I would say that if you never feel like you need more than 24mp, do mostly people in event or reportage contexts, need easier/lighter to work with files, and like to shoot video in the dark, then yes, I would say the cheaper SL2s is a sensible option to prefer. Paired with "too sharp" of a lens however, you may have to deal with moire, and the APS-C mode is 10mp instead of 20.

However, jumping from 18/24mp to 48mp for my own, I am the first surprised to conclude that I really grew fond of the 47mp output (like Mr Slack). It is moire free and wonderful for fine art, portrait, products/objects, landscape, architecture... video is gorgeous in the 4:3 5k mode or 60p full frame (the SL2s can;t do that yet for the latter), up to 6400 for 5k and 3200 for 4k... which is adequate for me most of the time, although the idea of having both camera certainly is appealing.

For aliasing in video, both camera tend to exhibit some, varying according to conditions/settings/subjects...

Leica SL2 @12500 iso.... sadly compressed from 87Mb to 1.5 for internet. Clic to see details.

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!

[pocholin]

@Slender impressive picture, did you reduce noise in a software? 

[Slender]

8 hours ago, pocholin said:

@Slender impressive picture, did you reduce noise in a software? 

Thanks! Just a tiny bit for this one as it was properly exposed. Topaz Denoise works really well if you insist on having a texture-less background here; albeit I save it for severe cases because it is quite ressource hungry. When printed it is even less of an issue it all just fade away into the texture of the paper.

One could even say that chroma noise has never been an issue (for me) so far with the SL2 - granted I come from M9 camera. Without threatment you will see luma "grain" in textureless parts of your image (like the sky or perhaps this empty black void in this picture, but it honestly is a bother only if you like to pixel peep on a retina screen. --- it is true I am reluctant to go and use 12500 iso if I can do otherwise, but I have learned 3 things:

1. I may do better with a bright prime for those lighting conditions (I only have the 24/90 as of today... so this picture was shot at a pedestrian f3.6 and above at least 😅)... and so I think about my teens when I felt like "the king of the night" with my dad Leica R7 and Summilux 80 on a 400asa slide film.
2. I remember that I can dodge a false exposure easily with the EVF... sometime the auto settings is crying out for an exposure that would be too bright for the actual subject matter, so most of the time you can dial it down before-hand. Or you can go the other way if you know what your priorities are: here I wanted to freeze movements, so I was okay to use 12500 iso. If it was a slower scene, you could totally shot the same picture with the fantastic IBIS at 3200iso.
3. My clients/final picture viewers will never get to peep at 100-200% on the out of camera DNG. First on paper it naturally goes away, and for on screen distribution, even in high definition, I have to scale down and everything looks even better, more acute thanks to the magic of oversampling. That is why some high end video cameras use a 6k sensor for outputing a 4k image for example.

Topaz Denoise + Good shooting+editing skills made me more confident as a photographer and also more trusting of my gear. I am not going to lie: a part of me would like to own both cameras, for sure. More power to those who can do. I did consider trading down for the "s".
But after careful considerations, partly because I can't just buy another camera on the spot for the time being, partly because I want to have all my kit fitting in a billingham for 90% of what I do and not finding myself somewhere thinking "how damn why did I left the "high iso / high reso" option backhome. For the tipping point of my conclusion, I do more paid work at the moment that benefits from a high resolution output. Perhaps having to deal with 87mb (and up to 187MP if you fancy) files also helps to reconsider "the value" of each shot not only in terms of storage but also on the amount of work/love/intentionaliy needed to make it shine a lot.

I you do weddings, event reportage sessions with 1000s images a day, like to shoot video in the dark, can't afford the time to curate your images beyond posting them on internet, then dont get fooled, opt for the SL2s. There will be other topics to worry about, like any love story the Leica SL can be a rocky but mighty interesting road to take.

Sorry for the long text.
 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Slender

[pocholin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Slender Thanks for the answer and extra context, I completely see why you will continue using the SL2. I am just an amateur, don't do photographs for any commercial purpose. I've been thinking of upgrading my CL but not sure which one to choose. One side of me wished to go above 24MP because I've had 24MPs for about 5-6 years and go for the SL2 with 48MP. However, the improvements and capabilities of the SL2-S, over the SL2, are great...but then I remain at 24MP. Perhaps I should continue to wait for the CL2, if it ever becomes reality.

Edited March 10, 2021 by pocholin

[hansvons]

I've never shot with the SL2, and my experiences with the SL2-s is somewhat limited because it’s pretty new to me. I still have to figure out its quirks and its strengths. But I can say this:

24 MP (6K) is nothing that knocks your socks off when it comes to stills and tech talk. But when you free yourself from the idea that a picture’s quality can be counted by its pixel, you may find a new perspective. For me, the resolution/pixel race is the curse of today's digital photography. To put things in perspective, it makes a lot of sense to take a look at cinematography. The industry benchmark camera system shoots with the largest pixel pitch in the market and hence the lowest resolution but wins the most Academy Awards - and mostly in APS-C (S-35mm). Go figure.

The SL2-S sensor has a comparable large pixel pitch and is back-lit. That has two-fold advantages. First, the sensitivity is roughly half a stop better because the photosites can collect more light due to the back-lit sensor design. Second, the photosites are larger and thus more sensitive to light compared to the smaller photosites of a higher resolving sensor. Both pay into a considerably higher sensitivity and the latter in better colour separation, which helps the colour science doing its job.

That all being said, when you aim to shoot high-resolving pictures, and your environment provides sufficient light to stop down for best sharpness and/or the shorter exposure time, the higher resolving sensor might be the better choice. The same applies to portraitures shot at low f-stops on fast lenses (but perhaps the less-resolving sensor’s skin tones are better). 
But if you’re looking for versatility and the best possible colours, the less resolving LS2-2 should be the better package. 

In my limited time with the SL2-S, I can say that the SL2-S skin tones are the best I have achieved with any digital stills camera, astonishingly effortless, without any tweaking beyond WB and contrast. The same applies to the SL2-S roll-offs in the whites. At ISO 800, the texture is filmic and, to me, highly desirable for colour. For B&W, I find ISO 800 - 1,600 a convincing sweet spot and 3,200 doable. From there on, many would like to see the raw converter’s denoise to kick in. If you are doing journalistic work, more ISO is easily usable, but proper denoise will be necessary. I’ve tested the SL2-S underexposure capabilities in terms of colour shifts, and it does an outstanding job in maintaining colour . 

Due to the 6K FF sensor, video is the SL2-S speciality event, and for me, the main reason why I purchased the camera in the first place. 

Combined with good Leica glass, the SL2-S will make any photographer very happy - but so does the SL2

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by hansvons

[hansvons]

I’ve just read your last post. Keep the CL. Rumours point to an upcoming upgrade of the CL. If I were to look for a pocketable Leica, the CL2 with the 23mm would be my first choice. The SL2 and SL2-S are heavy DSLR-sized cameras. They are very different from the CL and not an upgrade in a conventional sense because the SLs are made for an entirely different job. 

I see myself buying a CL2 when it will materialise. A great, pocketable camera beats in terms of oeuvre any other camera - chances are higher that’s around when things happen.

[Slender]

I am quite puzzled to see - not complaints but - an opinion about the SL2s being "do-able" at 3200 iso for noise levels... Unless you peek into the dark, out of focus areas with a magnifier with all raw treatment turned OFF, I mean, what is there to see in reality? Or are you refering to video?

[Donzo98]

39 minutes ago, Slender said:

I am quite puzzled to see - not complaints but - an opinion about the SL2s being "do-able" at 3200 iso for noise levels... Unless you peek into the dark, out of focus areas with a magnifier with all raw treatment turned OFF, I mean, what is there to see in reality? Or are you refering to video?

Yeah... people have different standards of course... but my SL2-S is much more than usable well above 3200. I would say usable to 25000 and GREAT at 12500 and under. Photos only... I don't shoot video.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Donzo98

[hansvons]

11 minutes ago, Donzo98 said:

Yeah... people have different standards of course... but my SL2-S is much more than usable well above 3200. I would say usable to 25000 and GREAT at 12500 and under. Photos only... I don't shoot video.

I made myself not clear. Apologies. 

I wrote: For B&W, I find ISO 800 - 1,600 a convincing sweet spot and 3,200 doable.

I related that to my experiences in Capture One (haven't mentioning this, again apologies) when turning off all the noise-reduction tools that are usually by default switched on. If imported into Capture One in the default set-up, the ISO capabilities of the SL2-S are far beyond what I stated above. They are, hands down, outright amazing.

But I’m not craving for the noise-free, perfect picture but for an image that translates everything I like when shooting video and stills: a filmic and organic contrast, skin tones that show personality and originality and a texture that resembles what I desire about film. The SL2-S can do all this astonishing well - if the defaults in noise-reduction are set to 0. I suppose that Lightroom behaves similarly.

I hope this helps to clarify my original statement on the SL2-S sensitivity and noise (I wrote about texture, which is for me not noise in the sense of distracting noise).

[Alistairm]

I’ll shoot the SL2 at 3200 happily or 6400 if needed. 
 

I’ll shoot the SL2-S at 6400 without a second thought, 12500 without being troubled and push it to 25000 if absolutely required. 
 

I haven’t read all the tests, but my “guesstimate” is that I’m content running the SL2-S about two stops higher than the SL2. To me, that is significant and makes it a much better camera for indoor family functions, school plays, concerts etc. 

If I don’t need the sensitivity I still like the higher resolution files out of the SL2.

[pocholin]

Great conversations everyone!

@hansvons, thanks for taking the time to write such explanation. What you wrote about the SL2-S advantages on low light and higher ISO make a lot of sense now. I do photograph a lot of indoor family events where the SL2-S will be at an advantage against the SL2 and CL because of that backlit sensor. 

I can see myself keeping both cameras and use the SL2-S for swim meets, house events, stargazing and other events that would be more optimal for this camera. Then use the CL with the 18mm and/or the 18-56mm for day hikes. I like how compact the CL is but it sometimes feels too small when handholding and trying to focus a large lens, like the Sigma 100-400mm or even the Sigma 24-70mm.

I come from the (very old by now) Nikon D90, which was a wonderful camera closer to the SL2-S in size, hard for me to explain but handling camera and lens together is easier on a larger body (despite the extra weight).

[LikameLeica]

10 hours ago, Alistairm said:

I’ll shoot the SL2 at 3200 happily or 6400 if needed. 
 

I’ll shoot the SL2-S at 6400 without a second thought, 12500 without being troubled and push it to 25000 if absolutely required. 
 

I haven’t read all the tests, but my “guesstimate” is that I’m content running the SL2-S about two stops higher than the SL2. To me, that is significant and makes it a much better camera for indoor family functions, school plays, concerts etc. 

If I don’t need the sensitivity I still like the higher resolution files out of the SL2.

I couldn't agree more with everything stated in this reply.  I was amazed last weekend at image quality at 25,000 ISO.  Allowed me to push up shutter speed to capture moving scene/subjects and the grain looks natural/film like with no banding that you will experience on the original SL and the SL2 on much lower ISO's.  It's all about use case.  The below picture from Marti Gras was taken with Leica SL2-S at 25,000 ISO, f2.0, 1/320 sec, with Leica 35 SL Lens.  Very useable photo with great color, nice grain, etc.

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!