Markey Posted March 30 Share #21 Posted March 30 Advertisement (gone after registration) Very helpful advice in this thread. I`d been thinking along the same lines re SL3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 30 Posted March 30 Hi Markey, Take a look here Replace a CL with a SL3?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Ko.Fe. Posted March 30 Share #22 Posted March 30 On 3/29/2025 at 2:30 AM, o2mpx said: ...Sony... for decent... Sony hasn't learned yet how to provide decent colors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted March 30 Author Share #23 Posted March 30 1 hour ago, jaapv said: MP does not determine DR. It does affect detail obviously but that is only visible in certain scenarios. For general photography 60 MP is overkill. The next generation clearly does make a difference but don’t forget that the combination of Sony manufacturing and Leica tweaking made the CL sensor arguably the best APSC sensor on the market. (24 MP on an APSC sensor makes approximately the same pixel density as 60 MP on FF. Hi jaapv, Did you use a Leica 11-35 TL lens? What do you think of it? A lot more differences than using a D-lux7 in the equivalent wide angle? Also what do you mean by “ (24 MP on an APSC sensor makes approximately the same pixel density as 60 MP on FF. “? Really? You Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
o2mpx Posted March 30 Share #24 Posted March 30 1 hour ago, Ko.Fe. said: Sony hasn't learned yet how to provide decent colors. Noting this isn’t a forum on Sony, a side note is that the latest Sony colors have much improved than old. There’s quite a bit of chatter on the dreadful magenta cast of M11’s, so likely no manufacturer is immune - although I believe the colors from the X2D isn’t likely generating much criticisms. Regardless, with post editors being so advanced, files that are more flexible to work with are better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 30 Share #25 Posted March 30 2 hours ago, jaapv said: For general photography 60 MP is overkill. The newer generation sensor has better dr. In terms of detail, once you are used to 60mp you cant go back. It takes stronger filters, is easier for AI to take out smaller detail, is better for cropping, has better detail for noise reduction, etc. etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 30 Share #26 Posted March 30 (edited) I went from a CL to an SL and the biggest difference was the weight and bulk. A shock after such a compact camera as the CL. I have never owned TL lenses. I used Leica M and Sigma Contemporary lenses on the CL, then on the SL. The Sigma lenses are excellent. The CL was good for travel, general photography. But I shot some events on the CL and my Sigma FP and the Sigma images looked better to me than the CL ones. I didn't get on with the SL in the end. If I was going to buy an SL of some kind it would be the SL2-S, which is a bit of a bargain slightly used. Not the SL3. Edited March 30 by Chris W 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markey Posted March 30 Share #27 Posted March 30 Advertisement (gone after registration) 23 minutes ago, Chris W said: I went from a CL to an SL and the biggest difference was the weight and bulk. A shock after such a compact camera as the CL. I have never owned TL lenses. I used Leica M and Sigma Contemporary lenses on the CL, then on the SL. The Sigma lenses are excellent. The CL was good for travel, general photography. But I shot some events on the CL and my Sigma FP and the Sigma images looked better to me than the CL ones. I didn't get on with the SL in the end. If I was going to buy an SL of some kind it would be the SL2-S, which is a bit of a bargain slightly used. Not the SL3. Interesting . I have a CL and have just re purchased a series of CL lenses . I also have a SL2s with a 2470 and 90280 but its only used infrequently although I frequently use the 2470 with the CL. Also have two M`s I guess I wanted an M but with AF ( for whatever reason ) but the SL2s isn`t it. The CL on the other hand ... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted March 30 Share #28 Posted March 30 56 minutes ago, Chris W said: If I was going to buy an SL of some kind it would be the SL2-S, which is a bit of a bargain slightly used. Not the SL3. The SL2-s is the same megapixel approx as the CL, so you don’t get any advantage for resolution and it’s associated benefits. Furthermore, if you are using M lenses you will find that the resolution and flat frame of the M doesn’t compare to a lens purpose built for the L mount So you would be kind of fighting a war with twos hands tied behind your back. better to choose the SL2 (or SL3) and get a good l-mount lens. Otherwise stick with the CL. never do things by halves …. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 30 Share #29 Posted March 30 I regularly drop down to 18 MP because I prefer the rendering of the M9 sensor - and I do not see any advantage in the 96 MP from Multishot... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted March 31 Share #30 Posted March 31 8 hours ago, colonel said: Furthermore, if you are using M lenses you will find that the resolution and flat frame of the M doesn’t compare to a lens purpose built for the L mount I've used my M lenses on a variety of cameras and never felt cheated of quality. They rendered superbly on the Sigma FP. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 31 Share #31 Posted March 31 14 hours ago, Ko.Fe. said: Sony hasn't learned yet how to provide decent colors. Ah-but that is the bit that is to Leica specifications when they use Sony sensors. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
la1402 Posted March 31 Share #32 Posted March 31 (edited) We have an almost complete CL kit (11-23, 23, 60,18-56,55-135) and love it. Lenses are great and the compact size makes for a great travel companion. In direct comparison to todays cameras, I felt the low quality and dark EVF, the dark, fixed LCD and the lack of IBIS feeling a bit outdated. Still we enjoy it and see no reason to sell it. I did use the CL lenses on the SL3 while I had that but somehow that felt strange (can't really explain). I would not buy a SL3 for this purpose as you won't make use of its capabilities. And I actually prefer to colours of the CL, which I find very true to reality. Edited March 31 by la1402 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted April 1 Author Share #33 Posted April 1 When you use the CL camera, do you mostly use the DNG file? Or mostly with just JPEG file? Would you think it could be enough with JPEG if you exposing carefully? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 2 Share #34 Posted April 2 10 hours ago, yst said: When you use the CL camera, do you mostly use the DNG file? Or mostly with just JPEG file? Would you think it could be enough with JPEG if you exposing carefully? It makes no sense to shoot JPG only as you throw away half the data that your camera provides. With any camera I will normally use the DNG as I think ( perhaps mistakenly 😉) that I know better than anybody what my image should look like. But if you think that a preset ( and that is all that a camera jpg is- a factory technician’s interpretation of your photograph) is better than your vision, by all means do use it. That goes for any camera, there is nothing about the CL that should make it different. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yst Posted April 2 Author Share #35 Posted April 2 13 hours ago, jaapv said: It makes no sense to shoot JPG only as you throw away half the data that your camera provides. With any camera I will normally use the DNG as I think ( perhaps mistakenly 😉) that I know better than anybody what my image should look like. But if you think that a preset ( and that is all that a camera jpg is- a factory technician’s interpretation of your photograph) is better than your vision, by all means do use it. That goes for any camera, there is nothing about the CL that should make it different. Although when you are showing a photo, or to print a photo, you still need to make it or save it as a jpg, correct? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 2 Share #36 Posted April 2 Yes of course. Sometimes TIFF. Or another image format. The point of a DNG is that when you convert it to an image format, or have it converted at the end of editing like LR, your editing program will have the full data that the camera provides. After editing you can convert to any format you like. However when you use the in-camera JPG the editing has been done in the camera to factory-set parameters and on download from the camera you will have lost half the data, severely reducing the flexibility for further editing. With DNG you dumb down your file when saving the result to your computer, with JPG input you start out with a dumb file and can only make it more so. DNG is the digital negative which you process yourself, JPG is dropping off your roll of film at the chemist and accepting whatever the automatic machine in his basement has made of the prints and throwing the negatives in the bin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris W Posted April 5 Share #37 Posted April 5 Agree with the above. Most camera editors are non-destructive. So I always have the raw file should I want to reprocess it in the future. I only shoot raw and with a decent camera I only ever need to spend 5 minutes in Capture One to process a raw to a shareable or printable copy. 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