LD_50 Posted March 15 Share #161 Posted March 15 Advertisement (gone after registration) On 3/2/2025 at 6:35 AM, BernardC said: The few reviews I've watched of the S1R2 mention that it has noticeably bigger grip than the S5, so you'll want to have another go when it's available. I don’t think a different grip shape will change the other dimensions. I provided them in another post and it’s nearly identical to S5ii. Multiple side by side photos here show the small changes. https://note.com/lumix_magazine/n/n9a6717778398 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 15 Posted March 15 Hi LD_50, Take a look here Panasonic S1 II and S1 IIE. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
helged Posted March 17 Author Share #162 Posted March 17 A quickie re Lumix S1R II vs S1H vs S5 II X. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 1 Share #163 Posted April 1 On 2/27/2025 at 3:25 AM, SrMi said: Yes, if the bottom two bits are mainly noise, then using 16 bits makes no sense. That is why many cropMF owners use 14 instead of 16 bits. The number of colors with 14 bits is already way too high for the human eye to discern. Therefore, going to 16 bits cannot show any improvement and has never been demonstrated to show any improvement. Post-processing occurs in the same bit size, regardless of the raw bit size. Increased bit depth has never been about what the human eye can see, whatever that is.... It does represent how pliable the files are in post processing, which is a destructive process. The more bits you have to start with the less you notice the damage you do to the file in post. You, of course will argue that's not true but then why not work entirely in 10 bit? Or 8? BTW the bottom two bits are mainly noise in a 14 bit file as well. So 14 bit also makes no sense, apparently..... Quoting number or looking at charts isn't photography. In the real world where people edit images, bit depth matters. The more information you have at the start of the post processing process the better the end result. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted April 2 Share #164 Posted April 2 5 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: Increased bit depth has never been about what the human eye can see, whatever that is.... It does represent how pliable the files are in post processing, which is a destructive process. The more bits you have to start with the less you notice the damage you do to the file in post. You, of course will argue that's not true but then why not work entirely in 10 bit? Or 8? BTW the bottom two bits are mainly noise in a 14 bit file as well. So 14 bit also makes no sense, apparently..... Quoting number or looking at charts isn't photography. In the real world where people edit images, bit depth matters. The more information you have at the start of the post processing process the better the end result. Gordon The post processing always occurs at the same bit size. In some cases the lowest bits contain valid data, in some cases they are noise and in some cases they are padded. I argue that the lowest bits matter only if they contain valid data. Of course, post-processing will add valid data to the lowest bits. I am ot arguing dor chopping of bits that contain valid data. That would reduce DR. I agree that the more information you have at the start of post processing, the better. I argue that you do not have more information with 16 bits than with 14 bits (noise is not information). Can we agree that using 64 bit instead of 16 bit raws would not improve anything? FF likely needs 13 bits, there is a difference between 12 and 14 bits at native ISO. At higher ISOs, 12 bits is enough (noise dominates two lower bits). That has been measured and observed with Nikon D850 that can use either 12 or 14 bits. Bit size matters, but there is a limit (depends on sensor size) where it does not bring anything. I agree that real world matters more than charts and measurements. I have not seen a case where 14 vs 16 bits has demonstrated a practical difference. The main argument I heard for 16 bit is "more is better." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHNL Posted April 5 Share #165 Posted April 5 Got the camera. It feels very similar to S5 I had. Not really a bad thing in term of weight and size. the camera is well build but not to my Z8 or SLx level. If Z8 is pro level, this one is more like prosumer level. I personally am willing to pay more to have a better build but in term of functionality and customization, no complain. The dial and control are well thought, might be the best implementation I feel to access all major function through dial. Menu is still a lot but separate still and video helps. Cinelike A2 profile gave the best color out of camera I ever seen. (This is Personal) I don’t see anything close this good to my taste. Most digital camera OOFC JPEG looks too contrast and too much saturation to me and tonality is gone with those. Unfortunately, to use this profile, ISO has to be 160 and above. There are many small quirks in term of function and control associate certain features, but I am sure I will get used to those. This will be my main FF camera for next couple of years minus sports. I love it. 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted April 7 Author Share #166 Posted April 7 On 4/6/2025 at 1:30 AM, ZHNL said: Got the camera. It feels very similar to S5 I had. Not really a bad thing in term of weight and size. the camera is well build but not to my Z8 or SLx level. If Z8 is pro level, this one is more like prosumer level. I personally am willing to pay more to have a better build but in term of functionality and customization, no complain. The dial and control are well thought, might be the best implementation I feel to access all major function through dial. Menu is still a lot but separate still and video helps. Cinelike A2 profile gave the best color out of camera I ever seen. (This is Personal) I don’t see anything close this good to my taste. Most digital camera OOFC JPEG looks too contrast and too much saturation to me and tonality is gone with those. Unfortunately, to use this profile, ISO has to be 160 and above. There are many small quirks in term of function and control associate certain features, but I am sure I will get used to those. This will be my main FF camera for next couple of years minus sports. I love it. Base ISO is 100? (havn't seatched/checked...). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHNL Posted April 7 Share #167 Posted April 7 Advertisement (gone after registration) 10 hours ago, helged said: Base ISO is 100? (havn't seatched/checked...). Base is ISO80 if you choose other profile than cinelike A2. It is interesting that picture profile will limit ISO selection for raw shooting. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted April 8 Author Share #168 Posted April 8 14 hours ago, ZHNL said: Base is ISO80 if you choose other profile than cinelike A2. It is interesting that picture profile will limit ISO selection for raw shooting. Sounds like a (programming) mistake for me. If not, the Lumix-folks must have their reason(s). But strange it is. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted April 10 Author Share #169 Posted April 10 On 4/7/2025 at 5:26 PM, ZHNL said: Base is ISO80 if you choose other profile than cinelike A2. It is interesting that picture profile will limit ISO selection for raw shooting. Since I have the S1RII in front of me 😉, I see that the Cinelike A2, Cinelike D2 and Cinelike V2 profiles have ISO 160 as the base ISO, whereas V-log has ISO 200, so it looks like there is a reason that these profiles are not using ISO 80 as base ISO. The other (default) profiles all use ISO 80 as base ISO. As a side note: I do like the slightly deeper handgrip on S1RII compared to eg S5. And I equally like the lock button on the drive mode wheels; I constantly (and unconsciously) move the ISO-wheel on at top right of the Leica SL3/SL3-S bodies - I really miss an option to lock that wheel... 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10 Share #170 Posted April 10 On 4/2/2025 at 1:22 AM, FlashGordonPhotography said: Increased bit depth has never been about what the human eye can see, whatever that is.... It does represent how pliable the files are in post processing, which is a destructive process. The more bits you have to start with the less you notice the damage you do to the file in post. You, of course will argue that's not true but then why not work entirely in 10 bit? Or 8? BTW the bottom two bits are mainly noise in a 14 bit file as well. So 14 bit also makes no sense, apparently..... Quoting number or looking at charts isn't photography. In the real world where people edit images, bit depth matters. The more information you have at the start of the post processing process the better the end result. Gordon Just a hint - if you process 8 bits files in 16 bits mode and 16 bits files in 32 bits mode, there will be far less destruction, if any. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 10 Share #171 Posted April 10 9 hours ago, jaapv said: Just a hint - if you process 8 bits files in 16 bits mode and 16 bits files in 32 bits mode, there will be far less destruction, if any. No. RAW processors don’t have the capability to do this and it doesn’t really work any way. Some software does interpolate, which is really false data. Other software just add empty bits. LR and C1 can’t do this at all. With interpolated data you may see a small delay in data damage but not much. It’s like the difference between a bayer and mono file. The file with non interpolated data is always more robust. The reason we all did this 15 years ago was to try and reduce banding in low bit files, which this can help with. But you still lose the extra bit depth and DR benefits of a higher bit depth sensor, which is the real benefit. You simply can’t get the file pliability of a 16 bit sensor by adding false bits to an 8 bit file. There’s a reason we look at when cameras switch from even 14 bit tho 12 bit capture. Otherwise we could all just shoot jpegs. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 10 Share #172 Posted April 10 2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said: No. RAW processors don’t have the capability to do this and it doesn’t really work any way. Some software does interpolate, which is really false data. Other software just add empty bits. LR and C1 can’t do this at all. With interpolated data you may see a small delay in data damage but not much. It’s like the difference between a bayer and mono file. The file with non interpolated data is always more robust. The reason we all did this 15 years ago was to try and reduce banding in low bit files, which this can help with. But you still lose the extra bit depth and DR benefits of a higher bit depth sensor, which is the real benefit. You simply can’t get the file pliability of a 16 bit sensor by adding false bits to an 8 bit file. There’s a reason we look at when cameras switch from even 14 bit tho 12 bit capture. Otherwise we could all just shoot jpegs. Gordon It is an option in ACR and in Photoshop…. As it was explained to me by a Photoshop guru long ago: These are not false bits whatever that may be. These are empty bit levels. When you edit you shift data to the next level.(bit) When the next level is empty the data are preserved for further editing but if you shift to a level that is occupied the data cannot be separated again. That is the reason that the bit mode should be one step higher than the original bit level. FWIIW and nobody is forcing you to apply this procedure. I never saw a negative result doing so. LR cannot do this as it only does the DNG conversion during export, of course. I don’t know how C1 works, so I cannot answer that. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoworks Posted April 12 Share #173 Posted April 12 Photoshop has added a 32-bit workflow in ACR for HDR processing. But you need a monitor capable of viewing HDR. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted April 14 Share #174 Posted April 14 On 4/12/2025 at 2:53 PM, Photoworks said: Photoshop has added a 32-bit workflow in ACR for HDR processing. But you need a monitor capable of viewing HDR. I believe 32-bit is also used for "old-style" HDR (merging bracketed exposures). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoworks Posted April 15 Share #175 Posted April 15 On 4/5/2025 at 7:30 PM, ZHNL said: Got the camera. It feels very similar to S5 I had. Not really a bad thing in term of weight and size. the camera is well build but not to my Z8 or SLx level. If Z8 is pro level, this one is more like prosumer level. I personally am willing to pay more to have a better build but in term of functionality and customization, no complain. The dial and control are well thought, might be the best implementation I feel to access all major function through dial. Menu is still a lot but separate still and video helps. Cinelike A2 profile gave the best color out of camera I ever seen. (This is Personal) I don’t see anything close this good to my taste. Most digital camera OOFC JPEG looks too contrast and too much saturation to me and tonality is gone with those. Unfortunately, to use this profile, ISO has to be 160 and above. There are many small quirks in term of function and control associate certain features, but I am sure I will get used to those. This will be my main FF camera for next couple of years minus sports. I love it. I got the camera the other day, too. It is my first Pana. and there is lot to learn. the SL3 is much nicer and easier to use. I primarily got it for Videos and on-camera flash, because the SL3 has bugs that I can't rely on it for flash photography. But I think I found a bug on the SR1II already. When I have the flash or trigger on the hotshoe, the exposure is fine. If I turn of the flash but still on the hotshoe, the exposure is incorrect, and it still shows the little flash icon on the display. it I take it off the hotshoe, the exposure is perfect again And the other thing that puzzles me, there is always a double preflash. Can I turn it off in TTL? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_eltsch Posted April 15 Share #176 Posted April 15 (edited) vor 1 Stunde schrieb Photoworks: When I have the flash or trigger on the hotshoe, the exposure is fine. If I turn of the flash but still on the hotshoe, the exposure is incorrect, and it still shows the little flash icon on the display. it I take it off the hotshoe, the exposure is perfect again Hey Photoworks, which flash do you use? I don't have that behavior with Godox V1 O. Best, Helge 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 April 15 by da_eltsch 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/421233-panasonic-s1-ii-and-s1-iie/?do=findComment&comment=5787090'>More sharing options...
Photoworks Posted April 15 Share #177 Posted April 15 4 minutes ago, da_eltsch said: Hey Photoworks, which flash do you use? I don't have that behavior with Godox V1 O. Best, Helge 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! Same flafh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_eltsch Posted April 15 Share #178 Posted April 15 vor 1 Minute schrieb Photoworks: Same flafh I'll try tomorrow once more to double check. And come back to you later. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simone_DF Posted April 16 Share #179 Posted April 16 In the meantime, the S1RII is a success in Japan, with Map Camera reporting it into their top 10 most sold cameras, at number 7 https://news.mapcamera.com/maptimes/2025年3月-新品・中古デジタルカメラ人気ランキング/ 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rim_light Posted April 17 Share #180 Posted April 17 The S1RII is the camera I expected to be the SL3. 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