Leica SL3-S: ‘More light’ – The Unbearable Lightness of Being

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

Film was rather wonderful in that regard, given the grain gently filled in (at ever decreasing contrast) those gaps where the film / lens were unable to record down into the finer and finer detail.

That is precisely why I shoot primarily on film. What many miss is that grain size and resolution are independent entities. While Tri-X and Kentmere400 roughly share the same grain size, Tri-X resolves visibly more detail. Does that matter? Yes, resolution matters when printing motifs at a larger size, e.g., 80x60 cm, whose story is also based on information in the details. However, I never found 24MP not to be sufficient at that size. YMMV, of course.

 

12 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

I’m not sure if the best answer is more megapixels (to get less chance of poorly recorded data), or the addition of grain in post processing (to obscure the fine data that isn’t properly recorded digitally and to your point perhaps nobody would miss if it was absent), or when possible using a different sensor like a Monochrom (which I think can be enlarged like film in terms of it looking natural at very large print sizes).

Besides colour and contrast, texture and grain management interest me most on the technical side of digital image creation. When delicately de-saturated in the noise reduction tool in C1/LR, the SL2-S texture is highly pleasing to me at ISO1600. With the ever-so-subtle help of the Structure and Sharpening sliders, the texture can be transformed into an attractive, authenticity-supporting device. That said, all that is an old hat in Cine Land is because the texture has been seen there as an essential virtue of a camera's sensor, which became and is still part of the exposure routine when digital took over and overly clean images became an issue.

Arri recently upped that game insofar as they released their new S-35mm flagship camera with the option to select a collection of texture flavours that can be chosen to spice the final result destructively with 'grain' because it's baked into the footage. World-leading cinematographers and directors hail Arri for that opportunity. I would love to see something similar in future Leica cameras. I think many Leica users don't feel the urge for clean images and low ISO (otherwise the trend to vintage glass wouldn't be so strong). At least I couldn't care less about cleaning up my pictures from authenticity. Again–as always–YMMV.

 

10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have the best cameras money can buy and I'm technically very strong. But also decidedly middle of the pack when it comes to compelling imagery. Thats' the best bit. Striving to make more interesting photos. Gear can help. But really it's a fair way down the chain to make great photographs. I would guess many Leica photographers feel the same. Having the absolute cutting edge matters less than pushing themselves and challenging themselves. As always the most important photographers tool is the one holding the camera.

Can't agree more. That's why I don't take part in the race for new gear; it's too much distraction from what my work is about. But I understand that rabbit-holing into Gear Land can be an enjoyable pastime (otherwise, I wouldn't text that post).

 

 

Edited January 20 by hansvons

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

My S5ii isn’t better at AF than any of my Sony or Canon cameras, in any mode for either stills or video. I enjoy Mr Cheungs videos but I don’t think his opinions are much more than that. And his findings don’t align with my testing.

Can you elaborate on what your testing showed for video, and what your expectations were? The video that I referred to showed specific examples of why he was dissatisfied with Sony's video AF (sudden changes in focus point which often ruin shots), so it would be interesting to know if your expectations are different or if your experience showed different behaviour.

[tomasis7]

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

That is precisely why I shoot primarily on film. What many miss is that grain size and resolution are independent entities. While Tri-X and Kentmere400 roughly share the same grain size, Tri-X resolves visibly more detail. Does that matter? Yes, resolution matters when printing motifs at a larger size, e.g., 80x60 cm, whose story is also based on information in the details. However, I never found 24MP not to be sufficient at that size. YMMV, of course.

 

Besides colour and contrast, texture and grain management interest me most on the technical side of digital image creation. When delicately de-saturated in the noise reduction tool in C1/LR, the SL2-S texture is highly pleasing to me at ISO1600. With the ever-so-subtle help of the Structure and Sharpening sliders, the texture can be transformed into an attractive, authenticity-supporting device. That said, all that is an old hat in Cine Land is because the texture has been seen there as an essential virtue of a camera's sensor, which became and is still part of the exposure routine when digital took over and overly clean images became an issue.

Arri recently upped that game insofar as they released their new S-35mm flagship camera with the option to select a collection of texture flavours that can be chosen to spice the final result destructively with 'grain' because it's baked into the footage. World-leading cinematographers and directors hail Arri for that opportunity. I would love to see something similar in future Leica cameras. I think many Leica users don't feel the urge for clean images and low ISO (otherwise the trend to vintage glass wouldn't be so strong). At least I couldn't care less about cleaning up my pictures from authenticity. Again–as always–YMMV.

 

Can't agree more. That's why I don't take part in the race for new gear; it's too much distraction from what my work is about. But I understand that rabbit-holing into Gear Land can be an enjoyable pastime (otherwise, I wouldn't text that post).

 

 

100%

I feel happy with the sensor of SL601. I was impressed how the grain acted in SL601. It made the images more pleasing to look at as I didn't mind grain.  Organic look and such.

It was not the case with older sensors (I have). Amazing how sensor technology evolved. Looking at numbers ISO or noise-free at particular ISO is not everything.

 

[ALScott]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

 

I am not surprised that Leica went to 200.000 with improved noise processing available.

Now, jaapv that is dangerously close to a compliment of Leica and we can't do that here.  We all know that 200K is just gain applied and definitely not an improvement of any kind.  😆

[Photoworks]

This argument "I will fix it in post", adds a bit of AI and the noise is gone, which is terrible.

AI NR is not great because you can see zones of more NR and others with little NR. totally unrealistic.

I get it is a tool for 1-2 photos

But most importantly, the AI NR is very slow, and if you have to count on it to deliver a job, you are just wasting time!

[jaapv]

20 seconds for these images… Topaz is faster. 

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

28 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

AI NR is not great because you can see zones of more NR and others with little NR.

I have not observed that with Adobe's Denoise. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

This argument "I will fix it in post", adds a bit of AI and the noise is gone, which is terrible.

AI NR is not great because you can see zones of more NR and others with little NR. totally unrealistic.

I get it is a tool for 1-2 photos

But most importantly, the AI NR is very slow, and if you have to count on it to deliver a job, you are just wasting time!

My first two jobs when coming home with 200-1200 shots, mostly at ISO >800 is 1. Cull by 50% 2. Adobe Denoise AI. Cropping & other editing come after that.
If I have time that evening I will cull first then denoise overnight. If I don't then I denoise overnight then cull in the morning. 500 images at 24mp takes a few hours, but I have also done 1000+ overnight. Either way, denoise is not a bottleneck.

I haven't noticed any such patchy denoise in Lightroom - I have in Topaz, so I don't use it for denoise (but I use it for special sharpening).

Edited January 20 by LocalHero1953

[Photoworks]

Adobe NR took 40 seconds.

on 500 images it will add 5.5 hours of editing and double your storage usage.

to me, it looks strange too many times.

this is an image from last night you can find the full-res here https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-NL2cTS

 

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!

[SrMi]

21 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

Adobe NR took 40 seconds.

on 500 images it will add 5.5 hours of editing and double your storage usage.

to me, it looks strange too many times.

this is an image from last night you can find the full-res here https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-NL2cTS

The time it takes  Adobe's Denoise depends on the size of the image and the computer. My 3-year-old Mac Studio needs 6 seconds to process a 24MP image.

Adobe's Denoise has one setting slider that lets you preview how much NR you want to apply. Of course, you can overdo it.

[Photoworks]

31 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The time it takes  Adobe's Denoise depends on the size of the image and the computer. My 3-year-old Mac Studio needs 6 seconds to process a 24MP image.

Adobe's Denoise has one setting slider that lets you preview how much NR you want to apply. Of course, you can overdo it.

6 sec is to show you the preview and hit ok, but then the render starts and it depends on the size, I was using 60mp

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

Adobe NR took 40 seconds

A few seconds for the preview. 24 MP on M2 Pro and 32 GB took 20 seconds with me; also the final result looks a lot better than the preview. 

 

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

have in Topaz, so I don't use it for denoise (but I use it for special sharpening)

I would agree for the standalones from Topaz they are already obsolete it seems - however I am quite pleased with Topaz Photo AI. The whole denoise and sharpening processing takes about 10-15 seconds and the results look good to my eyes -  considering. Three years ago we would not even be dreaming of usable 200.000 ISO photographs.

[Photoworks]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

24 MP on M2 Pro and 32 GB took 20 seconds with me; also the final result looks a lot better than the preview. 

I was using SL3 files.

looking at your image, I don't think it is a great result.

 

 

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 don't expect a photograph in these circumstances to mimic a ISO 100 full sunlight shot - I think these are more than usable. 

[SrMi]

11 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

I was using SL3 files.

looking at your image, I don't think it is a great result.

Do you think you can do it better with manual noise reduction adjustments?

[Photoworks]

I don't need an image that looks strange, I would be much happier with a noisy image.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Photoworks said:

I don't need an image that looks strange, I would be much happier with a noisy image.

With Adobe's Denoise (and others), you can choose how much noise you want left in an image. If the slider goes to 100, you do not have to always use it at 100.

[LocalHero1953]

I'm curious what LR denoise slider setting people here use. I usually set it to 35-50, after a check of what's happening in the shadows.

In my experience an image that is well exposed at whatever ISO I use will respond well to denoise tools (any of them). Where they struggle is where I have to lift the image by several stops to make it acceptable. Then the lifted shadows start to show the artefacts, banding and recalcitrant noise patterns. 

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm curious what LR denoise slider setting people here use. I usually set it to 35-50, after a check of what's happening in the shadows.

In my experience an image that is well exposed at whatever ISO I use will respond well to denoise tools (any of them). Where they struggle is where I have to lift the image by several stops to make it acceptable. Then the lifted shadows start to show the artefacts, banding and recalcitrant noise patterns. 

I start with 50 and most often get natural-looking results from well-exposed images. Sometimes, when rescuing images, I may go to 70 or 80.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

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.