SL2-S Noise

[Geoff C. Bassett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Sohail said:

TBH, I'm not yet convinced that they each have their comparable strengths. The SL2 is a vastly superior camera in most scenarios. The SL2-S is marginally better by one stop when you go beyond 6400 ISO. But you can still accomplish quite a bit at 6400 ISO with the SL2. And as I said I'm still undecided about the SL2-S's relative merits. I'll decide soon if I'll get one. And I agree—I don't think the SL3 will make a huge difference.

Having owned both, the SL2s was better in regards to highlight recovery when I was overexposing.

[LocalHero1953]

Without arguing about the number of stops difference in noise between the SL and SL2-S, I would suggest there is more to low light performance than just noise amount. A proper comparison should also include noise patterns, colour preservation and fidelity, banding and dynamic range.

I should say immediately that I haven't made such a 'proper' comparison - I make my choices by subjective impressions, not rigorous testing. I bought the SL2 in 2020, after owning the SL since launch. I started using the SL2 for a project to document a derelict machinery workshop. Four months later when the SL2-S was launched I realised that was the body I actually wanted (no more pixels than I needed, better video capability and, reportedly, better low light performance). Leica UK let me swap bodies at no cost, and I started using the SL2-S on the same project, taking similar images and viewing them on the same screen. My subjective conclusion was that the SL2-S produced better colours, noise and noise patterns in low light. Again subjectively I reckoned that I gained around two stops by the swap: i.e. I was confident taking photos at two stops higher ISO with no degradation in overall IQ when using the images for similar purposes.

[Sohail]

21 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Without arguing about the number of stops difference in noise between the SL and SL2-S, I would suggest there is more to low light performance than just noise amount. A proper comparison should also include noise patterns, colour preservation and fidelity, banding and dynamic range.

I should say immediately that I haven't made such a 'proper' comparison - I make my choices by subjective impressions, not rigorous testing. I bought the SL2 in 2020, after owning the SL since launch. I started using the SL2 for a project to document a derelict machinery workshop. Four months later when the SL2-S was launched I realised that was the body I actually wanted (no more pixels than I needed, better video capability and, reportedly, better low light performance). Leica UK let me swap bodies at no cost, and I started using the SL2-S on the same project, taking similar images and viewing them on the same screen. My subjective conclusion was that the SL2-S produced better colours, noise and noise patterns in low light. Again subjectively I reckoned that I gained around two stops by the swap: i.e. I was confident taking photos at two stops higher ISO with no degradation in overall IQ when using the images for similar purposes.

For me, it's primarily about whether I can take night shots in the streets. So the question for me is whether the SL2-S gives me enough noise-free latitude as to justify getting one alongside my SL2. Impressionistically speaking, I'm coming to the conclusion that it isn't really worth my while. Here's a test image I took last night with the SL2:

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!

SL2 + 90 APO SL @ f/5, 6400 ISO, 1/40s (no noise reduction).

The truth is you can do quite a lot at 6400 ISO.

[epand56]

I quite like the SL2-s noise when there is some. Maybe I'm wrong but looks like they made some improvement of the noise that now look more similar at film's noise.
Anybody else thinks like this?

[Sohail]

39 minutes ago, epand56 said:

I quite like the SL2-s noise when there is some. Maybe I'm wrong but looks like they made some improvement of the noise that now look more similar at film's noise.
Anybody else thinks like this?

An example of the SL2-S noise you like?

[epand56]

1 hour ago, Sohail said:

An example of the SL2-S noise you like?

This one, for example.

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]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/11/2024 at 11:53 AM, epand56 said:

I quite like the SL2-s noise when there is some. Maybe I'm wrong but looks like they made some improvement of the noise that now look more similar at film's noise.
Anybody else thinks like this?

Precisely my thinking. Cinematographers refer to pleasing noise as texture. Like film grain, it gives the eye something to hold on to, even in out-of-focus areas as the texture is always sharp. 

[Sohail]

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!

Pushing the SL2 (90 APO SL) to its limits @ 6400 ISO plus noise reduction with ACR.

Edited January 13, 2024 by Sohail

[Sohail]

I tried adding some "pleasing" noise in PS:

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!

SL2 + 90 APO SL

Edited January 18, 2024 by Sohail

[hdmesa]

On 1/8/2024 at 10:35 AM, Sohail said:

TBH, I'm not yet convinced that they each have their comparable strengths. The SL2 is a vastly superior camera in most scenarios. The SL2-S is marginally better by one stop when you go beyond 6400 ISO. But you can still accomplish quite a bit at 6400 ISO with the SL2. And as I said I'm still undecided about the SL2-S's relative merits. I'll decide soon if I'll get one. And I agree—I don't think the SL3 will make a huge difference.

Sorry, but SL2 noise at ISO 6400 and higher looks like dog shit (IMO) without some sort of heavy noise reduction applied. The SL2-S at the same high ISOs has a more filmic and pleasing noise structure. Additionally, color integrity in raised shadow areas on the SL2-S is noticeably better than the SL2, and that holds for any ISO at or above 6400.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Sorry, but SL2 noise at ISO 6400 and higher looks like dog shit (IMO) without some sort of heavy noise reduction applied. The SL2-S at the same high ISOs has a more filmic and pleasing noise structure. Additionally, color integrity in raised shadow areas on the SL2-S is noticeably better than the SL2, and that holds for any ISO at or above 6400.

SL2 noise at ISO 6400 (100% partial view). Doesn't look like shit to me.

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 January 19, 2024 by SrMi

[hdmesa]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

SL2 noise at ISO 6400 (100% partial view). Doesn't look like shit to me.

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!

The red channel noise makes the noise/grain pattern so clumpy. It looks much worse in dark areas with raised shadows in true low light (not just high ISO).

[SrMi]

21 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The red channel noise makes the noise/grain pattern so clumpy. It looks much worse in dark areas with raised shadows in true low light (not just high ISO).

Yes, SL2-S has better noise behavior, especially when raising shadows in dark areas. However, I believe that both SL2's and Q2's noise issues have been exaggerated as, in practice, they are good. 

[Sohail]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

Yes, SL2-S has better noise behavior, especially when raising shadows in dark areas. However, I believe that both SL2's and Q2's noise issues have been exaggerated as, in practice, they are good. 

I ended up getting one to supplement my SL2. 

[hdmesa]

15 hours ago, SrMi said:

Yes, SL2-S has better noise behavior, especially when raising shadows in dark areas. However, I believe that both SL2's and Q2's noise issues have been exaggerated as, in practice, they are good. 

They are good for an FSI sensor and when compared to cameras made during that era. I feel like the M11 sensor (and likely the SL3) is a good balance between the SL2 resolution and the SL2-S noise character.

Edited January 19, 2024 by hdmesa

[SrMi]

30 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

They are good for an FSI sensor and when compared to cameras made during that era

I may sound like a broken record 😜, but BSI never improved noise over FSI full-frame sensors.

Sometimes, when BSI replaces FSI, other technology improvements are included, and that causes improved noise characteristics.

31 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I feel like the M11 sensor (and likely the SL3) is a good balance between the SL2 resolution and the SL2-S noise character.

And likely the Q3. Q3 and SL3 should have very similar or identical sensors.

[LocalHero1953]

30 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I may sound like a broken record 😜, but BSI never improved noise over FSI full-frame sensors.

 

I have no reason to argue with you, but can you explain why? I thought one of the benefits of BSI was that it allowed for larger pixels, which should reduce noise. I'm happy to be enlightened.

[SrMi]

51 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I have no reason to argue with you, but can you explain why? I thought one of the benefits of BSI was that it allowed for larger pixels, which should reduce noise. I'm happy to be enlightened.

Thom Hogan has written about it here. The fill factor on FF sensors was already so high that the improvements with BSI are barely noticeable.

Also, when Sony (a7r > a7rII) and Nikon (D810 > D850) switched from FSI to BSI, there were no noticeable improvements in noise.

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, SrMi said:

Thom Hogan has written about it here. The fill factor on FF sensors was already so high that the improvements with BSI are barely noticeable.

Also, when Sony (a7r > a7rII) and Nikon (D810 > D850) switched from FSI to BSI, there were no noticeable improvements in noise.

Sony moving from lower res FSI to higher res BSI and maintaining the same noise performance says the opposite to me. Same with moving from M10-R FSI to higher res M11 BSI.

In the case of the SL2 to SL2-S it’s high res FSI to lower res BSI, so the noise differences are much more noticeable versus the Sony example. 

Edited January 20, 2024 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

Sony moving from lower res FSI to higher res BSI and maintaining the same noise performance says the opposite to me. Same with moving from M10-R FSI to higher res M11 BSI.

In the case of the SL2 to SL2-S it’s high res FSI to lower res BSI, so the noise differences are much more noticeable versus the Sony example. 

Same noise when normalizing the output to the same dimensions, not at the pixel level. Typically, noise is not compared at pixel levels.

SL2-S added a completely different sensor technology/provider, you cannot compare it to SL2's sensor (FSI vs. BSI). Also, most BSI sensors seem to have dual-conversion gain, which reduces noise at higher ISOs. It is unrelated to BSI.