S lens on S camera vs SL lens on SL camera vs S lens on SL camera

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Due to the sensor size, the LPMM of a S lens with S camera is about SL lens with SL camera with 1.5x more LPMM. 
This makes me hard to understand how can S lens on SL camera perform better than SL lens on SL camera. 

[ynp]

The S lenses on SL cameras are not better, just different. The look is different. The feel of direct focusing ring is different (better IMO). And the 120mm and 180mm are unique and irreplaceable.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

Who says they perform better? In what way? Perhaps they mean because they focus more accurately? Or is it because it is only using the center of the lens circle, which generally equates to better performance? Any other nuances are likely from differences in the sensor and cover glass. The lenses are not changing…the camera hanging off the back differs in the size of the aerial image it uses, the light path to the sensor (the cover glass and pixel well design) and how it translates that image into a digital image. But the lens is no different. 

[helged]

58 minutes ago, ynp said:

 And the 120mm and 180mm are unique and irreplaceable.

 

+1

[davidmknoble]

Also. The LPMM are not different.  For the same pixel size, the LPMM is exactly the same between a specific S lens and any sized sensor. 
 

The medium format look on film had better tonality and less grain fir a given print size (because there were more pixels and less enlargement). They probably made the images look sharper. Now the main difference is the longer focal length for the same field of view. 

[mgrayson3]

On 4/29/2023 at 7:59 AM, helged said:

+1

I'd throw in the 24mm. And, frankly, the 70mm has a beautiful look I've not seen from another standard lens - even an M 50/2, which is its closest parallel.

Edited May 6, 2023 by mgrayson3

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/6/2023 at 6:13 AM, davidmknoble said:

Also. The LPMM are not different.  For the same pixel size, the LPMM is exactly the same between a specific S lens and any sized sensor. 
 

The medium format look on film had better tonality and less grain fir a given print size (because there were more pixels and less enlargement). They probably made the images look sharper. Now the main difference is the longer focal length for the same field of view. 

With the same LPMM, larger sensor get more line per frame. If the larger sensor is X times larger linearly, the larger sensor get more linens. This is the same as two sensors that has same pitch size, the larger sensor has more pixels per frame. …, if the optical can use them all.

[davidmknoble]

4 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

With the same LPMM, larger sensor get more line per frame. If the larger sensor is X times larger linearly, the larger sensor get more linens. This is the same as two sensors that has same pitch size, the larger sensor has more pixels per frame. …, if the optical can use them all.

I agree that larger frame size = more lines per frame.  The way you worded it, I thought you were talking about lines per mm, which does not change, just the number of mm’s changes…. 

[tom0511]

Am 6.5.2023 um 15:13 schrieb davidmknoble:

Also. The LPMM are not different.  For the same pixel size, the LPMM is exactly the same between a specific S lens and any sized sensor. 
 

The medium format look on film had better tonality and less grain fir a given print size (because there were more pixels and less enlargement). They probably made the images look sharper. Now the main difference is the longer focal length for the same field of view. 

and a different sensor. I can explain why I still think the files from the S have more to offer than those from the SL2. DR/Midtones/color? I am not sure what but I feel they come out more often without less post work to do, and if post work to do , they offer more room for that. is it 16 bit? no idea. maybe I am wrong.

[tom0511]

Am 6.5.2023 um 15:19 schrieb mgrayson3:

I'd throw in the 24mm. And, frankly, the 70mm has a beautiful look I've not seen from another standard lens - even an M 50/2, which is its closest parallel.

I agree, though I find the SL50/1.4 to come quite close.

[davidmknoble]

On 5/8/2023 at 10:56 AM, tom0511 said:

and a different sensor. I can explain why I still think the files from the S have more to offer than those from the SL2. DR/Midtones/color? I am not sure what but I feel they come out more often without less post work to do, and if post work to do , they offer more room for that. is it 16 bit? no idea. maybe I am wrong.

The magic of Leica! 

[Stuart Richardson]

I know I am kind of a lonely voice of dissent here, but I found that I much prefer the SL2 files to the S3, and in most ways I think they are better than the S006 too, other than perhaps the color. My personal ranking of their image quality from best to worst would be SL2, S006, S007, S3. This is dependent on mostly base ISO, nor is it a discussion of DR alone. It is the look out of the camera when properly exposed, the color and the rendering of detail. My evaluation is basically biased towards large prints, on my work as a printer and an artist. I was very disappointed by the image quality of the S3, so much so that after four days I started corresponding with Leica over whether it was malfunctioning, and finally after six months they said, "no, you are just pushing it too hard" and the refused to let me return it. So it was a hard lesson for me to trust my own eyes over other's evaluations or the hype. I am not saying anyone else will feel the same way (though I did share files with several artists I trust and they agreed with me), but for me at least the SL2 killed the S system not because it was mirrorless or had more reliable focus, sharper lenses and a more compact kit (all of which it does), but because the sensor was superior. If they had put a doubled SL2 sensor in the S3, it would have likely been incredible. The S3 no doubt has much superior highlight retention than the SL2 and it is cleaner in very long exposures at night, but strangely it is at the expense of the shadows, which in my opinion is far more important (you rarely need to overexpose a photo, but you often run into a situation where it is helpful to underexpose to freeze motion or keep the shutter speed high enough for handholding). If you expose for the highlights and lift the shadows, the SL2 has some grain but has minimal banding and little chroma noise, while on the S3 the shadows show extensive banding even at base ISO and magenta contamination. Or at least mine did. Strangely, the shadows were cleaner at ISO 400 than at ISO 100...I think it is a dual iso sensor. But I noticed a shift in the noise patterns from base ISO to even just a few stops higher. Anyway, don't mean to drop bombs on this thread, I just feel strangely gaslit when people talk up the S3 against the SL2...maybe my needs are very weirdly specific?

[irenedp]

What you are describing might be a malfunction. The S3, the M10r -and I believe that the M11 and the new Monochrom- have dual gain sensors.  What is the ISO for the “upper base” is undisclosed, but definitely should be way higher than 400. It is paradoxical that you see no noise at 400 and color noise at 100. Might be an issue with tuning or even a bad connection? 

I have a new S3 but very little experience with it yet (have to take ot out to the field, got it Monday), but have an M10r which reportedly has the same sensor architecture and also goes theoretically up to ISO 50,000, and had no issues raising shadows at low ISO. Color noise, however, is an issue I face often with the M9, and also -but less- with the s2. Not too difficult to deal with in post, though.

I will definitely take a look at it as I get acknowledged with the S3

[Googaliser]

On 5/6/2023 at 9:19 PM, mgrayson3 said:

I'd throw in the 24mm. And, frankly, the 70mm has a beautiful look I've not seen from another standard lens - even an M 50/2, which is its closest parallel.

Let's not forget the S45mm. The S3/45mm is still my all time favourite Leica pairing 

[John McMaster]

24/45/70/120 is my travel kit....

john

[tom0511]

Am 10.5.2023 um 14:14 schrieb Stuart Richardson:

I know I am kind of a lonely voice of dissent here, but I found that I much prefer the SL2 files to the S3, and in most ways I think they are better than the S006 too, other than perhaps the color. My personal ranking of their image quality from best to worst would be SL2, S006, S007, S3. This is dependent on mostly base ISO, nor is it a discussion of DR alone. It is the look out of the camera when properly exposed, the color and the rendering of detail. My evaluation is basically biased towards large prints, on my work as a printer and an artist. I was very disappointed by the image quality of the S3, so much so that after four days I started corresponding with Leica over whether it was malfunctioning, and finally after six months they said, "no, you are just pushing it too hard" and the refused to let me return it. So it was a hard lesson for me to trust my own eyes over other's evaluations or the hype. I am not saying anyone else will feel the same way (though I did share files with several artists I trust and they agreed with me), but for me at least the SL2 killed the S system not because it was mirrorless or had more reliable focus, sharper lenses and a more compact kit (all of which it does), but because the sensor was superior. If they had put a doubled SL2 sensor in the S3, it would have likely been incredible. The S3 no doubt has much superior highlight retention than the SL2 and it is cleaner in very long exposures at night, but strangely it is at the expense of the shadows, which in my opinion is far more important (you rarely need to overexpose a photo, but you often run into a situation where it is helpful to underexpose to freeze motion or keep the shutter speed high enough for handholding). If you expose for the highlights and lift the shadows, the SL2 has some grain but has minimal banding and little chroma noise, while on the S3 the shadows show extensive banding even at base ISO and magenta contamination. Or at least mine did. Strangely, the shadows were cleaner at ISO 400 than at ISO 100...I think it is a dual iso sensor. But I noticed a shift in the noise patterns from base ISO to even just a few stops higher. Anyway, don't mean to drop bombs on this thread, I just feel strangely gaslit when people talk up the S3 against the SL2...maybe my needs are very weirdly specific?

Hi Stuart,

I find this very interesting - and you have repeated it a couple of times. Specially since you are a experienced printer, which I am not. I even admit to often look at files only on screen but feel even there the mediut format files to look rich and natural and powerful.

Maybe we also look at  different factors. I mean there is detail and dr, but there is also factors like bokeh, transition to background,...which might be more a matter of taste.

And then there are also lens influence. I mean images from the 50 apo Summicron SL look a little different vs the SL 50 Summilux (which is my favorite), etc. etc.

One thing is obvious - the SL series cameras and lenses can produce outstanding IQ.

WHich lenses do you usually use with the SL2?

[Stuart Richardson]

I primarily use the 50mm APO Summicron SL, 35mm APO Summicron and 90-280mm. I also use the Sigma 105mm. I don't want to take away from anyone else's enjoyment of the cameras, I loved the S006 and shot it for six or seven years, and when I traded it in for the S3, it really did not work for me at all. Meanwhile, the SL2 looked better and was more practical for me. I am primarily working with landscapes, and bokeh is not as important a feature for me, though I do appreciate it when it is good. I think the S lenses are slightly better here than the SL lenses, but it is really minor and not a substantive difference in my work. When I do portraits, it tends to be on large format, not digital. The SL2 is the camera I reach for when I want a extremely accurate rendition of a scene. Exceptional sharpness without seeming oversharp, edge to edge uniformity, vibrant natural color. All things that I also felt that the S006 gave me. The entire time I had the S3, I felt like I was fighting the camera to get the look I wanted, whereas the S006 and SL2 were nearly always quite close out of camera. But as I mentioned, the large majority of people that I can see here like the S3. It just did not suit the way I photograph or the way in which I see the world.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[davidmknoble]

@Stuart Richardson, that is an interesting perspective and read.  I purchased an S3 used to compliment the S007 and I had to send it out for a CLA because of a few minor things.  I have not seen some of what you described on my end and the shadows seem to pull up nicely with really good color.  The only odd color I get is too sharp an angle to the sun with a really high ND filter and I get some glare across the front of the lens - but that is my fault.  But with what you’ve said I’m going to go back and compare some with the SL2 and the S3 looking for differences.  I use Capture One, and the processing of the S3 DNG’s is better than my S007 files, so what I wonder is whether the quality control on the bodies has decreased some and they are not as consistent….