Low Light performance SL2-S/SL3-S vs SL3

[MichaelFrederickPhoto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was at a camera show on Sat,  I stopped by the Leica table,  wanted to test that exact scanario.  SL3-S at 50k ISO.   Tossed my card in,  F2 1/5000 50K ISO,  so SOOC,  it was grainy for sure but at 25% denoise in LR,  file looked GREAT like I was SHOCKED how clean it was!.  My buddy was my model.

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!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Scelo45]

I did shot with the SL2-S and now with the Leica SL3-S. Low light performance is very good. 

My hypothesis is that the Leica SL3 has a similar performance if you shoot with the full resolution of around 60 Megapixel. If you zoom into all pixels the "noise per pixsel cluster" will be higher compared to the SL2-S/SL3-S, but if you reduce the resulution to 24 Megapixel the noise will be reduced ("averaged") a lot.

So better pick the high resolution sensor. At good light you have the full details and for bad light just reduce your image resolution with a good photo editor tool. Isn´t it?

[jaapv]

High pixel count produces other problems than noise which downscaling will not solve.. In the tradeoff of advantages to disadvantages I find 24 MP better for everyday use, high MP better for specialized use. 

[NightPix]

I do find higher MP useful for things like wildlife, where cropping is often necessary and fine detail is important. How about landscape - do you find 24MP adequate? 

[SrMi]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

High pixel count produces other problems than noise which downscaling will not solve.. In the tradeoff of advantages to disadvantages I find 24 MP better for everyday use, high MP better for specialized use. 

High-resolution images enable better nonlinear noise reduction and reduced aliasing. I do not know which problems you are referring to, but comparing high- and low-resolution sensors in the DPR studio scene (at the same output size) does not show any difference. I believe Sean Reid reached the same conclusion in his tests.

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, NightPix said:

I do find higher MP useful for things like wildlife, where cropping is often necessary and fine detail is important. How about landscape - do you find 24MP adequate? 

I think 24MP is entirely adequate for any kind of shooting.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, SrMi said:

High-resolution images enable better nonlinear noise reduction and reduced aliasing. I do not know which problems you are referring to, but comparing high- and low-resolution sensors in the DPR studio scene (at the same output size) does not show any difference. I believe Sean Reid reached the same conclusion in his tests.

For instance purple fringing. 

[SrMi]

33 minutes ago, jaapv said:

For instance purple fringing. 

That was an issue in the CCD era. Newer cameras do not appear to exhibit any significant blooming.

[LD_50]

13 hours ago, NightPix said:

I do find higher MP useful for things like wildlife, where cropping is often necessary and fine detail is important. How about landscape - do you find 24MP adequate? 

Resolution needed is dependent on output as size and format. It’s also subjective. 

[jaapv]

Although wildlife photography is a decent example as it can compensate for lack of bushcraft and bringing the wrong lens. 

[jaapv]

14 hours ago, SrMi said:

That was an issue in the CCD era. Newer cameras do not appear to exhibit any significant blooming.

If so, why do we see more cases nowadays ? Yes it was more prevalent on CCD but by no means absent on CMOS, but less often due to better anti-blooming but sometimes due to CA in the microlenses. With high resolution sensors we are seeing a return of purple fringing complaints. There are simple means to detect optical longitudinal chromatic aberration. Often a yellow counterfringe is visible. 

High resolution means pixels in closer proximity, BSI means wider light acceptance areas thus in closer proximity as well and more shallow wells cannot compensate completely thus more risk of crosstalk and overflow of full pixels 

If you want to check for LoCA this is a useful article:

https://www.photoartfromscience.com/single-post/how-to-analyze-lens-longitudinal-chromatic-aberration

[NightPix]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Although wildlife photography is a decent example as it can compensate for lack of bushcraft and bringing the wrong lens. 

Fair point, but the critters don’t always cooperate. 

[jaapv]

They don’t. It is not a zoo. That is why over  half of successful wildlife photography is bush skill and knowledge of habitat and animal behaviour plus endless patience. I cannot count the times that others forced their guide to go and “ look for the Lions”. Whilst we just stayed, observed and got the experience and the shot. And probably found Lions sleeping in the road when driving back to the camp. 

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

If so, why do we see more cases nowadays ?

I do not think we see more cases nowadays. I have yet to see the issue anywhere.

[NightPix]

20 minutes ago, jaapv said:

They don’t. It is not a zoo. That is why over  half of successful wildlife photography is bush skill and knowledge of habitat and animal behaviour plus endless patience. I cannot count the times that others forced their guide to go and “ look for the Lions”. Whilst we just stayed, observed and got the experience and the shot. And probably found Lions sleeping in the road when driving back to the camp. 

True. But, for example, when shooting polar bears in Svalbard or northern Hudson Bay I like to keep a safe distance. A long lens helps, but there is little or no cover on the snow and ice so you need to stay pretty far away from the bears. Other times, cropping can help with composition. When the wildlife are there but the light is not good (which happens a lot), good low light performance is essential. Hence my original question starting this thread. Since then I have purchased an SL3 and so far it is much better than my SL2 in low light, and pretty close to the SL2-S. 

Edited November 16 by NightPix

[RBB]

SL3 100.000 ISO, not at all suitable for two-metre wallpaper, but compared to the past it's amazing what is possible these days. (downsampeling affinity lanczos 3, topaz sharpen & denoise)

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]

Yes, this is typically Topaz Sharpen AI - try LR Enhance; on such subjects it sometimes looks less artificial.

[RBB]

25 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes, this is typically Topaz Sharpen AI - try LR Enhance; on such subjects it sometimes looks less artificial.

I've used Lightroom quick before, but never seriously. I use Capture One and Affinity as my workflow. I agree that Topaz sometimes messes things up. See the lion's skin, a prime example. I try to keep the ISO lower for serious work. However, there are times when memory is more important than quality.

ISO 100.000 SL2s

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Sure. I think that lion could be improved in Topaz Photo AI but you will still be in salvaging territory. However the problem is always that we tend to underexpose in low light whilst we should be doing ETTR.