Multishot on SL3-S

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Initial observation:

Handheld multi-shot: less noise than a single shot, a bit more detail.

Tripod multishot: more detail than handheld, less noise than handheld.

Edited January 18 by SrMi

[LD_50]

Without the option for artifact reduction in handheld mode, how well does it handle motion?

[robb]

I’ve been told that sl3 multishot is not as easy based on sensor and processing horsepower.

Leica needs many more requests to pour in to keep working on it.

Robb

[robb]

I don’t see myself using this in handheld mode.  But absolutely love multishot on a tripod on my sl2 cameras.

Robb

[Dsauro]

So wish Leica engineers would understand that this function would be greatly appreciated in the SL3

[mpauliks]

Please be aware, it seems Multishot is not working with APS-C lenses (TL lenses) so far. Multishot is not offered when using APS-C lenses right now. Did write to Leica on this. ISO seems to be max to 3200 right now. Short exposure times seem to be key for handheld Multishot working and quality. Some images show artifacts at extreme corners. Anyway, this is all version 1.0 of Multishot. I am sure, Leica will improve with further firmware updates. Already now, I am impressed by a 96 MP hand held Pixel Shift!

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, LD_50 said:

Without the option for artifact reduction in handheld mode, how well does it handle motion?

Handheld works only with motion artifact removal.

[mpauliks]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb Dsauro:

So wish Leica engineers would understand that this function would be greatly appreciated in the SL3

I fear, Maestro IV of SL3 is not capable to do this on 60 MP images of SL3. SL3-S with 24 MP has to do an easier job. At the end it is about processing power of the chip IMO. But only speculating here please.

[LD_50]

4 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Handheld works only with motion artifact removal.

Thanks for the clarification. How well does it handle subject motion?

[mpauliks]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb LD_50:

Thanks for the clarification. How well does it handle subject motion?

At my super first trials could not get one image with moving cars at night. Though you can use the "one image" option to get one image at least. But not in 96MP then.

 

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[mpauliks]

Here my test scene. As soon the cars started to rush by. Multishot did not work anymore. I think moving subjects would overchallenge the algorithm. Here I did a strong under exposure too and did pull up in post. SL3-S allows easily to pull up by several EVs! Hope, that Leica will lift the ISO 3200 limit in next firmware releases.

So, for moving subjects I think we need for speed. Prob. with Maestro 10 lol. Right now we are on Maestro 4  Which is already great IMO  

Flickr Link: 

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!

 

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[SrMi]

I believe that motion artifact removal is mainly intended for slight movements in the picture, e.g., branches in the wind. Of course, any motion artifact fix reduces IQ at the artifact location. 

 

[mpauliks]

Yes, they write this in manual too. Really moving objects is an overchallenge. But I will use it for architecture and macro anyway. So, just checking out limits. If you take the 100% look in Flickr you see artifacts at low light too. Anyway, to my knowledge there is no other cam today than SL3-S that can do 96 MP Pixel Shift out of hand! At daylight is must be super outstanding!!

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Yes, they write this in manual too. Really moving objects is an overchallenge. But I will use it for architecture and macro anyway. So, just checking out limits. If you take the 100% look in Flickr you see artifacts at low light too. Anyway, to my knowledge there is no other cam today than SL3-S that can do 96 MP Pixel Shift out of hand! At daylight is must be super outstanding!!

I believe S5 II can do it too 😄.

[mpauliks]

But different sensor stack. Leica´s is thinner for M glas  Thorsten did explain on sensors at his new review for SL3-S: https://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-SL3-S-and-Leica-SL2-S-Review-and-user-report-Page-1-mirrorless-fullframe-video-and-digital-camera.html 

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[LD_50]

 

1 hour ago, mpauliks said:

But different sensor stack. Leica´s is thinner for M glas  Thorsten did explain on sensors at his new review for SL3-S: https://www.overgaard.dk/Leica-SL3-S-and-Leica-SL2-S-Review-and-user-report-Page-1-mirrorless-fullframe-video-and-digital-camera.html 

If Leica’s sensor stack is actually thinner for M glass, it would imply that non-Leica L mount lenses would be sub-optimal on SL bodies and that Leica L mount lenses on non-Leica bodies would also be sub-optimal. 

This seems like a bad idea for the L mount alliance and it would show in testing.

Has this been verified somewhere? My understanding was there is a change in microlens orientation for M lenses but I’m unaware of any documentation of sensor stack dimension changes. 

Edited January 18 by LD_50

[mpauliks]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb LD_50:

 

If Leica’s sensor stack is actually thinner for M glass, it would imply that non-Leica L mount lenses would be sub-optimal on SL bodies and that Leica L mount lenses on non-Leica bodies would also be sub-optimal. 

This is Leica´s challenge in difference to all other manufacturers: To balance both! Just read the linked review from Thorsten above for more details on it.

Edited January 18 by mpauliks

[mpauliks]

Thorsten writes in the review: "

Additionally, it features a low-profile design with no moiré filter glass and a thinner-than-usual protective glass atop the sensor, making the entry of light cleaner and more precise."

[LD_50]

29 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

This is Leica´s challenge in difference to all other manufacturers: To balance both! Just read the linked review from Thorsten above for more details on it.

The section I think you’re referencing only mentions Leica’s sensor “structure is much lower than traditional designs.” That’s not specific enough to detail whether this is part of the L-mount spec or not. It also mentions that Leica “deploys micro-optics across the entire sensor, which "collects the light" and directs it down into the pixel/diode, preventing stray light from polluting adjacent pixels/diodes with incorrect colors.”

If a traditional design is something like Sony E-mount, Nikon Z-mount, or Canon RF-mount, then Leica has a thinner sensor stack than those cameras, which helps with the M-lenses. If all L-mount cameras have this thinner dimension, then there is no issue with non-Leica L-mount lenses on a Leica body, and no issue with Leica L-mount lenses on non-Leica bodies. Those non-Leica cameras would be missing the “micro-optics” so would still be sub-optimal for M-mount lenses while being fine for L-mount.

The question is NOT about M lenses, it’s about the dimensions for L-mount lenses.

Edited January 18 by LD_50

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

Just now, LD_50 said:

The section I think you’re referencing only mentions Leica’s sensor “structure is much lower than traditional designs.” That’s not specific enough to detail whether this is part of the L-mount spec or not. It also mentions that Leica “deploys micro-optics across the entire sensor, which "collects the light" and directs it down into the pixel/diode, preventing stray light from polluting adjacent pixels/diodes with incorrect colors.”

If a traditional design is something like Sony E-mount, Nikon Z-mount, or Canon RF-mount, then Leica has a thinner sensor stack than those cameras, which helps with the M-lenses. If all L-mount cameras have this thinner dimension, then there is no issue with non-Leica L-mount lenses on a Leica body, and no issue with Leica L-mount lenses on non-Leica bodies.

The question is NOT about M lenses, it’s about the dimensions for L-mount lenses.

I do not think that a thinner sensor stack negatively influences IQ. I believe it is common knowledge that SL2 has a thinner sensor glass than S1R (M10 having the thinnest of them all).