Jump to content

SL2 or SL2-S


LCM94

Recommended Posts

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 by LCM94
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by LCM94
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by LCM94
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by drjonb
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 😄

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...