Trading SL2-S for SL3

[FocusDot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Anything that doesn’t require a tripod or lighting IMO.

Shooting portraits doesn't require a tripod...?

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb FocusDot:

Shooting portraits doesn't require a tripod...?

Portrait photography does not strictly require a tripod, but using one can offer several advantages depending on the context and desired outcome of the shot. A tripod is essential in situations such as lowlight conditions, long exposures, when precise framing is necessary (headshots, for example), and self-portrait photography, for obvious reasons (SL3 only has a tilty not a flippy screen).

However, there are situations where a tripod may not be necessary or could even be cumbersome. For instance, in a dynamic environment where quick movements and repositioning are required, or when seeking to capture candid shots, a tripod might limit the photographer’s flexibility. 

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, FocusDot said:

Shooting portraits doesn't require a tripod...?

1% of the time, maybe yes.

99% of the time a tripod will result in unnatural-looking poses and expressions

[JohnSantaF4]

On 4/9/2024 at 12:58 AM, michali said:

Thanks Helge. I've found the same, I also have large hands and preferred the SL2/S grips, but also getting used to it.

I find the left wheel a little awkward to operate- I've set it up for ISO.

Overall I like the camera and the colours it produces. I also find the DNGs straight out of camera need less PP, files are also less noisy than SL2 @ same high ISO.

I ended up with an SL3 last week (totally unplanned) the store owner sent me one & said if you don't like it you can return it....obviously not returned 💸💸💸  I've sold the SL2 & keeping the SL2-S as backup.

SL3 & Sigma 18-50mm -random shot out of the car window at about 130km (my wife was driving 😅) straight conversion from DNG to JPEG ISO640 @ 1/4000s -colours are accurate & pleasing for my eyes.

(please click on image for better res)

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!

 

Wonderful image! Congrats 

[algrove]

On 3/17/2024 at 6:02 AM, Chaemono said:

Decided to stick with the SL2-S and wait for the mirrorless S4, hopefully with the SL2-S shutter sound (and a flippy screen with no second top wheel).

IF an S4 ever comes the price of the body alone would probably put me off. 15-20K?

Edited April 10, 2024 by algrove

[algrove]

9 hours ago, Photoworks said:

1% of the time, maybe yes.

99% of the time a tripod will result in unnatural-looking poses and expressions

Agree and with the SL system I can get that 1% down to 0.2%. I mainly do not shoot interior portraits at less than 1/250th anyway just to be sure of sharpness (with subject and myself) and with the latest BSI sensors bringing up shadows is easier than ever before. IBIS makes all the difference for me.

[FocusDot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 4/10/2024 at 11:54 AM, Chaemono said:

Portrait photography does not strictly require a tripod, but using one can offer several advantages depending on the context and desired outcome of the shot. A tripod is essential in situations such as lowlight conditions, long exposures, when precise framing is necessary (headshots, for example), and self-portrait photography, for obvious reasons (SL3 only has a tilty not a flippy screen).

However, there are situations where a tripod may not be necessary or could even be cumbersome. For instance, in a dynamic environment where quick movements and repositioning are required, or when seeking to capture candid shots, a tripod might limit the photographer’s flexibility. 

Thank you, but I am fully aware of all of this.

I was just trying to understand this sentence of yours: 
"If you are shooting portraits, landscape, or architecture the upgrade is probably not worth it" followed by "Anything that doesn’t require a tripod or lighting IMO"
as an answer to my question what do you than need to shoot for upgrade to be worth it...
Never mind. It is probably just me having difficulties to understand what you were trying to say... 🙂

[Chaemono]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb FocusDot:

Thank you, but I am fully aware of all of this.

I was just trying to understand this sentence of yours: 
"If you are shooting portraits, landscape, or architecture the upgrade is probably not worth it" followed by "Anything that doesn’t require a tripod or lighting IMO"
as an answer to my question what do you than need to shoot for upgrade to be worth it...
Never mind. It is probably just me having difficulties to understand what you were trying to say... 🙂

You need to shoot M lenses handheld in high contrast scenes. 

I have shot the 75 Noctilux wide open on the Z7 in a museum and I loved the rendering but my sense last Saturday was that on SL3 it would be a step-up in terms of depth rendering and texture. I still have the Z7 and the adapter for M lenses. I should get an SL3 the latest two months from now. I’ll see if I can do a couple of side by sides. 

[hoolyproductions]

On 3/9/2024 at 10:30 AM, hoolyproductions said:

I'm also very interested in this, thanks PeterBoyadjian for the examples!

The difference seems quite small (but noticeable) in those shots. I'd like to see how they perform in dim light (where shadows need to be lifted quite a bit) - this tends to make more of a difference.

An example from the SL2-S last week ISO 25000, 1/60s (Lightroom AI noise has been applied). Exposure on the subjects has been lifted one stop and half a stop of shadow.

I decided to trade my SL2 in for an SL3 anyway (I got a pretty decent exchange price) so am now on a waiting list. Probably by the time I get the camera this will already be more clear. I imagine I'll be keeping the SL2-S but let's see.

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!

I made this shot last night with the SL3 and 50mm SL APO. Same venue as the above shot with the SL2-S, but the light was slightly better - in this case ISO 12500, 1/60s f2.

I used Lightroom Denoise at a modest setting around 25. I'm very pleased with this, although would still like to see how the SL3 performs in a real torture test of blackness. 

[hoolyproductions]

100% crop

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!

[Chaemono]

Am 29.11.2024 um 09:09 schrieb hoolyproductions:

I made this shot last night with the SL3 and 50mm SL APO. Same venue as the above shot with the SL2-S, but the light was slightly better - in this case ISO 12500, 1/60s f2.

I used Lightroom Denoise at a modest setting around 25. I'm very pleased with this, although would still like to see how the SL3 performs in a real torture test of blackness. 

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!

„In a real torture test of blackness“ the SL3 at ISO 6400 and above doesn’t perform nearly as well as the SL2-S. ISO 12500 is a breeze in „blackness“ for the SL2-S.

[hoolyproductions]

Yes, I'm still getting experience but seems indeed to be the case. SL3 seems a lot better to me than Q2/SL2 was in this kind of light, but it's fairly clear that SL2-S still has the edge. I'm still quite impressed though as the shots are still very useable. I'll continue using my SL2-S for this kind of gig but it's good to know that my SL3 can handle it.

I'm hoping to do some astrophotography during the winter holiday and I'll see how that goes with the SL3.

[lldd]

On 12/7/2024 at 11:05 PM, Chaemono said:

„In a real torture test of blackness“ the SL3 at ISO 6400 and above doesn’t perform nearly as well as the SL2-S. ISO 12500 is a breeze in „blackness“ for the SL2-S.

It doesn't measure that way.  I wonder what in your images indicates something different (not saying they don't, just curious):

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!

[hdmesa]

48 minutes ago, lldd said:

It doesn't measure that way.  I wonder what in your images indicates something different (not saying they don't, just curious):

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!

Always include the chart link back to P2P so they get the traffic.

Based on that chart, the SL3 starts applying baked-in noise reduction at ISO 8000, meaning detail loss and muddier shadows. If there were no baked-in noise reduction used in the SL3, then its line on the chart would diverge from the SL2-S at ISO 8000.

Edited December 29, 2024 by hdmesa

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Always include the chart link back to P2P so they get the traffic.

Based on that chart, the SL3 starts applying baked-in noise reduction at ISO 8000, meaning detail loss and muddier shadows. If there were no baked-in noise reduction used in the SL3, then its line on the chart would diverge from the SL2-S at ISO 8000.

As discussed in another thread, the NR effect until after ISO 12800 seems minor, as the PDR  and Shadow Improvement graphs do not deviate much from the expected non-NR graphs. The fact that NR is detected does not mean that it has a visible effect.

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

As discussed in another thread, the NR effect until after ISO 12800 seems minor, as the PDR  and Shadow Improvement graphs do not deviate much from the expected non-NR graphs. The fact that NR is detected does not mean that it has a visible effect.

How do you make conclusions about how aggressively the NR is being applied in camera without another chart line showing the SL3 without the baked in NR? 

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

How do you make conclusions about how aggressively the NR is being applied in camera without another chart line showing the SL3 without the baked in NR? 

The NR mark (triangle down) does not say anything about how much NR has been applied and whether it has any relevant influence on visible noise.

This is how I make my conclusions.

The effect of NR is visible by improved DR. If the PDR improves more than linear, then the difference to linearity is the amount that NR contributed. 

The shadow improvement chart shows the ISO invariance of the latest Sony sensors. If that chart shows that ISO invariance ceased at certain ISOs, that can be attributed to NR. As long as the graph remains invariant (flat), the baked in NR has no effect.

A good test would be to see images that include the full chain, including lifting shadows and applying relevant NR in post.

Judging a camera's output solely on measurement graphs seems wrong to me.

[hdmesa]

1 minute ago, SrMi said:

The NR mark (triangle down) does not say anything about how much NR has been applied and whether it has any relevant influence on visible noise.

This is how I make my conclusions.

The effect of NR is visible by improved DR. If the PDR improves more than linear, then the difference to linearity is the amount that NR contributed. 

The shadow improvement chart shows the ISO invariance of the latest Sony sensors. If that chart shows that ISO invariance ceased at certain ISOs, that can be attributed to NR. As long as the graph remains invariant (flat), the baked in NR has no effect.

A good test would be to see images that include the full chain, including lifting shadows and applying relevant NR in post.

Judging a camera's output solely on measurement graphs seems wrong to me.

I see where you're coming from, but that creates a mystery for why Leica starts applying NR at ISO 8,000 when Sony waits until above ISO 12,800.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I see where you're coming from, but that creates a mystery for why Leica starts applying NR at ISO 8,000 when Sony waits until above ISO 12,800.

That's only a fraction of a stop, which isn't a big difference. We know that the two brands have different colour filter arrays, which affects the amount of light reaching the sensor. For instance, if Leica uses more restrictive filters (which many people assume is the case), EI 8,000 on a Leica might be the same amount of light hitting the sensor as EI 12,000 on a Sony.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

That's only a fraction of a stop, which isn't a big difference. We know that the two brands have different colour filter arrays, which affects the amount of light reaching the sensor. For instance, if Leica uses more restrictive filters (which many people assume is the case), EI 8,000 on a Leica might be the same amount of light hitting the sensor as EI 12,000 on a Sony.

But I didn’t say 12,800, I said above 12,800. I believe it’s around 16K where Sony begins applying the NR.