SL2 Dynamic Range - How good is good enough?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Definitely a useful technique but there are too many scenes where this simply won't work. Anything with waves or fast flowing water, for example. Leaves on a windy day. Unfortunately, too often, the world refuses to stay still.

Gordon

If you are OK with movement blurs, it works with movements if the shutter speed is long enough or there is no gap between the shots (e.g., Olympus LiveND). Frame averaging or multiple exposures with averaging is a valuable technique with Nikon DSLRs to simulate ND filters. Unfortunately, Nikon stopped generating a multiple exposure raw file with their mirrorless cameras.

[tom0511]

Am 28.12.2021 um 14:01 schrieb Jon Warwick:

Absolutely, I couldn't agree more. And even with a more challenging medium format camera that has smaller-sized pixels (ie, the 100mp GFX that I own), I have found the DR to be remarkable in that I don't tend to ever find a shadow / highlight "limit" for really any images I've taken with it .....and I don't recall that always being the case for smaller sensor cameras (such as the SL2) that I used to own.

I agree, even though its not worlds apart, important to do propper exposure in the first step though. If I was mainly shooting landscape Inwould probably also use mainly larger sensor. For mixed subjects and flexibility I do use the sl system much more often. Hard to beat a 16-35 optical quality and flexibility on a hike for example. Or throw a M 21 mm in the bag together with the 24-70. 

[Advertisement]

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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I agree, even though its not worlds apart, important to do propper exposure in the first step though. If I was mainly shooting landscape Inwould probably also use mainly larger sensor. For mixed subjects and flexibility I do use the sl system much more often. Hard to beat a 16-35 optical quality and flexibility on a hike for example. Or throw a M 21 mm in the bag together with the 24-70. 

Building an SL2 kit and a somewhat equivalent kit out of a X1D or GFX and weighs about the same. The biggest advantage of the SL2 over the GFX100S is when you get to 200mm and over and there's nothing longer than 350mm (280 equiv) on the GFX and X1D (although you can go a bit longer on the X1D with MF only). The SL2 has the advantage of complete coverage. You can go from 14(16)-280mm in three lenses with no gaps. The single XCD zoom is better than any of the Leica zooms and the GFX ones are pretty close but neither have Leica's coverage.

Hasselblad's long exposure system is way ahead of either Leica or Fujifilm. It has the best short zoom made today and the best menus by a country mile. The 80mm 1.9 is as good as the SL Summicrons but faster and the colour science is unparalleled. The LENR and lens profiles are loaded on startup so there's no need for LENR or darkframes when shooting. For landscapes it's incredibly compelling.

Fujifilm has road mapped a 20-35 (16-28mm) that will give a pretty complete coverage to 280mm (200mm). Currently my travel/general kit is the 23, 32-64, 80, 100-200 and TC which gives me a good range including a very fast *standard/portrait* lens. Weight is 5kg. A SL2 w' 16-35, 24-90 and R80-200/adaptor is only about 400 grams less. My personal kit threshold is 6kg plus extras. Once I add a bag, filters and tripod 400g is irrelevant.

You can always carry the SL with M lenses. But you lose the flexibility, range and AF capabilities. An M10R also works better with M lenses and has more DR than the SL2.

For me I think the SL2 is best either with lenses like the 90-280 and 150-600 or as a walkaround with two/three SL Summicrons, which have few equals.  For me, a SL2 with a 28, 50 and 90 SL Summicron is a compelling light weight walk around kit. Fits into a small Billingham just as easily as the equivalent M kit.

Too many excellent options now......

Gordon

[tom0511]

Hi Gorden, I am not arguing against the x1dii, indeed I own and sometimes use one. And the 2 lenses mentioned are indeed great, even though the 35-75/3.5-4.5 has a quit limited zoom range at both ends, is not really fast, specially if you count in there is no IS. The 80/1.9 is a beauty, but wows also in regards of size/weight. There is not 21mm equivalent lens for the D1dII and often the 30 is a little too narrow and the 21 a little too wide. The handling of the x1dII is in one way very nice, but in another way slow, eats up batteries and not really made for using gloves. The Fuji seems to offer more flexibility than the Hassy (IS, better AF, more lens options) - I once tried a gfx50 but at this time was not a fan of the user interface, menus, and for some reason I seem to dig Leica and Hassy color better than Fuji. Maybe time for me to check out the gfx100s? But will it give me either the Hassy colors or the smooth rendering of the S lenses - that's the big question for me??? 

[hansvons]

On 12/23/2021 at 5:41 PM, Manicouagan1 said:

my experience taking the sorts of landscapes and travel pictures with my Leicas was constrained by the dynamic range and image quality of the M8.  The M9 was dramatically better for my image taking and the M240 was "good enough".   The M10 and M10-R made "better" prints, but not that much better.   When I looked at my SL2 images (mostly on the computer screen) the reduced dynamic range (relative to the M10,M10-R or D850) at low iso did not seem a problem.

For me, DR in digital imaging was resolved quite some time ago. I think that the enormous dynamic range of today's cameras isn't necessarily helping to take better picture. With tons of DR, dreadful HRD images flood the world. To underline my point I took a landscape shot that I recently took.

 

This is the original shot how it can be seen in Capture One with Film Standard Curve and WB set to 6,000K.

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!

 

This the same shot with maxed-out High Dynamic Range in Capture One:

 

 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by hansvons

[hansvons]

This is the same shot with full contrast. This is what I mean with dreadful HDR imagery.

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!

 

This the same shot with a print film curve applied:

 

 

 

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And this is a possible result based on the print film curve that uses partly the available DR but is well in the boundaries of what I think a photograph should look like:

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 December 30, 2021 by hansvons

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

Hi Gorden, I am not arguing against the x1dii, indeed I own and sometimes use one. And the 2 lenses mentioned are indeed great, even though the 35-75/3.5-4.5 has a quit limited zoom range at both ends, is not really fast, specially if you count in there is no IS. The 80/1.9 is a beauty, but wows also in regards of size/weight. There is not 21mm equivalent lens for the D1dII and often the 30 is a little too narrow and the 21 a little too wide. The handling of the x1dII is in one way very nice, but in another way slow, eats up batteries and not really made for using gloves. The Fuji seems to offer more flexibility than the Hassy (IS, better AF, more lens options) - I once tried a gfx50 but at this time was not a fan of the user interface, menus, and for some reason I seem to dig Leica and Hassy color better than Fuji. Maybe time for me to check out the gfx100s? But will it give me either the Hassy colors or the smooth rendering of the S lenses - that's the big question for me??? 

In a word, no. The Fuji doesn't quite get to Hasselblad's colour science. Nor do the lenses quite get to the XCD or Leica S levels. And I totally agree that the XCD line up is screaming for a 25mm or a 20-35 zoom. I have the HC 24mm and adaptor but it is big. While they're at it an 80-160 as well. I don't really care the zoom is short. And the leaf shutter makes it very stable to shoot with. It's spectacular and covers half of my shooting needs. Nor do I care the 80 is large/heavy. So are most of the 135 format fast primes. It's pretty average for what it does, so beautifully. Hasselblad have done absolutely zero for over 12 months now. I'm cutting them a break due to supply chain issues but it does give me some concern for the future of the system. Hence the reason I got a GFX100S.

I rarely need gloves and have a couple of pairs with those flip over fingers. I can say the Fuji would be little better than the X1D in that regard. Really the only game in town is the Leica S and maybe my 645Z Pentax.

That's not saying the GFX is poor. It isn't. It's stunning. The 110mm is as good as any Leica or HB lens and the zooms are all fabulous. I even like the 80mm although it's a hair behind the HB version. Despite the typical endless menus and questionable layout and customisation choices the GFX100S and lenses are capable of staggering results. The jpegs are genuinely useful. Focus is fast and accurate. The flippy screen is genius (like the S1R) and the shutter is lovely. There's very little to want for besides having a novel for a menu system and colour that's only 95% as good as the 'blad.

If HB get their act together and make a X2D with the PDAF sensor and a high end processor then I'd prefer the HB ecosystem. Mind you a mirrorless S3 would tempt me as well. That sensor is truly brilliant. For now Fuji offers the best overall system, despite it's shortcomings and the superiority of the X1DII in long exposures and colour science. I really could shoot all my landscapes with the 21, 35-75 and 135/TC. That's the kit I have for landscapes. But for travel the Fuji is faster and more flexible. A 21, 32-64, 80 and 100-200 really doesn't leave much that you can't shoot.

Gordon

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, hansvons said:

This is the same shot with full contrast. This is what I mean with dreadful HDR imagery.

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!

 

This the same shot with a print film curve applied:

 

 

 

There are different types of HDR. The garish ones and the natural-looking ones. Adobe's HDR tools can generate natural-looking ones, fixing blown highlights and reducing noise in shadows. IMO, this is the only useful HDR. Adobe Photoshop even allows you to create 32-bit files in order to preserve all the information. I find that 16-bit files are good enough.

[hansvons]

8 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Adobe's HDR tools can generate natural-looking ones,...

Absolutely agree. And, besides, wide DR in cameras is the foundation of HDR video, which, at some point, will also be implemented in everyday displays. HDR stills will be part of the media consumption as HDR video slowly already enters more and more people’s sitting rooms, laptops, and tablets.

[LocalHero1953]

With an image like this tonal range is just one of the problems: differences in white balance between the shaded and sunlit parts is another.

For a shot like this I would bracket exposure and use the Lightroom HDR merge function, then process to minimise the artificiality of it. But it's a challenging scene, whatever.

The 2021 solution is to mask the sky with LR or PS and drop in another one - try a tropical sunset😊!

[hansvons]

13 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

With an image like this tonal range is just one of the problems: differences in white balance between the shaded and sunlit parts is another.

Yes, but it’s not a problem per se. It’s natural outdoors that the Kelvins in the highlights and the Kelvins in the shadows differ. As the scene’s natural key light, the sun shines at 5600K at noon. But the blue/overcast sky has a considerable higher colour temperature supplying the ambient light to the scene. These differences can become pretty stark at dawn and dusk. Or boringly homogenous when the sky is completely overcast and no sunlight available.

That’s the reason why cinematographers, who replicate outdoor scenes in studios, gel their fixtures accordingly. Otherwise, the scene would look flat and inaccurate in terms of colours. 

One can adjust the black balance in film grading applications, but not with Capture One. At least I haven’t it figured out. I don’t miss it.

[LocalHero1953]

42 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Yes, but it’s not a problem per se. It’s natural outdoors that the Kelvins in the highlights and the Kelvins in the shadows differ. As the scene’s natural key light, the sun shines at 5600K at noon. But the blue/overcast sky has a considerable higher colour temperature supplying the ambient light to the scene. These differences can become pretty stark at dawn and dusk. Or boringly homogenous when the sky is completely overcast and no sunlight available.

That’s the reason why cinematographers, who replicate outdoor scenes in studios, gel their fixtures accordingly. Otherwise, the scene would look flat and inaccurate in terms of colours. 

One can adjust the black balance in film grading applications, but not with Capture One. At least I haven’t it figured out. I don’t miss it.

I quite agree - there are some scenes are only worth photographing if (a) you want to show exactly what it was like, even if uninteresting or (b) you want to create an attractive but fake scene.  

[tom0511]

I guess the best bet is to shoot scenes like this when the light is good, morning or evening. The more we have to do in post the more artificial it looks often, at least for people like me, who are more interested in photography than in computer editing.

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I guess the best bet is to shoot scenes like this when the light is good, morning or evening. The more we have to do in post the more artificial it looks often, at least for people like me, who are more interested in photography than in computer editing.

Colors are tough to do in post. At least they are to me. Sometimes, when I get stuck, I use a profile or preset. IMO, any image can be improved in the post, sometimes only by a little bit.

Post-processing is an essential part of photography. The professionals can hire specialists; the enthusiasts have to do it themselves, which requires a considerable investment in time and energy.

[Chaemono]

At base ISO most cameras have more than enough DR or exposure latitude rather if exposed properly. At high ISO it's a different matter. There it shows that thew X1D II sensor is a bit dated. Try pushing ISO 1600/3200/6400 X1D II files. And before I get attacked by the Hasselblad fanboys here, I can post comparisons X1D II vs. SL2S. 😂

Here great exposure latitude by the M10-P at base ISO in less compressed JPEGs: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-F6NRmF/ Is that enough 'dynamic range'?

And here in LUF compressed JPEGs

M10-P as shot

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!

As processed

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Chaemono said:

At base ISO most cameras have more than enough DR or exposure latitude rather if exposed properly. At high ISO it's a different matter. There it shows that thew X1D II sensor is a bit dated. Try pushing ISO 1600/3200/6400 X1D II files. And before I get attacked by the Hasselblad fanboys here, I can post comparisons X1D II vs. SL2S. 😂

Here great exposure latitude by the M10-P at base ISO in less compressed JPEGs: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-F6NRmF/ Is that enough 'dynamic range'?

And here in LUF compressed JPEGs

M10-P as shot

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!

As processed

In my tests with extreme contrasts, SL2-S is better at higher ISO, X1D is better at lower ISO (ISO 100).

According to the filename, the second image has been de-noised by Topaz.

[Chaemono]

Am 23.12.2021 um 17:41 schrieb Manicouagan1:

…When I looked at my SL2 images (mostly on the computer screen) the reduced dynamic range (relative to the M10,M10-R or D850) at low iso did not seem a problem.  I found that a -1/3 or at most -2/3 stop exposure compensation was needed in some situations, but the resulting shadow if any was a non issue.   I do think I see more detail in my SL2 images than with M series cameras, but I suspect that the improved lens quality and image Stabilization account for those differences.  

And it shouldn’t be. Of FF cameras today, Z7 probably has the best base ISO and then the SL2. See how Sony files struggle at base ISO when pushed as hard as SL2 files. I must admit, I haven’t pushed the Z7 files at base ISO as hard, yet.

 

 

[Chaemono]

vor 1 Minute schrieb SrMi:

…According to the filename, the second image has been de-noised by Topaz.

Yes, I’m trying to level the playing field with computational photography in cells phones. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chaemono]

Am 30.12.2021 um 09:35 schrieb tom0511:

I once tried a gfx50 but at this time was not a fan of the user interface, menus, and for some reason I seem to dig Leica and Hassy color better than Fuji. Maybe time for me to check out the gfx100s? But will it give me either the Hassy colors or the smooth rendering of the S lenses - that's the big question for me??? 

The S3 could really be the camera you want. It solves for this Either/Or dilemma.