SL2-S vs M11 vs M10M for low light color?

[JoshuaRothman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I use an M10 as my daily camera, and have an M10M for low light (and black and white fun). I’m starting to realize that what I really want, however, is to make beautiful low light images in color.

One possibility is to trade in both my M10 and M10M for an M11. But another is to trade the M10M for an SL2-S. This is appealing for a few reasons. It seems like the SL2-S has a fantastic sensor for low light color. I prefer 24 megapixel files. I like the idea of having a weather sealed system, and down the line I could add zooms. I also like having more than one digital body for backup reasons. Owning just an M11 feels risky to me, especially given the QC issues  I’ve handled an SL2 in a Leica store. It was a couple of years ago, but I remember being impressed by the build quality and EVF. It’s big, but awesome, and I think it would be fine as an “around the house in the evening” camera (and at other times, too, especially foul weather).

My hesitations are the following:

* I used to own a Q2 and the EVF was laggy in low light. Is the SL2-S laggy? What about the whole peaking / zooming in / zooming out thing? Is it fast in low light? I take mainly candid people pictures.

* I am interested in weather sealing, but is the camera sealed with third party lenses? If I get a Sigma 24-70, could I use the camera in wet conditions? What about with my M lenses? Basically I’m wondering if I need a Leica lens to have peace of mind in bad weather.

* Has the sensor been rendered obsolete by newer developments? My impression is that it’s a special sensor that holds its own even now. Is that true?

The M10M is a special camera, so I also hesitate to part ways with it. But that has nothing to do with the SL2-S. And I suppose there’s even a universe in which I could sell some lenses instead…. What I’m really after is a camera that will let me photograph evening events, without flash and with some reasonable DOF, without getting too noisy, with pleasing colors and skin tones. My sense is that the SL2-S could be it. Many thanks for your advice.

[frame-it]

25 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

My hesitations are the following:

* I used to own a Q2 and the EVF was laggy in low light. Is the SL2-S laggy? What about the whole peaking / zooming in / zooming out thing? Is it fast in low light? I take mainly candid people pictures.

 

low light a.k.a. available light on the street, better stick with fast manual focus lenses on the SL2s, if the AF is so problematic in daylight, i seriously doubt it would work on people at night in available light. i try not to go above ISO 1600, the image gets a bit splotchy

Edited November 25, 2023 by frame-it

[Advertisement]

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

[la1402]

The SL2S sensor is indeed impressive at high ISO, and in combination with IBIS a super low light machine. AF is not great, but much better than on the M11 😉

[Stuart Richardson]

The sensor in the SL2S is good in low light, but the EVF is a handicap in comparison to an optical viewfinder, at least in very low light. In moderately low light it is fine. The nice thing about an M is that a rangefinder can be fairly easy to focus in low light, as there is generally something that you can find in a photo to focus on, even in very dark conditions...such as a silhouette of a building or a point light source etc. Aligning two objects in the rangefinder in the dark is usually easier than determining maximum contrast by focusing back and forth with an SLR or mirrorless camera.  A rangefinder has infinity stops, so the lenses can be easily set to infinity, whereas if you are taking a nighttime landscape with an af camera, it is a bit trickier as the lenses focus past infinity. The SL's do have a digital readout of the distance if you hold down the shutter button, but I am not totally convinced that it is perfectly accurate. When I do night landscape work, I generally bring a powerful flashlight (a laser pointer also works) with me, as it makes composing and finding focus much easier. In true darkness, the EVF in the SL cameras gets grainy and slow, but I think that has been the case for every EVF I have ever used...Leica, Panasonic, Sony etc. Of all the cameras you mention, however, the SL2S will have the best low light performance.

Regarding weather sealing, as long as the lens you buy is sealed, then the weather sealing should work. The Sigma lenses I have have the same kind of rubber gasket on the lens mount as the leica lenses, and that is what helps prevent water from getting in through the lens mount. Keep in mind, however, that M lenses do not have this sealing. The camera itself will be sealed, but water could enter via the lens mount. I think this is not a big worry in short bursts and light rain, but for longer periods and heavier rain, you are going to want a sealed lens.

Edited November 26, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[LeicaR10]

Joshua Rothman,   I see you have some comments from sage photographers to include myself.  I can only offer my impressions of owning and intensively using three M11 models, SL2 and SL2-S.  I also used the M10 series too.  IMO, the M10 series are the most reliable and best color/B&W of the M cameras.  The M11s are simply OK.  I gave up on the M11s, rebought a M10-R and M10-M.  My choice and preference.  The SL2 is great for large MPs files if required and AF is pretty good.  The SL3 will be outstanding from what I personally know.  The SL2-S is superb for low light, great color, weather sealing with L mount lenses, superb SL and M lenses and very reliable.  It is my workhorse with M and SL lenses, until I get the SL3 next quarter.  It will get down to your sole decision as to what works best for your genre of photography and bank account.  Just my 2 cents.  r/ Mark

Edited November 26, 2023 by LeicaR10

[JoshuaRothman]

Thanks for these replies, they’re very helpful.

It just seems more and more like an SL2-S would fit into my setup much better. 

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do have a 2-s for color and m10m. Both are great for reasons you and others have said here. The only thing what is less good with the SL that to me, it is too big for a daily carry: not when going out photographing, but when going to work or dinner etc. For the latter the size of the m really shines.

And for that reason, I am in doubt to add a color m or not.

[LocalHero1953]

I use the SL2-S mainly indoors in low light (theatre and music rehearsals and performance). I use Leica L-mount AF lenses almost exclusively (occasionally the Summilux-M 75).  I haven't had a M since the M240.

There is lag in all EVFs, and I find it difficult to advise what would be acceptable to anyone else. I find it acceptable (i.e. it doesn't require particular thought or compensation) for most indoor low light conditions except the lowest: an example I recall was a large room lit by natural window light that dropped during the evening. By the end I could hardly see the subject across the room; the EVF was very laggy, but I could still see the subject better in the EVF than with my own eye. Whether this is practical and how it compares with a rangefinder depends a lot on whether the subject is moving much.

Since I use AF almost always, peaking and zooming etc are not an issue. The few times I have used M lenses, I have found MF a faff: OK for static subjects but not moving IMO. (I am very happy with rangefinder focusing on film Ms).

Whether the sensor is 'obsolete' depends on your mindset. The sensor has not changed since launch. The SL2-S now performs exactly the same as it did then. I was happy with it then, and I am now. 'Quality' is defined as 'meets requirements': if your requirements are met now by the SL2-S, then you don't have to worry about obsolescence. Better questions to ask are: are there photos that I want to take that I cannot take with the SL2-S? would the photos I take now look better or be easier to take with a different camera? In my case the answers are 'perhaps' and 'no' respectively. I might be able to shoot in even lower light with a different sensor, but the quality of my current images is determined by how well I perform, not how well the sensor performs.

[hansvons]

9 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

* Has the sensor been rendered obsolete by newer developments? My impression is that it’s a special sensor that holds its own even now. Is that true?

I'd say yes. Together with Leica's colour science, it can hold its own, as 24MP seems to be the sweet spot for FF sensors regarding sensitivity and colour in the shadows (larger pixels can pick up light better than smaller pixels). The backside technology makes it cutting-edge and better than the M10's sensor. 

But I mostly shoot with film M cameras. That's why I contemplated getting an M10 despite owning the SL2-S since it came out. The reasons were the size and my preference for the range finder viewfinder. But I skipped the project M10 (or even M11) and stayed with the SL2-S. Why? It's the IBIS. Besides its instant nature, IBIS is the most significant advantage digital has over film. 

Because I defaulted to M mount lenses, I bought an M-L mount adapter and now use the SL2-S mainly with the 35mm Summicron ASPH M, which makes the camera quite handy for what it is. I use it mainly for assignments of an editorial nature, which means no flash but available light. At ISO 1600 and with IBIS enabled, I get wonderful, colour-rich images in challenging low-light environments. You can go up to ISO 6400 when in a pinch. Please note that I only use de-noising in the colour channel because I like keeping the texture. The SL2-S de-coloured texture/noise at higher ISO is attractive.

Native ISO is probably somewhere around ISO 800, but shooting at ISO 400 delivers clean, high-detailed and juicy images with these lush greens and fantastic sky blues in all their different hues and skin tones that are true to life without being overly healthy (Canon) or vibrant (Lumix and Sony). The sensor is invariant until ISO 3200. Signal amplifying kicks in at ISO 6400.

In today's market, no alternative ticks my boxes better: colour, sensitivity, ergonomics, and price. And I guess the upcoming SL3 won't do that either, as it will probably focus on resolution like the M11 does (which I find unattractive). The EVF is as good as an EVF can get today, including lag handling.

[la1402]

One thing to mention. If you plan to use Leicas Sigma/Panasonic clones lenses only, there is very little reason to go for the SL2-S. The Nikon Z6II or Zf will do at least as good a job in terms of low light capabilities, with much less weight and volume, much better AF and significantly lower price, and Nikons 24-70/2.8 is a better lens than Leica/Sigma's. 

A key benefit of the SL2(S) is that they are the best mirrorless platforms for M lenses. And of course for the sweet Leica APO L-mount lenses.

[LocalHero1953]

43 minutes ago, la1402 said:

One thing to mention. If you plan to use Leicas Sigma/Panasonic clones lenses only, there is very little reason to go for the SL2-S. The Nikon Z6II or Zf will do at least as good a job in terms of low light capabilities, with much less weight and volume, much better AF and significantly lower price, and Nikons 24-70/2.8 is a better lens than Leica/Sigma's. 

A key benefit of the SL2(S) is that they are the best mirrorless platforms for M lenses. And of course for the sweet Leica APO L-mount lenses.

Curious: why would using Leica's own lenses over Leica's Sigma/Panasonic clones make the SL2-S more desirable? And do you have the SL2-S and Nikons to compare in low light? Or point me in the direction of comparisons?

[JoshuaRothman]

Thanks again for these very helpful comments. I just read Sean Reid's articles addressing high ISO performance in the SL series. I also looked at his Q2/Q3 and M10/M11 comparisons, to make things even more confusing. My impression, based on his findings, is that the SL2-S holds its own at high ISO against the newer, more expensive Q3 and M11, especially when images are downsampled. (I usually print at 11 x 17 or smaller.) No camera produces perfect images at 12,500 or 25,000 ISO, but the pictures these cameras produce are more then good enough for me given that they can be made discreetly, without flash.

I'm a journalist—a writer, not a photographer—who mainly uses these cameras for hobbyist purposes. That basically means family, travel, and everyday life photography—or, when I'm out reporting a story, personal photography that I later use as part of my own writing process (pro photographers take the "real" pictures that get published, but I take a lot of photographs, too). My thinking around the SL2-S has been:

• I'd use the SL2-S mainly with my M lenses. I currently own 21mm through 90mm focal lengths.
• I'd buy one native prime and one zoom, either Leica or Sigma 24-70mm.
• I'd mainly use the SL2-S, with M lenses, for situations where I want reach or for low light documentary photography of my family life: big dimly-lit family parties, school performances, and the like. So IBIS wouldn't really be a factor; I'd want to freeze motion, requiring fast shutter speeds with decent DOF.
• I'd also take it out with me for work when I know I'm going to be doing something rough-and-tumble (for example, I may be doing a story involving going out on boats in the North Sea).
• I'm sort of imagining that it will be an around-the-house camera, with a 35mm M lens on it almost all of the time, except for the rare occasions I take it out as a sort of SUV of cameras.

I think this usage makes sense. But I can't help noticing that the total outlay for this setup (SL2-S + adapter + zoom) will get me into Q3 territory. And it could be that the Q3 ultimately makes more sense if I'm willing to accept small prints of my "75mm" and "90mm" images. And of course, there's also the possibility of just sticking with my tried-and-true M10 + M10M, and living with noisy images from time to time. I don't have clients demanding perfection—just me. I could be chasing what are ultimately somewhat marginal improvements in low light image quality.

 I think I'm going to rent an SL2-S. I'll use it during the holiday season and an upcoming reporting trip, and see how I fare.

Edited November 26, 2023 by JoshuaRothman

[LocalHero1953]

It's worth thinking about what you mean by 'low light performance'. Noise in itself can be manageable with modern AI software, or acceptable if it is not ugly. And retention of good colour in low light is another factor. I can't answer for the Q3, but I find the Q2 noise a bit ugly - and it is more obvious at lower ISO than the SL2-S, though I love the practicality, form factor and design of the Q2. The SL2-S is also exceptionally good at retaining colour compared to SL/SL2/Q2 (and, FWIW, the M240). 

I look forward to your conclusions from your rental.

[JoshuaRothman]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It's worth thinking about what you mean by 'low light performance'. Noise in itself can be manageable with modern AI software, or acceptable if it is not ugly. And retention of good colour in low light is another factor. I can't answer for the Q3, but I find the Q2 noise a bit ugly - and it is more obvious at lower ISO than the SL2-S, though I love the practicality, form factor and design of the Q2. The SL2-S is also exceptionally good at retaining colour compared to SL/SL2/Q2 (and, FWIW, the M240). 

I look forward to your conclusions from your rental.

Yes, you're absolutely right. When I scroll my LR catalog and compare images taken with the Q2, M10, and M10M, what strikes me is how unattractive the Q2 noise is compared to the M10, especially with skin tones. On the other hand, I feel that the Q2 had more information in the shadows. There's the issue of removing noise, but also of recovering shadow detail—A.I. tools can't help with that latter task. I suppose what I'm looking for is a camera that will give me (a) good colors and skin tones and (b) recoverable shadow detail at very high ISO.

One surprising wrinkle in this whole story, meanwhile, is that Lightroom's A.I. Denoise tool doesn't work with M10M files! (It makes sense, I think—there's just a different kind of information in a mono file.) And that's got me thinking again about color cameras in low light. It's interesting.

[LocalHero1953]

5 minutes ago, JoshuaRothman said:

One surprising wrinkle in this whole story, meanwhile, is that Lightroom's A.I. Denoise tool doesn't work with M10M files! (It makes sense, I think—there's just a different kind of information in a mono file.) And that's got me thinking again about color cameras in low light. It's interesting.

It's not very good with film scans either. I guess film grain doesn't match the models of noise it has been trained on.

[la1402]

39 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Curious: why would using Leica's own lenses over Leica's Sigma/Panasonic clones make the SL2-S more desirable? And do you have the SL2-S and Nikons to compare in low light? Or point me in the direction of comparisons?

You need an L mount camera to mount the APO lenses, while the Sigmas can be bought with E-mount.  And for me there is no point buying a Leica to mount Sigma lenses on it only. And both Nikons and Sonys 24-70 are better than the rebranded Sigma from Leica. 

Yes I did that a comparison some years ago when I had both, but don’t believe I kept the files.

Hugh Browstone did one too, I believe: 

 

 

[la1402]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It's worth thinking about what you mean by 'low light performance'. Noise in itself can be manageable with modern AI software, or acceptable if it is not ugly. And retention of good colour in low light is another factor. I can't answer for the Q3, but I find the Q2 noise a bit ugly - and it is more obvious at lower ISO than the SL2-S, though I love the practicality, form factor and design of the Q2. The SL2-S is also exceptionally good at retaining colour compared to SL/SL2/Q2 (and, FWIW, the M240). 

I look forward to your conclusions from your rental.

I also found the noise pattern in the Q2 ugly. If the Q3 is the same as the M11, it will be nicer.

[Jeff S]

I would not want to part with my M10 Monochrom, as it allows a B&W shooting mindset not provided by using any of my color-based digital cameras.  For me, it has little to do with super high ISO. 

I also prefer to keep M lenses on my M bodies, while using only SL lenses on my SL2.  Different tools for different shooting circumstances and workflows.

As always, much comes down to one’s preferences, priorities and shooting/printing needs.

Jeff

 

[Kim Dahl]

5 hours ago, JoshuaRothman said:

I think this usage makes sense. But I can't help noticing that the total outlay for this setup (SL2-S + adapter + zoom) will get me into Q3 territory. And it could be that the Q3 ultimately makes more sense if I'm willing to accept small prints of my "75mm" and "90mm" images.

I think it is important that you think carefully. Do you want to carry a large and heavy SL2/3 and an equally large lens as a journalist. I am a photojournalist myself and have bought the Q3. (Of course, I also have other equipment.)

I am impressed by the quality. Cropping to 35-50-(75) is super good. 90 mm is more marketing if you are going to use it professionally. Noise and high iso. Maybe you should consider renting a Leica Q3 ? - if possible. It does a really good job. Maybe buy a cheaper one (Nikon, Canon or Sony) can make up your "zoom set" and "tele" set.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

An example of low light performance with the SL2-S.

Last Sunday I was in the organ loft in Trinity College Chapel in this city, and took this handheld shot of the soloist behind the altar in the distance. The chapel was unlit except for the two altar candles and her own (blue!) LEDs. The lens was the 90-280SL at 280mm f/4, 1/8 sec exposure, and ISO 25,000; AWB. I couldn't actually see the soloist with the naked eye apart from a slight glow. I could see her just in the EVF, but AF would not lock. I manually focused on the candles.

As shot, no edits.

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!

After processing: cropped, AI noise reduction in Lightroom, white balance and exposure adjustment with a brush on the soloist, sharpening and clarity, medium contrast tone curve. I tried to lift the shadows but a purple colour appeared out of the clipped blacks in the lower corners.

Edited December 1, 2023 by LocalHero1953