S5II vs S5 and SL2s

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Many times, one will not notice the places where motion artifacts were removed, but sometimes you can. Motion artifact removal works by replacing blurs with data from one upscaled single-shot image. In-camera upscaling is typically not that good.

I use it very rarely; I see little need for high resolution in my photography. Maybe when I anticipate an extreme crop.

[Advertisement]

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

[MindsEye]

48 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Watch out for handheld HR mode when underexposing by more than 3 stops. Admitedly, that is a rare situation, but if you underexpose and lift in post by more than 3 stops you will get strange artifacts. We have been discussing those artifacts with G9II, and others confirmed that the same issues are with S5 II. I do not now S5 II to confirm it.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep an eye out for this. I often purposely underexpose to protect highlights when shooting scenes with high dynamic range. Not normally by 3+ stops but it could happen. I'll probably try it just for the heck of it.

Edited March 3, 2024 by MindsEye

[Archiver]

Is the SL2S really that much better with M lenses than the S5? The S5 gives me mixed results depending on the lens; the Elmarit 28 asph isn't really worth using on the S5 but is stunning on the M9. The Zeiss 21/2.8 has 3D pop and biting sharpness on the M9 but lacks this somehow on the S5. The Zeiss Distagon 35 is superb on the M9 and decent enough on the S5. I'm keen to know if the SL2S will give noticeable improvements with M lenses, and come as close as possible to a M body.

[Malabito]

8 hours ago, Archiver said:

Is the SL2S really that much better with M lenses than the S5? The S5 gives me mixed results depending on the lens; the Elmarit 28 asph isn't really worth using on the S5 but is stunning on the M9. The Zeiss 21/2.8 has 3D pop and biting sharpness on the M9 but lacks this somehow on the S5. The Zeiss Distagon 35 is superb on the M9 and decent enough on the S5. I'm keen to know if the SL2S will give noticeable improvements with M lenses, and come as close as possible to a M body.

It does, but it also depends on the lens.

My Voigtländer 35mm Skopar f/3.5 was a disaster on the S1 (same as S5). The corners were never sharp, not even when closing down. With the SL2S, even though they were not as sharp as on the M, they were better than on the S1.

My 24mm Elmar had some weird colors with the S1, not present on the SL2s. The 28mm Summicron also has much better corners on the SL2s than on the S1.

I wouldn't say the SL2s is as good as the M with M lenses, but it comes close and is indeed better than the Panasonic.

By the way, M lenses behave just as poorly on the Panasonic as on the Sony. The Z mount is slightly better, but the SL2S is still better.

Edited August 30, 2024 by Malabito

[Archiver]

@Malabito Thank you very much, this is exactly the kind of user experience that I wanted. When I bought the S5, I hoped that the performance would come close to the M9, giving me M9 sharpness with current sensor performance, but that wasn't the case. Only the Zeiss Distagon 35 and Summicron 50 were up to scratch on the S5, and even then, still not like the M9 for sharpness and overall lens performance.

My intention for the SL2S would be to use it with M lenses, some other lenses like Minolta, Pentax and Leica R, and Panasonic and Sigma L mount lenses. Because of the size and weight of the SL2S, I'd be inclined to use it with the smallest lenses possible, hence M and the small Sigma primes or f1.8 Panasonic lenses. Knowing how M lenses perform on the SL2S might save me from making a costly mistake.

[Malabito]

5 hours ago, Archiver said:

@Malabito Thank you very much, this is exactly the kind of user experience that I wanted. When I bought the S5, I hoped that the performance would come close to the M9, giving me M9 sharpness with current sensor performance, but that wasn't the case. Only the Zeiss Distagon 35 and Summicron 50 were up to scratch on the S5, and even then, still not like the M9 for sharpness and overall lens performance.

My intention for the SL2S would be to use it with M lenses, some other lenses like Minolta, Pentax and Leica R, and Panasonic and Sigma L mount lenses. Because of the size and weight of the SL2S, I'd be inclined to use it with the smallest lenses possible, hence M and the small Sigma primes or f1.8 Panasonic lenses. Knowing how M lenses perform on the SL2S might save me from making a costly mistake.

these are some sample with the sl2s using m lenses

- 28mm summicron:

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!

21mm skopar f3.5:

40mm Voigtlander heliar:

28mm sumaron:

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/30/2024 at 10:51 PM, Malabito said:

It does, but it also depends on the lens.

My Voigtländer 35mm Skopar f/3.5 was a disaster on the S1 (same as S5). The corners were never sharp, not even when closing down. With the SL2S, even though they were not as sharp as on the M, they were better than on the S1.

My 24mm Elmar had some weird colors with the S1, not present on the SL2s. The 28mm Summicron also has much better corners on the SL2s than on the S1.

I wouldn't say the SL2s is as good as the M with M lenses, but it comes close and is indeed better than the Panasonic.

By the way, M lenses behave just as poorly on the Panasonic as on the Sony. The Z mount is slightly better, but the SL2S is still better.

It really depends on the M mount lens that one is using. For instance the 21 and 24 Summiluxes will give excellent results as these are telecentric designs. Voigtlander wide angles like the 10 and 12 mm ones are barely usable. In general Leica designs from approx. 2010 onwards will give the best results. 

[Malabito]

38 minutes ago, jaapv said:

It really depends on the M mount lens that one is using. For instance the 21 and 24 Summiluxes will give excellent results as these are telecentric designs. Voigtlander wide angles like the 10 and 12 mm ones are barely usable. In general Leica designs from approx. 2010 onwards will give the best results. 

Indeed, but overall, the SL2s behaves much better with M lenses than the Panasonic. Actually, it is a misconception that Panasonic cameras behave well. People think this due to leica and panasonic partnership. Panasonic actually behave as poorly as Sony cameras. The sensor stack thickness, if I am not mistaken, is the same in both cameras. If you want to use a mirrorless camera with M lenses, your only options are a Leica SL, a Nikon z (not as good, but better than Sony/Panasonic), or having one of those sensor modifications done to the Sony (Kolaris or something like that does them).

[jaapv]

My 5Sii does not fit that description. In fact, according to several reviewers the sensor was developed in cooperation with Leica. I cannot say the same of the S5 which I own as well. I use the ii  in combinationwith an SL 601. And as said, with quite a few high-incidence wideangle lenses your assessment does hold, but certainly not all. That has to do with Leica’s microlens design, not with a supposed thickness. With lenses longer than 35 mm it is a non-issue. The S5 gathers dust in my cupboard. For my use, long lenses, far better AF and stabilization, decent behavior with my selection of M lenses and better IR filtering make the S5ii preferable over the SL2S. Wideangle in general goes on an M. Or in a pinch on the SL. 

[Malabito]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

My 5Sii does not fit that description. In fact, according to several reviewers the sensor was developed in cooperation with Leica. I cannot say the same of the S5 which I own as well. I use the ii  in combinationwith an SL 601. And as said, with quite a few high-incidence wideangle lenses your assessment does hold, but certainly not all. That has to do with Leica’s microlens design, not with a supposed thickness. With lenses longer than 35 mm it is a non-issue. The S5 gathers dust in my cupboard. For my use, long lenses, far better AF and stabilization, decent behavior with my selection of M lenses and better IR filtering make the S5ii preferable over the SL2S. Wideangle in general goes on an M. Or in a pinch on the SL. 

same was said about the s1/s5 co developed with leica and it was still a disaster with m lenses... (yes with 50mm and on they work relatively the same), i dont think its any differet with the s5v2, but yes i can definitly be wrong. But i dont see how pana decided now to be better behaved with m lenses.

Here is some reading about the s1r, (same as s1 and s5), https://diglloyd.com/blog/2021/20210828_1235-PanasonicS1R-vs-LeicaSL2.html....

[jaapv]

Digilloyd...🤣 Sorry.

 

Note that I don’t claim for one minute that all M mount wideangle lenses have good corners on non-Leica cameras which are not built for the purpose; -rather the opposite. Just pointing out that there are exceptions amongst those lenses. 

[Malabito]

On 9/1/2024 at 6:49 PM, jaapv said:

Digilloyd...🤣 Sorry.

 

Note that I don’t claim for one minute that all M mount wideangle lenses have good corners on non-Leica cameras which are not built for the purpose; -rather the opposite. Just pointing out that there are exceptions amongst those lenses. 

Yes indeed, for example, lenses like the Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 work great on the sony/Panasonic as well. Fredmiranda has a great post in his blog comparing the behavior of many m lenses on sony cameras, (same as pana) and on m cameras. The only virtue of the sl is that if the lens works great on an m camera it will work at least relatively good on the sl, but that cant be said about its behaviour on the pana/sonys, might behave horribly or might be okayish.... 

For example, the 21mm skopar f3.5 works great in all systems, but the leica 28mm elmarit as the skopar 35mm f2.5 works great on an m almost as good on the sl, but on the panas are a disaster on the corners. 

 

whats wrong with Digglloyd? (I am not really much of a reader of his blog) a quick google will give you  similar results on the topic related to sensor stack thickness...

Edited September 3, 2024 by Malabito

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, Malabito said:

Yes indeed, for example, lenses like the Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 work great on the sony/Panasonic as well. Fredmiranda has a great post in his blog comparing the behavior of many m lenses on sony cameras, (same as pana) and on m cameras. The only virtue of the sl is that if the lens works great on an m camera it will work at least relatively good on the sl, but that cant be said about its behaviour on the pana/sonys, might behave horribly or might be okayish.... 

For example, the 21mm skopar f3.5 works great in all systems, but the leica 28mm elmarit as the skopar 35mm f2.5 works great on an m almost as good on the sl, but on the panas are a disaster on the corners. 

 

whats wrong with Digglloyd? (I am not really much of a reader of his blog) a quick google will give you  similar results on the topic related to sensor stack thickness...

There is a lot wrong with Diglloyd, but discussing it would be off-topic.

[jaapv]

49 minutes ago, Malabito said:

Yes indeed, for example, lenses like the Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 work great on the sony/Panasonic as well. Fredmiranda has a great post in his blog comparing the behavior of many m lenses on sony cameras, (same as pana) and on m cameras. The only virtue of the sl is that if the lens works great on an m camera it will work at least relatively good on the sl, but that cant be said about its behaviour on the pana/sonys, might behave horribly or might be okayish.... 

For example, the 21mm skopar f3.5 works great in all systems, but the leica 28mm elmarit as the skopar 35mm f2.5 works great on an m almost as good on the sl, but on the panas are a disaster on the corners. 

 

whats wrong with Digglloyd? (I am not really much of a reader of his blog) a quick google will give you  similar results on the topic related to sensor stack thickness...

He makes basic errors through photographic ignorance.  Example: he found out that a deep red filter causes focus shift on a Leica Monochrom and announced that he would “ investigate the matter”. Silence afterwards of course. And that is just one example. 

[jaapv]

On filter stack thickness: It was indeed an issue years ago, but as resolutions increased, the AA filters got thinner -I doubt that high-res sensors even need them- and IR filters improved as well. See the M 11. The main issue now is the microlens design not so much the filter stack. 

[Malabito]

On 9/4/2024 at 12:20 AM, jaapv said:

On filter stack thickness: It was indeed an issue years ago, but as resolutions increased, the AA filters got thinner -I doubt that high-res sensors even need them- and IR filters improved as well. See the M 11. The main issue now is the microlens design not so much the filter stack. 

Filter stack thickness is still an issue. Just try most wide lenses on a Sony/Panasonic camera, and you will see. Use the same lens on the SL series cameras or an M, and it's a big difference. Fred Miranda tests many M  lenses and compares them on a Sony body and an M body. Just go to his site you will find many lenses tested.  You will see most (not all) behave quite badly in the corners on the Sony (Panasonic behaves the same). 

[jaapv]

You seem to have misread my post. Nowhere did I deny the difference in performance between cameras on high-incidence angle lenses.
 

The microlenses differ, that was my point. The SL sensors have elliptical ones, the cameras you mention spherical ones and M cameras shifted ones

Filter stacks have become significantly thinner on all cameras and I doubt whether high resolution sensors have an AA filter at all. ( not sure about the last). Yet the performance differences with some M wide angles remain. Do you have figures for the difference in filter thickness between cameras? 
 

Conclusion: Microlenses make more difference than filter stacks on present day sensors. 
 

BTW We will have to wait for an SL3S to see whether it performs differently to the S5ii. It is likely that the sensors will be identical. Leica and Panasonic had to cooperate in the development in order to switch AF systems. Which resulted in a new 24 MP sensor in co- development. The SL3 obviously has a different sensor again, which explains the AF not being as efficient as the Panasonic implementation. 
I do not know about the rumoured 34 MP Panasonic sensor for the  (rumoured) S1ii(X), but I suspect that the convergence between Leica and Panasonic in this field will be visible as well. It makes sense.

I have not seen a comparison between the S5ii and SL2S in this matter yet. Generalizing by brand is useless. The differences vary by camera model. The Panasonic S1 is a generation behind, as the S1ii(X) appears to be around the corner. We will have to wait for its M lens performance. 
Unfortunately I cannot speak for the latest Panasonic S5ii sensor, as my main wideangles are the Summilux 24 and Super Elmer 18 which are telecentric designs. 

[jaapv]

On 9/1/2024 at 5:22 PM, Malabito said:

same was said about the s1/s5 co developed with leica

Who said so? - it was clear that the sensors differed. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jdlaing]

7 hours ago, Malabito said:

Filter stack thickness is still an issue. Just try most wide lenses on a Sony/Panasonic camera, and you will see. Use the same lens on the SL series cameras or an M, and it's a big difference. Fred Miranda tests many M  lenses and compares them on a Sony body and an M body. Just go to his site you will find many lenses tested.  You will see most (not all) behave quite badly in the corners on the Sony (Panasonic behaves the same). 

Filter stack has nothing to do with it.

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't know what the specific reason (I understand it was the filter thickness), but I had an S1 before I bought the SL2, and subsequently an SL2S. The M lenses as a whole handle better on the SL cameras, so if your intention is to use M lenses on an L mount body, your money is better invested in an SL2S or SL2. This ranges from not very important (135mm Tele-Elmar, 75mm Summilux) to completely deal breaking (any lens 28mm or wider, in most cases).

It would be my opinion if that you purchased an S5II to use with M lenses, you are much better off just using Sigma or Panasonic L mount lenses. They will be both cheaper and objectively better. If you want to use M lenses, your money would be better spent on an M camera, but if that is not possible, then an SL2S. I think the SL2S is the best SL camera for M lenses, as most of them fare better on the more forgiving 24mp sensor. 47mp is tough on a lot of M lenses, other than the latest crop of APO versions, unless they are well stopped down (but even then).