SL2-R or SL3 with M11 Sensor

[T.J.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the rumors of the new M11 with a 60MP sensor are true (probably), I wonder how long before we see a SL2-R or SL3 with the same or very similar sensor?

[robb]

While Leica can upgrade whenever they wish, I don’t see such a need for larger sensors than the 47 in the SL2 because of the multishot capabilities up to 188mp.  Not sure any SL2 owners would have a compelling reason for an upgrade for a while.  100mp sensor… ok I’d bite.

Robb

[Advertisement]

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

[Gavin Cato]

Yeah I agree. A native 80-100mp SL body I'd bite, but in the meantime the 188mp multi shot trick is staggeringly good if you are ok to tripod it without things moving in the scene.

 

[SrMi]

Multishot has a lot of limitations. An SL-3 with new Sony sensor (similar technology as in SL2-S) would have quite a bit better DR or noise.

[Simone_DF]

6 hours ago, T.J. said:

If the rumors of the new M11 with a 60MP sensor are true (probably), I wonder how long before we see a SL2-R or SL3 with the same or very similar sensor?

I think next in line will be a Q3

[jrp]

I think that a higher priority would be to use the faster, more efficient, processors that the new Sony, Nikon and Canon cameras are including. That might’ve help to improve focusing speed / accuracy. 

[Eclectic Man]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure what the announcement on 13th January will be, but Leica is not known for releasing new cameras all that frequently.  Still interested in what will be said, although the lenses appear to  be M mount, so I'm assuming some sort of M.

 

https://leica-camera.com/en-GB/photography/m/what-makes-a-legend 

 

Whatever it is I doubt I'll be able to justify buying one.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Eclectic Man

[threeseed]

15 hours ago, robb said:

While Leica can upgrade whenever they wish, I don’t see such a need for larger sensors than the 47 in the SL2 because of the multishot capabilities up to 188mp.  Not sure any SL2 owners would have a compelling reason for an upgrade for a while.  100mp sensor… ok I’d bite.

Robb

47MP sensor in the SL2 has substantially (2-3 stops) worse high-ISO performance than the SL2-S.

And we know from the Sigma FP-L (same sensor as M11) that its low-light performance is on par with SL2-S.

So a SL3 with the M11 sensor would be a significant upgrade for the platform.

Edited January 10, 2022 by threeseed

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Eclectic Man said:

Not sure what the announcement on 13th January will be, but Leica is not known for releasing new cameras all that frequently.  Still interested in what will be said, although the lenses appear to  be M mount, so I'm assuming some sort of M.

 

https://leica-camera.com/en-GB/photography/m/what-makes-a-legend 

 

Whatever it is I doubt I'll be able to justify buying one.

Some LUF members already have the new M11 in hand, to be officially announced on 1/13. The thread discussing M11 has over 5000 posts :).

[robb]

I agree that the sl2 high iso performance is not that good.  I would say I wouldn't use anything over 1600.  I just don't like the amount of noise.  But my. SL2-S is. very good. above that so I guess the right tool for the right job.

I still would not need to upgrade for only 13mp more though even if the higher iso is much better.  I love the multi shot mode.  At some point you have to just use (and master) the equipment that you already have and go enjoy making images (and making money).  So I'm fine for quite a while with the current. SL2 and SL2-s cameras.

Robb

[threeseed]

7 hours ago, robb said:

I agree that the sl2 high iso performance is not that good.  I would say I wouldn't use anything over 1600.  I just don't like the amount of noise.  But my. SL2-S is. very good. above that so I guess the right tool for the right job.

I still would not need to upgrade for only 13mp more though even if the higher iso is much better.  I love the multi shot mode.  At some point you have to just use (and master) the equipment that you already have and go enjoy making images (and making money).  So I'm fine for quite a while with the current. SL2 and SL2-s cameras.

I have the SL2-S and so having an extra 37MP is a massive difference.

Multi-shot is fine for landscapes and architecture but that's about it. May as well just use the ML based super resolution feature in Lightroom.

[hansvons]

For me, this resolution race is heading nowhere meaningful. Sure, there are reasons to buy a high-resolving full-frame camera above 8k, such as larger than life prints with a breath-taking resolution when examining the image closely. Or the wish to punch in ludicrously deep for re-framing and still getting an acceptable image (albeit punching in always sacrifices dimensionality and deepens DOF when linking DOF to the field of view). But only a tiny fraction of photo-taking people have these requirements. And if you have, why not swallow the blue pill and switch to larger formats?

With the inevitable small pixels that come with high-resolution sensors, you will lose a few things that I consider somewhat critical. First, the dense pixel pitch won't resolve colour in low-light situations as good as a 6K camera, albeit the noise will be similar when oversampled to 6K. Second, the texture is too fine to be taken advantage of. When it becomes visible, it's already ugly noise. And lastly, you get absurd large files. The required storage size and the computational power must be adjusted to such file size. 

I recently got the new MacBookPro M1 flagship. Finally, the SL2-S DNGs can be handled like JPEGs in Capture One. It's a revelation in performance and snappiness and a huge time saver. Don't want to go back to square one with 10K DNG camera files exceeding 90MB per image. 

If the chemical film is a measure, 24 MP on full-frame sensors is the sweet spot, at least for me. If you are looking for a new experience and understand digital as a medium in its own rights and not only as a modern version of Kodak Portra, 60 MP and beyond might be interesting. I just don't see the application in my line of work yet.

 

[threeseed]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

With the inevitable small pixels that come with high-resolution sensors, you will lose a few things that I consider somewhat critical. First, the dense pixel pitch won't resolve colour in low-light situations as good as a 6K camera, albeit the noise will be similar when oversampled to 6K. Second, the texture is too fine to be taken advantage of. When it becomes visible, it's already ugly noise. And lastly, you get absurd large files. The required storage size and the computational power must be adjusted to such file size. 

I recently got the new MacBookPro M1 flagship. Finally, the SL2-S DNGs can be handled like JPEGs in Capture One. It's a revelation in performance and snappiness and a huge time saver. Don't want to go back to square one with 10K DNG camera files exceeding 90MB per image. 

Completely understand the concern about the higher resolution and in the past it's been a perfectly valid one.

But the experience from testing the Sigma FP (SL2-S sensor) and FP-L (M11 sensor) is that there is no difference in low-light noise performance. It's equally amazing on both and the testing so far seems to back it up as well. 

The file size issue is always a problem but that can be resolved by software.

Anyway it wouldn't surprise me if they just release an SL3 and do away with the SL2/SL2-S.

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, threeseed said:

The file size issue is always a problem but that can be resolved by software.

 

Do you mean compressing? The latest AI processing software already struggles on all but the fastest computers with 24 MP files. Presently you will need to buy a M1 Mac for higher resolution images if your workflow includes such software.

[threeseed]

12 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do you mean compressing? The latest AI processing software already struggles on all but the fastest computers with 24 MP files. Presently you will need to buy a M1 Mac for higher resolution images if your workflow includes such software.

No just having a setting on the camera to shoot in 24MP mode.

Similar to what they are doing with M11.

[Stuart Richardson]

I am always a bit surprised by the complaints about processing difficulties with larger files, as I just have not seen them, even on my oldest computer. Is it just storage or RAM? I am still using a 2013 Mac Pro, and it has no problems whatsoever processing SL2 files or even 600mb 8x10 film scans. The only thing that does make it noticeably slow are the 187mp multishot files. Is it perhaps that you need more RAM or faster storage? 

As for the sensor. In the past the M cameras used the same kind of sensor as the S bodies, and the SL and Q had their own version. I was told once by someone at Leica that it was because the S and M sensors were not designed to be always on, while the S and Q sensors were designed for mirrorless and for constant readout. Perhaps they have abandoned that, given the M11 seems to be using that 60mp sony sensor?

[jaapv]

That is a form of in-camera compression. 

[jaapv]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I am always a bit surprised by the complaints about processing difficulties with larger files, as I just have not seen them, even on my oldest computer. Is it just storage or RAM? I am still using a 2013 Mac Pro, and it has no problems whatsoever processing SL2 files or even 600mb 8x10 film scans. The only thing that does make it noticeably slow are the 187mp multishot files. Is it perhaps that you need more RAM or faster storage? 

As for the sensor. In the past the M cameras used the same kind of sensor as the S bodies, and the SL and Q had their own version. I was told once by someone at Leica that it was because the S and M sensors were not designed to be always on, while the S and Q sensors were designed for mirrorless and for constant readout. Perhaps they have abandoned that, given the M11 seems to be using that 60mp sony sensor?

For instance, Topaz Sharpen AI can take several minutes to run on an 2019 Intel MAC, despite sufficient RAM and fast processor. On an M1 Mac under 30 seconds, even less on an M1 Max or Pro. And those are 24MP files.

I had to ditch my 2010 MacPro/upgraded for this reason (and impossibility to run newer OS)

[tom0511]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb threeseed:

47MP sensor in the SL2 has substantially (2-3 stops) worse high-ISO performance than the SL2-S.

And we know from the Sigma FP-L (same sensor as M11) that its low-light performance is on par with SL2-S.

So a SL3 with the M11 sensor would be a significant upgrade for the platform.

I can not confirm that the SL2 is so much worse in higher ISO. I would say maybe 1-1,5 stops compared to SL2-S. And we dont know how the M11 sensor compares at high ISO to the SL2-S. I also do not need more than 47 MP. So I would see it as a minor upgrade (for my needs).

A real upgrade for me would be a further improved C-AF system, if possible including phase detection.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hansvons]

2 hours ago, threeseed said:

But the experience from testing the Sigma FP (SL2-S sensor) and FP-L (M11 sensor) is that there is no difference in low-light noise performance. It's equally amazing on both and the testing so far seems to back it up as well. 

Yes and no. As stated above, the noise level is roughly the same with lower and higher resolving sensors when the higher resolving sensor's footage is oversampled to the lower resolving sensor's resolution. But, still, the lower re-saving sensor has an edge in colour, especially in the shadows. One of the significant advantages of film vs digital is that film has its juice in the shadows, whereas digital delivers the most saturation in the mids and highlights. Strong saturated highlights pay into a dreadful video look and make pictures look bad for the human eye, regardless of resolution and other technical features. But fortunately, today's colour science solves that nicely in most cases. But you can't find delicate juice in the shadows if it isn't much available. That's why in cinema land, Arri gets 90% of the jobs and 99% of the Oscars despite their "poorly" 3K/4K resolving cameras.