SL2 or SL2-S

[LCM94]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

I guess this question is something you all struggled to answer at first. I've already read a lot of posts here related to this question, but basically apart from "I don't need the extra mpx" or "low light benefits", I did not find or see other criteria of choices.

I know that 24Mpx is enough for any type of situation unless you crop a lot in your pictures.

Video is not my purpose, photography is all I do. Probably could use sometimes video feature but that's all.

I know the benefits of less mpx on a camera for iso management. I had the Q2 and printed mostly A4 pictures. Croping was nice but I guess if you compose correctly you don't need to crop much.

Anyway, what other benefits are there to take into consideration from one version or the other?

I will be using the Sigma I series lenses, vintage lenses mostly.

Edited April 18 by LCM94

[drjonb]

51 minutes ago, LCM94 said:

Hello

I guess this question is something you all struggled to answer at first. I've already read a lot of posts here related to this question, but basically apart from "I don't need the extra mpx" or "low light benefits", I did not find or see other criteria of choices.

I know that 24Mpx is enough for any type of situation unless you crop a lot in your pictures.

Video is not my purpose, photography is all I do. Probably could use sometimes video feature but that's all.

I know the benefits of less mpx on a camera for iso management. I had the Q2 and printed mostly A4 pictures. Croping was nice but I guess if you compose correctly you don't need to crop much.

Anyway, what other benefits are there to take into consideration from one version or the other?

I will be using the Sigma I series lenses, vintage lenses mostly.

I am an amateur and have owned and used both SL2 and SL2-S cameras with Leica lenses and Sigma.  Over the years, I have owned and used Nikon, Canon and M Cameras.  Currently, I have settled on the SL2-S with the SL VE 24-90 (brilliant and worth it’s weight!); Sigma Macro 70mm (outstanding); and just got the new Sigma 60-600mm - I have left images on this forum.  The latter lens is astonishing in my view, but heavy, but also worth the weight.

As to SL2 versus SL2-S: as many have said, it does depend on your intended use.  If you do studio stuff, mostly shoot landscape in good light, and need to print large, the SL2 with its smaller and more plentiful pixels will offer more detail and cropping potential.  With regard to cropping and detail, however, the in-camera multi-shot options in the SL2-S (and SL2), and the sophistication of available panorama, HDR, and Merge in today’s processing software, do change the debate somewhat on pixel count in my view.

The SL2 does not have quite have the dynamic range of the SL2-S and noise tolerance with its less but bigger pixels.  In my experience, the SL2-S does allow for a lot more cropping than its pixel count suggests compared with the SL2.  I like to shoot birds (with camera only!) and they do not often cooperate or pose for you - but I am very satisfied with the cropping possible with the SL2-S and my 60-600mm.  I hope this helps a bit in your deliberations.

In summary, I love my SL2-S and am not craving an SL3…or the SL2.

[Advertisement]

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

[LCM94]

10 minutes ago, drjonb said:

I am an amateur and have owned and used both SL2 and SL2-S cameras with Leica lenses and Sigma.  Over the years, I have owned and used Nikon, Canon and M Cameras.  Currently, I have settled on the SL2-S with the SL VE 24-90 (brilliant and worth it’s weight!); Sigma Macro 70mm (outstanding); and just got the new Sigma 60-600mm - I have left images on this forum.  The latter lens is astonishing in my view, but heavy, but also worth the weight.

As to SL2 versus SL2-S: as many have said, it does depend on your intended use.  If you do studio stuff, mostly shoot landscape in good light, and need to print large, the SL2 with its smaller and more plentiful pixels will offer more detail and cropping potential.  With regard to cropping and detail, however, the in-camera multi-shot options in the SL2-S (and SL2), and the sophistication of available panorama, HDR, and Merge in today’s processing software, do change the debate somewhat on pixel count in my view.

The SL2 does not have quite have the dynamic range of the SL2-S and noise tolerance with its less but bigger pixels.  In my experience, the SL2-S does allow for a lot more cropping than its pixel count suggests compared with the SL2.  I like to shoot birds (with camera only!) and they do not often cooperate or pose for you - but I am very satisfied with the cropping possible with the SL2-S and my 60-600mm.  I hope this helps a bit in your deliberations.

In summary, I love my SL2-S and am not craving an SL3…or the SL2.

Thanks a lot for your feedback, very helpful indeed.

I forgot to mention that you can use the pixel shift feature for specific applications (huge prints or foreseen crops for landscapes etc).

video

Edited April 18 by LCM94

[drjonb]

1 minute ago, LCM94 said:

Thanks a lot for your feedback, very helpful indeed.

I forgot to mention that you can use the pixel shift feature for specific applications (huge prints or foreseen crops for landscapes etc).

You are most welcome.  Yes, the pixel shift feature is there if you need it.

[drjonb]

5 minutes ago, LCM94 said:

Thanks a lot for your feedback, very helpful indeed.

I forgot to mention that you can use the pixel shift feature for specific applications (huge prints or foreseen crops for landscapes etc).

video

Thanks for the video link, very interesting, and have not seen that before.

[frame-it]

if you dont care about megapixels and low light noise, simply go with the one that has a newer sensor

 

Edited April 18 by frame-it

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think that Leica slipped up in the naming of the cameras. SL2/SL2-S suggests that the SL2 is the base camera and the SL2-S has features for specialized use. Reality is just the other way around.  The SL2S is the general-use camera and the SL2 offers the large pixel number for specialists.

[LCM94]

11 minutes ago, drjonb said:

Thanks for the video link, very interesting, and have not seen that before.

No problem, this guy has very interesting videos on his channel

Edited April 18 by LCM94

[drjonb]

34 minutes ago, LCM94 said:

No problem, this guy has very interesting videos on his channel

I shot this handheld with the 60-600mm at 840mm using Sigma’s 1.4x extender at 1/800s, iso 800, f10, plane was at cruising height around 30K feet.  Sharpened a little in topaz, and cropped quite a bit.  This, for me, speaks to the image stabilisation of both SL2-S and Sigma zoom, and the optical quality of the zoom.  You do need strong arms though!

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 April 18 by drjonb

[drjonb]

46 minutes ago, LCM94 said:

No problem, this guy has very interesting videos on his channel

This was heavily cropped.  Processed in PS and Topaz but not excessively.  Who needs more pixels?!

[frame-it]

44 minutes ago, drjonb said:

 Who needs more pixels?!

i guess you're not printing big?

[drjonb]

3 minutes ago, frame-it said:

i guess you're not printing big?

No!  I am just familiarising and learning this new zoom.  I may print something bigger if it is worth it.  My daughter is a professional and can get prints done very cost effectively.

[LCM94]

1 hour ago, drjonb said:

I shot this handheld with the 60-600mm at 840mm using Sigma’s 1.4x extender at 1/800s, iso 800, f10, plane was at cruising height around 30K feet.  Sharpened a little in topaz, and cropped quite a bit.  This, for me, speaks to the image stabilisation of both SL2-S and Sigma zoom, and the optical quality of the zoom.  You do need strong arms though!

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!

Indeed nice, I see someone waving at the window 😄

[drjonb]

1 minute ago, LCM94 said:

Indeed nice, I see someone waving at the window 😄

I think they were telling me off for invading their privacy!

[Pelu2010]

Need strong arms and funny bones 

[Mikko Kankainen]

This printing big is a funny thing. You can print A1 pictures (60x90cm about) with 20mpix no problem. You can even print it out of 35mm film if you have a good scanner etc. I have 3 meters prints made out of 1dx 20mpix images and they look good. It's about pixel quality and lens quality. And I know this because a do prints myself for my customers and other photographers. Just a myth really. But yes or course if you crop 70% out of your image then 50-100mpix are great.

But yes pixels are always welcome but there is a lot more to it than are usually mentioned in internet discussion forums.

 

 

[drjonb]

11 minutes ago, Pelu2010 said:

Need strong arms and funny bones 

True!  I lived and worked in Hamburg many moons ago, such a beautiful city.  I still remember walking on the Alster once it had frozen to a depth of 14cm!

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, Mikko Kankainen said:

This printing big is a funny thing. You can print A1 pictures (60x90cm about) with 20mpix no problem. You can even print it out of 35mm film if you have a good scanner etc. I have 3 meters prints made out of 1dx 20mpix images and they look good. It's about pixel quality and lens quality. And I know this because a do prints myself for my customers and other photographers. Just a myth really. But yes or course if you crop 70% out of your image then 50-100mpix are great.

But yes pixels are always welcome but there is a lot more to it than are usually mentioned in internet discussion forums.

Correct  - I have a few 1 m wide M8 prints, nothing wrong with them. 

I leave the big stuff to the pros, I only print up to A3+ and even my ancient DMR files (8 MP) deliver fantastic results.

[drjonb]

4 minutes ago, Mikko Kankainen said:

This printing big is a funny thing. You can print A1 pictures (60x90cm about) with 20mpix no problem. You can even print it out of 35mm film if you have a good scanner etc. I have 3 meters prints made out of 1dx 20mpix images and they look good. It's about pixel quality and lens quality. And I know this because a do prints myself for my customers and other photographers. Just a myth really. But yes or course if you crop 70% out of your image then 50-100mpix are great.

But yes pixels are always welcome but there is a lot more to it than are usually mentioned in internet discussion forums.

I concur completely.  Pixel count (like so called AI) is more marketing than science.  It is the detail in the image which determines the detail you can print, and, as you say, sensor quality and the ability of the lens to resolve detail commensurate with the sensor’s capability to record it which counts, not how many pixels.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

 And detail that does not get recorded - how are you to know it might have been there on the print? It is most likely completely irrelevant for the photograph.