Shooting an Event in a few Weeks - SL3 or SL2-S as second body?

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm shooting an event in a few weeks and plan on bringing my SL3 and Q3 43.  I'll have the 21 and 75 APO SLs with me.  I was thinking about renting a second body just to make things easier (weight doesn't bother me) - or maybe just rent a Q3 and leave the SL stuff at home - but that's not my question for now.  Some of the events will be in low light where I should be able to get away with slower shutter speeds with the 21, but I may see ISOs of 12,500 to 25,000 with the 75 - as I'll probably need shutter speeds of 1/125 to 1/250.  When I look back at my old SL2-S files I don't have anything with ISOs that high.  Should I just rent another SL3, or is the SL2-S going to give me significant better images at those ISOs?

[Advertisement]

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

[Chuck Albertson]

The SL2-S will give you significantly better images at high ISOs. I routinely shoot stuff at ISO 25000/50000 and, while a short cleanup is required in the noise aisle, the resulting images look great.

[Chuck Albertson]

This fella was underexposed at ISO 25000 by more than a stop, but I pulled him out of the darkness in Lightroom and ran the AI denoise on the image. At the Pussy Riot concert outside the old Stasi HQ in Berlin last month, SL2-S with 35 SLAPO.

 

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!

[jaapv]

I can get usable results on the SL2S @ ISO 100.000. Not just noise that the well-known noise reduction programs (LR Enhance, Topaz Photo AI, DXO) can handle and bring down to an acceptable level,, but the real bonus is that it retains colours excellently and still has a decent Dynamic Range. The camera can really see in the dark. 

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!

 

[Dr. G]

Seems like the SL2-S would be perfect.  I could always use the 21 on the SL-3 in APS-C mode to give me 32mm in a pinch and I shouldn't need to crop in much on my 75.  

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I'm shooting an event in a few weeks and plan on bringing my SL3 and Q3 43.  I'll have the 21 and 75 APO SLs with me.  I was thinking about renting a second body just to make things easier (weight doesn't bother me) - or maybe just rent a Q3 and leave the SL stuff at home - but that's not my question for now.  Some of the events will be in low light where I should be able to get away with slower shutter speeds with the 21, but I may see ISOs of 12,500 to 25,000 with the 75 - as I'll probably need shutter speeds of 1/125 to 1/250.  When I look back at my old SL2-S files I don't have anything with ISOs that high.  Should I just rent another SL3, or is the SL2-S going to give me significant better images at those ISOs?

You could also consider tossing in the Sigma 50 f/1.2 to swap the 75 with when the light gets that low. I'd rather keep the PDAF of the SL3 and combine that with the fast dual linear AF motors of the Sigma.

Of course, the SL2-S with 75 APO in low light will look just fine provided that's enough light for accurate focus.

[Dr. G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

34 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

You could also consider tossing in the Sigma 50 f/1.2 to swap the 75 with when the light gets that low. I'd rather keep the PDAF of the SL3 and combine that with the fast dual linear AF motors of the Sigma.

Of course, the SL2-S with 75 APO in low light will look just fine provided that's enough light for accurate focus.

I have the 50mm Lux-SL.  I just prefer the rendering of the 75 for certain situations.

[hdmesa]

Just now, Dr. G said:

I have the 50mm Lux-SL.  I just prefer the rendering of the 75 for certain situations.

Quite understandable. I would definitely pair it with the SL2-S then.

[Olaf_ZG]

But… will the Q be able to do such low light work? Very curious about that, as personally I think it won’t.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

But… will the Q be able to do such low light work? Very curious about that, as personally I think it won’t.

Having shot the SL2-S and the Q3 43 side by side in low light, I don't think it can. Midlights and highlights are OK, but the shadow details just aren't there to the same degree of recoverability - noise levels rise dramatically. So the Q3 43 is OK at those ISOs (25,000) but at the expense of quite a lot of blocked shadows.

Edited December 27, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Respectfully disagree. The SL3 is the equal of the SL2-S at high ISO’s, if you equalise the resolution. The current Sony 60MP sensor is easily the equal of the SL2-S. Sure if you compare at 100% pixel you’ll see some advantage to the SL2-S. But it’s not in the real world.

I would not underestimate the convenience of two identical bodies.

Gordon

[Olaf_ZG]

4 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

 

I would not underestimate the convenience of two identical bodies.

Gordon

This is a very important factor, and it might be a reason for me to upgrade to the 3s, if it will be fairly similar to the Q43. Both the 2’s fit great together, but not with the latest Q.

[SrMi]

11 hours ago, Chuck Albertson said:

The SL2-S will give you significantly better images at high ISOs. I routinely shoot stuff at ISO 25000/50000 and, while a short cleanup is required in the noise aisle, the resulting images look great.

I second Gordon's post: SL2-S is not better than SL3 at high ISOs (I own both). There is a difference between SL2-S and SL2.

[hoolyproductions]

I'm happy to hear these views that the SL2-S doesn't offer any advantage, and I'm convinced that's correct in most (perhaps all?) situations. I've only had one opportunity so far to shoot some music with the SL3 in low light requiring ISO 12500-25000, in a setting where important shadows are still a little underexposed. The results were very good but I still had a feeling that the 2-S has a small edge here (from other times shooting in the same venue). The fact that it's debatable probably already indicates something though 🙂 

I also felt (but may have been my imagination) that the EVF view while talking shots in such low light was slightly more comfortable for manual focussing on the 2-S. Any EVF gets a bit fuzzy in such low light but I felt my 2-S 'shimmer' upon acquiring focus was a little clearer in terribly low light. I should make a real test I suppose before casting speculation.

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, hoolyproductions said:

I'm happy to hear these views that the SL2-S doesn't offer any advantage, and I'm convinced that's correct in most (perhaps all?) situations.

SL2-S offers several advantages:

- less expensive

- faster sensor readout (better electronic shutter)

- smaller files

[FlashGordonPhotography]

5 hours ago, SrMi said:

SL2-S offers several advantages:

- less expensive

- faster sensor readout (better electronic shutter)

- smaller files

True except the last one. Just set the SL3 to 18MP.

Some might also prefer the SL2-S size and handling.

Gordon

[hansvons]

12 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

True except the last one. Just set the SL3 to 18MP.

But then you‘ll lose the downsample advantage of the 60MP sensor regarding noise. 
 

23 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Respectfully disagree. The SL3 is the equal of the SL2-S at high ISO’s, if you equalise the resolution.

Yes to the overall noise. However, the saturation/colour fidelity of the larger pixel-pitched sensor will be a better in the deep shadows. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

14 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

True except the last one. Just set the SL3 to 18MP.

But then you‘ll lose the downsample advantage of the 60MP sensor regarding noise. 

Regarding noise, setting it to 18MP is the same as downsampling it in the post to 18MP.

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

On 12/27/2024 at 1:17 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Respectfully disagree. The SL3 is the equal of the SL2-S at high ISO’s, if you equalise the resolution.

Yes to the overall noise. However, the saturation/colour fidelity of the larger pixel-pitched sensor will be a better in the deep shadows. 

I have not noticed that and don't see why the larger pixel-pitched sensor should have better saturation/color fidelity. 

SL2-S is an excellent camera, and it may do something better for the shadows, but that is not coming from larger pixels.

Phase One IQ4 and Hasselblad X2D are known for excellent color fidelity and have the same pixel pitch as SL3.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hansvons]

4 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Regarding noise, setting it to 18MP is the same as downsampling it in the post to 18MP.

I was of the impression that the SL3 sensor saves in its DNGs user-selectable full, half, or quarter resolving raw files off the sensor, which then get debayered in the editor of your choice to RGB, which allows for the decreasing file sizes/data. Thus, there is no downsampling from 60MP (full) to 18MP,  but regular debayering from 18MP raw to 18MP RGB. Do I miss here something? 

[SrMi]

25 minutes ago, hansvons said:

I was of the impression that the SL3 sensor saves in its DNGs user-selectable full, half, or quarter resolving raw files off the sensor, which then get debayered in the editor of your choice to RGB, which allows for the decreasing file sizes/data. Thus, there is no downsampling from 60MP (full) to 18MP,  but regular debayering from 18MP raw to 18MP RGB. Do I miss here something? 

The camera reads out the sensor at 60MP, and the firmware scales it down and un-demosaics it. Leica said that using 18MP is similar to downscaling to 18MP in the post (YT link @ 43:10). Initially, the marketing claimed that the DR of 18MP was higher, but that was incorrectly compared.