SL2-S and/or SL2

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

Look at the cobblestones in the first two. I don’t think it’s the temperature. The antifascism protest on the bridge, too. I tried to match WB as much as I could in LR. It’s very subtle but the blue, the black,, the orange, every color looks nicer, warmer with the SL2-S. It reminds me of the original TL a bit, just in FF.

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-sg9gfG/

you should know that the color difference can be attributed mostly to the profiles that Lightroom is using.

I don't dispute the fact that cameras have different colors. but once you bring it into an editing tool the colors are only the interpretation of the program .

[Stuart Richardson]

They look quite similar to me, though I agree that the SL2S looks slightly better in those, but really only because it has slightly more magenta and a tiny bit more color saturation..and it is not that I am not discerning. I am using an Eizo and work as an editor. I agree that they are different, but it does not seem like there would be an easily definable way to say: "yes, one is clearly better than the other!" I get the sense that Photoworks is correct, that it is really just a matter of how good the coffee was at Adobe the particular day that they made the profile...at least for me, it certainly would not be a reason to drop from 47mp to 24...given all the talk of how the colors were different, I am surprised they are as similar as they are...

[tom0511]

I have not shot scientific comparisons. So far I feel I should use the SL2 if I have mostly good light and the SL2-S if I have overall lower light.

Right now I am on vacation in the mountains (Austrian Alps) and I feel I can benefit from more resolution , so I brought the SL2.

Frankly, I don't know if I need the resolution of the SL2 and I don't know if I need the ISO advantage of the SL2-S.

I am fine with both cams. Even a camera with the ISO behavior of the SL2 and the resolution of SL2-S would be fine for me.

overall SL system and Leica colors work very well for my taste.

Edited August 2, 2021 by tom0511

[michali]

I've been using the SL2 & SL2-S side by side for about 6 weeks now. There are minor subtle differences that I pick up in WB on the unprocessed DNGs straight out of the cameras. Generally I find that the SL2-S renders colours slightly warmer & tint with a bias towards magenta. Nothing that can't be adjusted to my taste in PP. See the 2 images below-  #1 Unprocessed & WB is as shot  #2 Processed & WB Custom adjusted. FWIW I'm working on a calibrated iMac screen as well as my Eizo monitor.

The difference is best viewed by clicking on one of the images to open Lightbox & toggle the arrow between the 2 images.

Other than that, my observations remain the same as in my post #9 above. I should also say that any doubts I may have had about adding the SL2-S to my collection are erased.

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 August 3, 2021 by michali

[caissa]

I have the SL2 and like the resolution. Sometimes I like the colors of the SL a little better than in the SL2. For R and M lenses I like the SL. I found the SL2-S not a big improvement. So I never felt the need to buy it. I usually use ISO800 at the max. I am still happy with SL and SL2. I would only buy the SL2-S if I wanted the 24-70 and could not get it outside of a bundle.

[Photoworks]

6 hours ago, michali said:

unprocessed DNGs straight out of the cameras. 

Again you are using Adobe profile to display the DNG file. Every application will display similar. but you are looking at adobe's interpretation.

If you tell me that out of camera JPG have different colors and a warmer look when the 2 camera are set the same I can trust the results.

In any case adobe does a great job in displaying the colors. If you switch true the different color profiles you can see how vastly different the color response can be even with out making any corrections.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 3.8.2021 um 15:23 schrieb Photoworks:

Again you are using Adobe profile to display the DNG file. Every application will display similar. but you are looking at adobe's interpretation.

If you tell me that out of camera JPG have different colors and a warmer look when the 2 camera are set the same I can trust the results.

In any case adobe does a great job in displaying the colors. If you switch true the different color profiles you can see how vastly different the color response can be even with out making any corrections.

but how would you know that the SL2 and SL2-s have the same jpg-engine? and why compare jpg? I would compare the results with the workflow I usually use. In my case mostly DNG in Lightroom. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by tom0511

[Chaemono]

I always look at the skin tones/rest of colors saturation ratio in untouched DNGs with Adobe profile to determine which camera has the color science most to my liking. Needless to say, the S3 knocks it out of the park in this respect. 

[Photoworks]

7 hours ago, tom0511 said:

but how would you know that the SL2 and SL2-s have the same jpg-engine? and why compare jpg? I would compare the results with the workflow I usually use. In my case mostly DNG in Lightroom. 

Because if you look a DNG you always need an interpreter software. JPG are already processed in camera, they don't need a profile.

I suppose you can use capture one without any color profile or raw digger for DNG

[Rodrigo castillo]

On 7/1/2021 at 4:53 AM, Simone_DF said:

There's a visible difference even at 1600.

While I'd love to have more native cropping ability, since Adobe introduced Super Resolution this is starting to be a non-issue for me

Sorry but I am ignorant in adobe super resolution …could you explain ????? Is in PS, LR? Thanks !!!!

[Simone_DF]

8 hours ago, Rodrigo castillo said:

Sorry but I am ignorant in adobe super resolution …could you explain ????? Is in PS, LR? Thanks !!!!

Sure. It's a new tool present in both Lightroom and Photoshop that will upsample your image. It's the old Enhance Details on steroids.

I've been playing with it and I really like the potential. It's stunning, but it has some caveats.

It won't replace a higher megapixel sensor, for example. A higher megapixel sensor will always capture more details compared to a smaller sensor, and this tool can't upscale details that are not there to begin with. I also noticed that sometimes it doesn't work that well for very small trees/plants, think for example some tree branches far away, but it's just a matter of time until this is solved via software, I believe. For everything else, works like a charm. 

https://petapixel.com/2021/03/13/adobe-photoshops-super-resolution-made-my-jaw-hit-the-floor/

[FrankX]

Has anyone compared the Face/Eye-AF of the SL2-S vs. SL2? Are the AF-S and AF-C improvements significant in real life situations? 

[Simone_DF]

3 hours ago, FrankX said:

Has anyone compared the Face/Eye-AF of the SL2-S vs. SL2? Are the AF-S and AF-C improvements significant in real life situations? 

 

[jrp]

I have an SL2 that I use mostly for outdoor shots, where it shines as, with ibis, I rarely have to move from iso 100. Indoors is a different story. Like the SL before it, I would prefer to shoot at iso 6400 or 128000 in the evenings indoors, to freeze subject movement, but the noise in both cases makes the results usable only at small sizes.

My M9’s sensor has started to delaminate and they are offering me an SL2-s at a worthwhile discount. From what I have seen, the noise performance at comparable output sizes gives a 1-2 stop noise advantage to the SL2-s over its predecessors. So the quest is, would it be worthwhile to take the SL2-s for indoors or would it not be worth the hassle of bringing along an extra body?