Trading my Q2 for the SL2-S

[huwm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, nicci78 said:

I really hate SL2/Q2/S1R sensor. 
High ISO noise is ugly as hell. 
I would trade up my Q2 for a Q2-S in a heartbeat. 
SL2-S sensor is amazing. SL2’s is so-so. 

Don’t care at all about 47MP it is 23MP superfluous weight. 
Even for print, the difference is not that obvious. 
Sharp lens comes first and high MP counts comes later. 

Out of interest, what do you regard as high ISO?

I pretty much never go over 3200 and absolutely never above 6400 and don’t feel I miss photo opportunities very often.

For my purposes therefore the Q2/SL2 combo is perfect.

We all have different usages and expectations.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[nicci78]

I am talking about 12800 and 25000 ISO. 

6400 ISO for Q2 is quite ugly (weird noise pattern). 
12800 ISO is unusable. 
Whereas 32000 or 50000 ISO is still ok with SL2-S. 12800 or 25000 is ok with CL. 

12800 ISO were quite nice with the Q. 
Just imagine my shock when upgrading from Q to Q2 : minimum shutter speed is now 1/250th instead of 1/125th. 
And 6400 ISO is already ugly when 12800 or 25000 were ok with the Q or the CL !!  
Without weathersealing I would have not kept the Q2. 

[beewee]

For anyone trying to shoot wide field astro photos, clean ISO6400 is the lower limit of what is needed to get reasonably good results. Clean ISO12500 would be much more preferable but really, the sky is the limit for good high ISO exposure. I’d gladly choose clean ISO 25000 at 24 MP over clean ISO 3200 images at 100 MP.

 

SL2-S @ 14mm, f/2.8, 24s, ISO 12500

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!

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

I am talking about 12800 and 25000 ISO. 

that is crazy to discard a camera only because you shoot in a dark closet with no lights.

For every one else the other camera a Wonderfull.

You may be just a little unreasonable wanting to get noise free images at 25000 ISO. It is already pushing the limits.

But I am glad you said that the cameras are trash at that ISO. I almost question my judgment about the camera in High iso. But I now can sleep better since I don't see the point in going that high and If I do it is probably a mistake.

 

wonder what you think about the 60MP of the M11?

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Looking at my Q2, which I have not had for so long (since October), I have ten photos that are shot at ISO 3200 or above. The vast majority are at ISO 100. And I live in a country where it is dark for the half of the year that I had it. I can see where this would be a deciding factor for people who are primarily interested in doing astro photos where the stars don't move, or who do a lot of street photography at night, but going over 3200 is, in its way, quite specialized. We did not even have cameras that could do it without looking like a salt and pepper shaker exploded in the camera until the last ten years or so. I shot an entire book of night photographs at ISO 100...

The concept of the Q2 makes much more sense in a high resolution body, because it is a very wide angle fixed lens camera that is designed to be cropped to allow it to stand in for other focal lengths in the same camera. If it were only 24mp, those cropped in photos would really only work for very small prints or the web. As it is, the resolution drops pretty quickly after 35-40mm. All that said, I do hope that those that want a Q2S get one, as it seems like a winning formula for Leica and it does a great job of satisfying both camps.

Below is a handheld shot of the moon I took at ISO 5000 on a walk in the winter. Personally I find the noise quite good, and I have turned off luminance noise reduction completely. In a small print or here on the web, the noise is hardly even visible. For me I think that is pretty reasonable.

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]

How noise is perceived is individual. I understand noise as texture like you find with analogue film. It's inherent to the medium. But because the industry found ways to clean up digital images with de-noising tools, a clean, noise-free digital image became the new gold standard. Many de-noising applications on the market cater to the sentiment: only a clean image is a good image.

In the film industry, however, de-noising software is seen as a godsend to repair shots that went south, but a clean image is not the golden standard. On the contrary, cinematographers like to maintain the texture that a digital sensor creates as much as possible. That's why Arri and Red cameras or the Sony Venice don't have integrated de-nosing.

In the case of the Sl2-S, the raw DNGs get typically de-noised automatically in the raw converting software. Capture One, however, offers the option to switch off de-noising. That way, I'm able to retain the sensor's texture. I figure that at ISO 800 and at the correct exposure, a pleasing texture is visible without distracting coloured noise. At ISO 6400, that's a whole other story. The term texture turns into the term noise. However, with the option to only de-noise the colour but not the luminance, in Capture One the distracting noise can be transformed into a less colourful film grain-like texture.

From that perspective, the SL2-S sensitivity ends for me at ISO 6400. That doesn't mean that I find the sensor only average. On the contrary, the SL2-S sensor holds colour in the shadows at ISO 6400 astoundingly well, and the noise/texture pattern is pleasing. I find it to be the best sensor I've ever worked with.

[Gavin Cato]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quote

I really hate SL2/Q2/S1R sensor. 
High ISO noise is ugly as hell. 
I would trade up my Q2 for a Q2-S in a heartbeat. 
SL2-S sensor is amazing. SL2’s is so-so. 

Don’t care at all about 47MP it is 23MP superfluous weight. 
Even for print, the difference is not that obvious. 
Sharp lens comes first and high MP counts comes later. 

I agree the high iso is pretty average. But unfortunately for me, I do see a difference in the prints between the 47mp SL2 & the 24mp S. 

On my SL2 I restrict the highest iso to 3200. It is a bit gross over that - DR takes a huge hit as well.

[V23]

On 4/29/2022 at 7:15 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I disagree…for me the lens is good but not amazing (it is not sharp in the field compared to the apo summicrons, nor does it have the same snap somehow), but it puts the fantastic sensor from the SL2 in a compact package. I bought the Q2 primarily for the sensor…never had an interest in the Q. I know people seem to like the SL2S, but 24mp is a big step down for my work, which often features large prints and/or large crops. I also much prefer the SL2 sensor even to the one I had in the S3. The magic of the Q2 is that it puts the fantastic color and clean, sharp detail of that sensor in a more manageable body. I only wish that it just had an L mount, rather than a fixed lens. 

"I only wish that it just had an L mount, rather than a fixed lens." Me too.

 

 

[Pierre68]

On 4/30/2022 at 12:25 AM, beewee said:

For anyone trying to shoot wide field astro photos, clean ISO6400 is the lower limit of what is needed to get reasonably good results. Clean ISO12500 would be much more preferable but really, the sky is the limit for good high ISO exposure. I’d gladly choose clean ISO 25000 at 24 MP over clean ISO 3200 images at 100 MP.

 

SL2-S @ 14mm, f/2.8, 24s, ISO 12500

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!

Incredible picture! Makes me want to investigate astrophotography 😉

 

[jaapv]

On 4/28/2022 at 11:15 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I disagree…for me the lens is good but not amazing (it is not sharp in the field compared to the apo summicrons, nor does it have the same snap somehow), but it puts the fantastic sensor from the SL2 in a compact package. I bought the Q2 primarily for the sensor…never had an interest in the Q. I know people seem to like the SL2S, but 24mp is a big step down for my work, which often features large prints and/or large crops. I also much prefer the SL2 sensor even to the one I had in the S3. The magic of the Q2 is that it puts the fantastic color and clean, sharp detail of that sensor in a more manageable body. I only wish that it just had an L mount, rather than a fixed lens. 

Stuart, 6000 pixels @ 300 DPI gives you a native print size of 50 cms, you can double that artefact-free by Adobe Super Resolution (even more by Gigapixel). I admit that not having to resort to AI post-processing techniques does make life easier  

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks Jaap. I don't really agree with you there. I do not find that the AI interpolation algorithms are that visually satisfying. I think they tend to give photos an unnatural relationship of sharp and soft, where edges are sharp but broader areas of texture are either too soft or somehow smeared. This may not be as significant in portraits or certain city images, but in images with a lot of natural textures like grass, rocks and water, I find they are not that convincing. They are better than nothing, for sure, so I still use them when I don't have the native resolution, but I would rather not have to. It has also been my experience that a native 100mp from a camera like the GFX looks better than the 187mp pixel shift image in the SL2. It seems there is no replacement for brute force sensor size and resolution, at least if you tend to make big prints like I do.

As for 6000 pixels, that is only if you use the full 28mm, which tends to be too wide for me anyway. Almost all my photos are in a 4x5 format as well, which further reduces the resolution. In any case, I certainly acknowledge that 24mp is enough for most people, and I am certain I could make it work for many things I do, but the way I use my cameras has changed since resolution has increased and I have gotten quite attached to the high resolution. I am much more willing to crop in to the frame and isolate small details when I have a higher resolution camera. If I were to start out with 24mp, just by cropping to 4x5 it becomes 20mp, and cropping in at all brings it down to 14mp or so etc. It can get very small very quickly. When you start with 47mp, you get much more flexibility.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Craig Clark]

I have the Q2 Monochrom and the SL2S and find them to compliment one another perfectly.  I actually traded my Q2 (color) for the SL2S.  Would i have traded if I didnt have the monochrom also...thats a tough question.  I agree with most others here; they are two very different cameras.  For what its worth, I SELDOM use the SL2S as a carry around camera.  its pretty much for when I have something in mind that I want to shoot that would be better in color and not 28mm.  I think the question is what are you going to use it for?  

[jaapv]

23 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thanks Jaap. I don't really agree with you there. I do not find that the AI interpolation algorithms are that visually satisfying. I think they tend to give photos an unnatural relationship of sharp and soft, where edges are sharp but broader areas of texture are either too soft or somehow smeared. This may not be as significant in portraits or certain city images, but in images with a lot of natural textures like grass, rocks and water, I find they are not that convincing. They are better than nothing, for sure, so I still use them when I don't have the native resolution, but I would rather not have to. It has also been my experience that a native 100mp from a camera like the GFX looks better than the 187mp pixel shift image in the SL2. It seems there is no replacement for brute force sensor size and resolution, at least if you tend to make big prints like I do.

As for 6000 pixels, that is only if you use the full 28mm, which tends to be too wide for me anyway. Almost all my photos are in a 4x5 format as well, which further reduces the resolution. In any case, I certainly acknowledge that 24mp is enough for most people, and I am certain I could make it work for many things I do, but the way I use my cameras has changed since resolution has increased and I have gotten quite attached to the high resolution. I am much more willing to crop in to the frame and isolate small details when I have a higher resolution camera. If I were to start out with 24mp, just by cropping to 4x5 it becomes 20mp, and cropping in at all brings it down to 14mp or so etc. It can get very small very quickly. When you start with 47mp, you get much more flexibility.

Still, this was my latest (extreme) experiment. Although there is quite a bit to be said about the final result, there is little to blame AI programs for, I think.

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Let's agree to disagree! It is certainly sharper, but it does not look very natural to me. Like I said above, if I had no other choice, I would resort to these techniques, but thankfully I do have another choice.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Tjazz]

On 5/4/2022 at 2:58 PM, Craig Clark said:

I have the Q2 Monochrom and the SL2S and find them to compliment one another perfectly.  I actually traded my Q2 (color) for the SL2S.  Would i have traded if I didnt have the monochrom also...thats a tough question.  I agree with most others here; they are two very different cameras.  For what its worth, I SELDOM use the SL2S as a carry around camera.  its pretty much for when I have something in mind that I want to shoot that would be better in color and not 28mm.  I think the question is what are you going to use it for?  

I have the same cameras, and it's good to hear from another who made the similar choices. A year ago I had the SL2 and Q2.  I traded the SL2 for the SL2-S for the astro potential and cleaner low-light performance (using the wonderful Sigma 20mm Art f/1.y, the magnificent 35mm Summicron APO SL, and the convenient Elmarit 24-70). I then traded the Q2 (despite loving it) for the Q2 Monochrom.  I do at times miss the convenience and ease of the Q2 color when traveling but the Monochrom is spectacular and is making me a better photographer. I have a touch of nagging buyers remorse of the SL2 to SL2-S trade but without any good reason. Just my personal flaw I suppose. I am interested in seeing Leica's next moves with the Q and SL series--of course they know I'm interested!! I do hate losing money on trades but such is the nature of addiction.

[digitaltoddy]

On 4/28/2022 at 2:13 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

I sold the Q and got the SL. Not that the Q wasn’t good, but the 28mm wasn’t my thing…

Same.  I went from the gateway drug Q to the Q2 then decided 28 wasn't doing it for me.  Got the SL2-S with the 35 SL APO Summicron and 24-90 SL lenses and have no regrets.  Yes, the camera is big, but it fits well in the hand and really is a joy to use IMO.   The 35 SL APO is just out of this world amazing to me.   The 24-90 is BIG, but the IQ, contrast, etc that it produces really make the weight a non-issue for me.

[Olaf_ZG]

59 minutes ago, digitaltoddy said:

Same.  I went from the gateway drug Q to the Q2 then decided 28 wasn't doing it for me.  Got the SL2-S with the 35 SL APO Summicron and 24-90 SL lenses and have no regrets.  Yes, the camera is big, but it fits well in the hand and really is a joy to use IMO.   The 35 SL APO is just out of this world amazing to me.   The 24-90 is BIG, but the IQ, contrast, etc that it produces really make the weight a non-issue for me.

Meanwhile I added the Q2 😎