Chaemono Posted January 20 Share #241 Posted January 20 Advertisement (gone after registration) I guess I’ll have to wait for Sean Reid‘s comparisons to find out if the SL3-S WB is like the SL2-S WB or more like the SL3 WB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20 Posted January 20 Hi Chaemono, Take a look here Leica SL3-S: ‘More light’ – The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
SrMi Posted January 20 Share #242 Posted January 20 (edited) 10 minutes ago, jaapv said: I don't use Adobe AI denoise normally as I find Topaz Photo AI to give more control and I can have it side-by-side with the original on my second screen but in this case I left it at the 100% that ACR suggested. With Adobe, you see the original by click-and-holding the image preview. Topaz's preview is much larger. Adobe default is 50% AFAIK, but it stays at whatever you have set it before. See also: https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/04/18/denoise-demystified Edited January 20 by SrMi 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20 Share #243 Posted January 20 5 minutes ago, SrMi said: Topaz's preview is much larger. And with a shiftable split showing exactly what it will do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Abrahams Posted January 21 Share #244 Posted January 21 Have a look at this by Unmesh at Pixemperfect. He says that AO DEnoise in Adobe is very good in most situations and Topaz is good but creates weird artefacts. I like Topaz and having the control of sliders and also I use DeNoise for the DNG before processing, not always however because a lot of files show little gain from using the feature. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoworks Posted January 21 Share #245 Posted January 21 I got similar results when I did my tests. AI will get better over time and will be another tool to use. Topaz always changes the raw colors and comes out totally green with some cartoon effect. Adobe was ok in most cases I am still using DxO PureRaw, it is constantly the most natural looking one. there is a plugin from LrC and Capture one and the new image has the same colors of the original. my imageTypically I edit myimage in Capture One Studio and take a look if noise reduction is needed. when I run DxO I just need to apply the setting of the original file. DxO Pureraw gives you the option to apply lens correction. Distortion, vignetting, and sharpness fall off, from the camera lens combination they made a profile from. In some cases I will add a light film grain back to make the image more organic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 21 Share #246 Posted January 21 3 hours ago, Ken Abrahams said: Have a look at this by Unmesh at Pixemperfect. He says that AO DEnoise in Adobe is very good in most situations and Topaz is good but creates weird artefacts. I like Topaz and having the control of sliders and also I use DeNoise for the DNG before processing, not always however because a lot of files show little gain from using the feature. Adobe LR ai Denoise at 200,000 ISO (and it was really nearly 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! FWIW I like it because I can keep my workflow within LR - SL3-S of course! 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! FWIW I like it because I can keep my workflow within LR - SL3-S of course! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/418450-leica-sl3-s-%E2%80%98more-light%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-the-unbearable-lightness-of-being/?do=findComment&comment=5743974'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 21 Share #247 Posted January 21 Advertisement (gone after registration) 52 minutes ago, Photoworks said: I got similar results when I did my tests. AI will get better over time and will be another tool to use. Topaz always changes the raw colors and comes out totally green with some cartoon effect. Adobe was ok in most cases I am still using DxO PureRaw, it is constantly the most natural looking one. there is a plugin from LrC and Capture one and the new image has the same colors of the original. my imageTypically I edit myimage in Capture One Studio and take a look if noise reduction is needed. when I run DxO I just need to apply the setting of the original file. DxO Pureraw gives you the option to apply lens correction. Distortion, vignetting, and sharpness fall off, from the camera lens combination they made a profile from. In some cases I will add a light film grain back to make the image more organic. I wonder whether there is some hardware issue with Topaz. I have never seen this colour change using Mac Silicon computers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted January 21 Share #248 Posted January 21 I find it's all about using a light touch with denoise and up-rezzing software (I use Topaz Gigapixel for my archival scans to print large). Try to force them to do too much, and it's inevitable you will get artifacts of some sort or the other, and/or make the image look too clean (like it got a fresh round of Botox). 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted January 21 Share #249 Posted January 21 1 hour ago, jonoslack said: Adobe LR ai Denoise at 200,000 ISO (and it was really nearly 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! FWIW I like it because I can keep my workflow within LR - SL3-S of course! Quite remarkable (irrespective of tool being used); wouldn't be easy to do this, say, 5+ years ago. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted January 21 Share #250 Posted January 21 34 minutes ago, helged said: Quite remarkable (irrespective of tool being used); wouldn't be easy to do this, say, 5+ years ago. Hi There - it certainly wouldn’t! I can’t honestly see that there are many situations where you would really want to use 200,000 ISO, but this at least shows that it’s possible to get a decent photo out of it (previously changing to black and white was pretty vital). best Jono 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 21 Share #251 Posted January 21 Although I don't see the need to make a really dark scene look like it's sunlit, I find higher ISOs valuable for shooting at higher shutter speeds. In a previous generation of cameras I couldn't shoot moving people much above 1/60s, but now (at ISO 25,000) I can shoot at 1/250s. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
awolf Posted January 22 Share #252 Posted January 22 (edited) On 1/16/2025 at 11:02 AM, LocalHero1953 said: Leica was making the SL long before Panasonic or Sigma came along to offer rebadging opportunities (leaving aside Leica's own, non-rebadged, L-mount lenses). Personally I don't need bleeding edge pixel density or blazing BIF AF, which appear to be the only 'technology' many people value. Fortunately Leica excels in the technology that I value most but rarely appears in spec sheets: image quality and colour science, and the engineering of the workflow leading from the photographer's eye to a good photograph. This is a story I was telling myself for many many years, unfortunately it doesn’t hold water anymore. With the new GM lenses series from Sony plus endless supporting color profiles in post, the Sony IQ is every bit the as good and then some (and if that’s not enough, we have the X2D to consider). I am extremely disappointed with the SL3-S, which I just bought. It simply lags on all fronts if compared to the current state of the obvious contenders. And for photographers who are really looking for the highest image quality 24 megapixel is just no longer acceptable (if you think it is, you simply haven’t shot a 60 meg yet or a 100). For the past 20 years I bought almost everything new Leica produced. This might be the last time I do that. Very sad. Edited January 22 by awolf 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 22 Share #253 Posted January 22 4 minutes ago, awolf said: This is a story I was telling myself for many many years, unfortunately it doesn’t hold water anymore. With the new GM lenses series from Sony plus endless supporting color profiles in post, the Sony IQ is every bit the as good and then some (and if that’s not enough, we have the X2D to consider). I am extremely disappointed with the SL3-S, which I just bought. It simply lags on all fronts if compared to the current state of the obvious contenders. And for photographers who are really looking for the highest image quality 24 megapixel is just no longer acceptable (if you think it is, you simply haven’t shot a 60 meg yet or a 100). For the past 20 years I bought almost everything new Leica produced. This might be the last time I do that. Very sad. I bow to your superior knowledge of cameras and lenses - you must be very rich to buy all that Leica kit. Meanwhile I will continue to concentrate on taking photographs - at 24mp with the SL2-S, 60mp with the Q3 43 and large format film. 🤷♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markey Posted January 22 Share #254 Posted January 22 The fact that some people don`t require these features is no excuse for not providing them . It sounds short sighted to me and not a sustainable long term strategy . More like and excuse and a lack of joined up thinking.. Its unfortunate that the cameras are constrained in this way. My current thinking is to keep my present model and continue to put money in the swear box. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
awolf Posted January 22 Share #255 Posted January 22 1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said: I bow to your superior knowledge of cameras and lenses - you must be very rich to buy all that Leica kit. Meanwhile I will continue to concentrate on taking photographs - at 24mp with the SL2-S, 60mp with the Q3 43 and large format film. 🤷♂️ Nothing wrong with that, it is the part of “best IQ and color science” I objected to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted January 22 Share #256 Posted January 22 12 minutes ago, awolf said: Nothing wrong with that, it is the part of “best IQ and color science” I objected to. Who are you quoting there? It wasn’t me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
awolf Posted January 22 Share #257 Posted January 22 (edited) 57 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said: Who are you quoting there? It wasn’t me. idk, a guy called LocalHero1953 😉 Edited January 23 by awolf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted January 22 Share #258 Posted January 22 26 minutes ago, awolf said: This is a story I was telling myself for many many years, unfortunately it doesn’t hold water anymore. With the new GM lenses series from Sony plus endless supporting color profiles in post, the Sony IQ is every bit the as good and then some (and if that’s not enough, we have the X2D to consider). I am extremely disappointed with the SL3-S, which I just bought. It simply lags on all fronts if compared to the current state of the obvious contenders. And for photographers who are really looking for the highest image quality 24 megapixel is just no longer acceptable (if you think it is, you simply haven’t shot a 60 meg yet or a 100). For the past 20 years I bought almost everything new Leica produced. This might be the last time I do that. Very sad. I would like a higher resolution option from Leica with the purported AF improvements in the SL3-S. That’s primarily for cropping. With that said the IQ I get from the SL2-S and Leica lenses is excellent. What output size and medium and viewing distance (screen or print) are you using where a 60 or 100 mp makes such a big difference for you? I understand if you zoom in to 100% with a SL3 and SL3-S you’ll see the higher resolution with the SL3. Outside that, where does the IQ disappoint you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
awolf Posted January 23 Share #259 Posted January 23 (edited) 30 minutes ago, LD_50 said: I would like a higher resolution option from Leica with the purported AF improvements in the SL3-S. That’s primarily for cropping. With that said the IQ I get from the SL2-S and Leica lenses is excellent. What output size and medium and viewing distance (screen or print) are you using where a 60 or 100 mp makes such a big difference for you? I understand if you zoom in to 100% with a SL3 and SL3-S you’ll see the higher resolution with the SL3. Outside that, where does the IQ disappoint you? Lower resolution, which to my eyes, even at a smaller jpg, is noticeable. The images out of the SL3-S look “soft” imho (For a sec, I thought that they’re using antialiasing filter, which of course they don’t). Like I said, once you get used to shooting at 60 megapixel it’s hard to go back. I understand the trade-off when it comes to noise, but there are few spots between 24 and 60 that would give better overall performance, especially with a better IBIS, imo. Edited January 23 by awolf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted January 23 Share #260 Posted January 23 17 minutes ago, awolf said: Lower resolution, which to my eyes, even at a smaller jpg, is noticeable. The images out of the SL3-S look “soft” imho (For a sec, I thought that they’re using antialiasing filter, which of course they don’t). Like I said, once you get used to shooting at 60 megapixel it’s hard to go back. I just don’t believe that’s accurate, that smaller jpgs from 24 mp are visibly disappointing. If I post a few smaller jpgs here from different cameras you think you’ll be able to tell me the sensor resolution without magnifying to try to determine it? I say all this from experience using different cameras over the years and so far sticking with 24 mp. I recently reviewed years and years of photos on my Apple Pro Display XDR and Capture One. What surprised me was how much the old Nikon D700 + 14-24 f/2.8 photos stood out in a positive way, along with Nikon D4s + 200 f/2. I can’t really explain the D700 because both it and the lens aren’t the best for IQ. The next big step up that stood out came with moving to the original SL. The essence of my question was- what is the output size and medium and viewing distance where 24 mp is disappointing? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now