Leica SL vs S IQ

[Paratom]

I do feel (see) that the IQ I get with the Leica S006 and S lenses is a step up from what I see from Canikon FF DSLRs and also from what I see from the Leica M 240 in regards of detail, color and tonality.

Now I wonder how much is from the sensor type, how much from the sensor size and how much from the lenses.

And I wonder how close a Leica SL with good primes (for example the 50/1.4 SL once it is available, or good R-glass or the M 50 APO-Summicron) would come close to the IQ I get with the Leica S.

At the moment I assume there will still be quite a difference, since the SL sensor is based on the Q and while the Q IQ is fine I dont find the color up to what I see from the S.

Any opinions? Or Jono, did you eventually shoot the S lenses on the SL, or even SL and S side by side?

 

[Godfrey]

It's likely impossible to judge this with any real credibility until a few more cycles of cameras in the field with final software and more/different lenses used come to pass. But it will be fun to participate and consider it.

G

 

[Ken_R]

I would be more concerned about the differences in handling, going from an OVF to an EVF, a larger body vs smaller body, access to a huge range of lenses (SL) and battery performance (best in the S). Also of note (but a bit less so) is the difference in sensor size regarding the look and feel of the images.

If you want the best image quality from Leica I would think the Leica S 007 would be it.

The SL is more about the form factor, the look and feel, the technology, and features (including being able to adapt a whole bunch of lenses to it) rather than the ultimate technical image quality (which should be similar to the M).

 

[turtle]

At low ISO, I think the difference will be what you'd expect: 24MP FF vs 37.5MP MF, because both have great glass. Comparing the likes of a D810 with the S is more interesting because you have similar pixel counts. I just don't see the SL competing with the S on sheer IQ, where the S006 is strongest: low ISO. Up the ISO range, I don't think one would need to go too far to prefer the SL due to the noise of the CCD S006.

 

[anGy]

From a discussion with Product Mgmt report on Facebook:
"The SL lenses shall be the best performing lens on the SL as the lens optical formula takes into consideration of the sensor cover glass characteristics"

I read there as subtitles that the S lenses performance might not be that great on the SL.
If the S007 offers the same IQ (or better said same rendering) at base iso than my S2, I'll upgrade.
If not I plan to complement my S2 with the SL.

But it would be wise to do so once the T to S adapter is made available and the S lenses properly tested. Certainly don't want to put my S 45mm on the SL and get smeared corners...

 

[edwardkaraa]

I'm also very curious. I don't have an S but I have seen the used prices of the 006 are going down, so have been considering to start with a simple 006/70 kit. However, the SL with the 50/1.4 lux should be a killer combination.

 

[jonoslack]

From a discussion with Product Mgmt report on Facebook:
"The SL lenses shall be the best performing lens on the SL as the lens optical formula takes into consideration of the sensor cover glass characteristics"

I read there as subtitles that the S lenses performance might not be that great on the SL.

Hi there
I think the cover glass comments would have had a subtext relating to M lenses rather than S lenses

Tom. I don't think that the image quality would be a match for the S. (why would it). The SL seems to be more about speed and functionality rather than just IQ. which I would say was more equivalent to the Q. I never had the two cameras together.

 

[PeterA]

I'm also very curious. I don't have an S but I have seen the used prices of the 006 are going down, so have been considering to start with a simple 006/70 kit. However, the SL with the 50/1.4 lux should be a killer combination.

I'm also a bit confused about the S lenses, which are supposed to be stellar by all accounts. I'm not sure why their official MTF are really below average.

Well judging by what Leica themselves claim abut the S lenses- maybe Leica don't feel the need to muck around with tricked up MTF tables...I love my M lenses- but the S lenses are something special...ya got to try them out...and see for yourself.

As for M lens and SL - It would have to be a Nocti of course.:thumbup:

 

[Paratom]

From a discussion with Product Mgmt report on Facebook:
"The SL lenses shall be the best performing lens on the SL as the lens optical formula takes into consideration of the sensor cover glass characteristics"

I read there as subtitles that the S lenses performance might not be that great on the SL.
If the S007 offers the same IQ (or better said same rendering) at base iso than my S2, I'll upgrade.
If not I plan to complement my S2 with the SL.

But it would be wise to do so once the T to S adapter is made available and the S lenses properly tested. Certainly don't want to put my S 45mm on the SL and get smeared corners...

I guess the answer about the low ISOs might be...S007 almost as good as S006 in regards of color at low ISO, but probably with slightly better DR. From my 3 hour unscientific testrun with the S007 I found the files very good but not 100% the natural color look which I love from the S006.
The problem is the S007 to cost 3 times the prices of the SL.

- - - Updated - - -

Hi there
I think the cover glass comments would have had a subtext relating to M lenses rather than S lenses

Tom. I don't think that the image quality would be a match for the S. (why would it). The SL seems to be more about speed and functionality rather than just IQ. which I would say was more equivalent to the Q. I never had the two cameras together.

But why could a SL not deliver the same IQ like a cropped S007?

 

[anGy]

But why could a SL not deliver the same IQ like a cropped S007?

It is not necessarily the same brain hidden behind the same eyes (Intelligence Quotient may be part of the big boy charm).
De facto I've the same eyes as my older brother but he's smarter than me...

 

[Godfrey]

..
But why could a SL not deliver the same IQ like a cropped S007?

I imagine it might, but then I found myself very sensitive to the fact that my M lenses, performing beautifully on the GXR, weren't delivering quite what I expected because I wasn't seeing the full frame that they were tuned for, and was evident in my film M exposures. That was one of the motivations behind buying the M9 in the first place.

The lens to sensor match is very sensitive, and the lens to its intended format match is also very sensitive, when you're playing with "ultimate, ultra quality" lenses like this and looking for nuances.

G

 

[dfarkas]

Between early testing and some further photo trips, I've racked up over 10,000 exposures with the S007. I used the S2 since it was in beta, then later the S006 as my go-to camera system. Basically, I've been an avid S user from the beginning.

I had the opportunity to shoot for few days in Germany with the new SL before returning home last week. I'm currently working on a full review.

I find the S007 to be in a different class from anything I've ever shot, Leica or otherwise. The DNG files, especially at base ISO, have an unbelievable amount of DR. They are the most malleable files I've ever processed. The lenses really are second to none, but the camera imaging chain is darn impressive. Too many people sell Leica short when it comes to digital imaging tech. 15+ stops of DR is insane, and immensely useful. The high ISO is also quite good, with excellent results up to ISO 6400.

When processing the SL files, I was struck that even though they are lovely, they are not approaching the sheer quality potential of the S. Of course, as Jono says, the SL has many other advantages such as AF speed, frame rate, IS, massive lens compatibility, smaller body, etc. And, the body is half the price of the S007. I will hold back final judgement on the files until Adobe issues full support for the SL DNGs. I saw a huge jump from my early test shots with the Q before and after a LR update, so I'm hoping for a similar update for the SL. Until then, we can use the Q as a "worst case scenario" for image quality, although I already think the SL in its current state is superior to the Q.

Bottom line: The SL is a lot of fun to use and turns out really great images, but the S007 is still tops for IQ.

 

[Paratom]

...
Bottom line: The SL is a lot of fun to use and turns out really great images, but the S007 is still tops for IQ.

Thanks for the honest answer.
I am afraid it doesnt make my decisions easier.

 

[Godfrey]

...
Bottom line: The SL is a lot of fun to use and turns out really great images, but the S007 is still tops for IQ.

Makes perfect sense, David. There has to be some reason why Leica would continue to pursue and develop the S camera line, and that enormous sensor is the A-Number-One culprit behind the additional DR.

G

 

[Photo Lawyer]

Thanks for the honest answer.
I am afraid it doesnt make my decisions easier.

It did mine.

 

[Paratom]

It did mine.

Well, I prefer optical viewfinder, allready own S lenses and do like the IQ from the S006...

I wouldnt mind the video capability in combination with the viewfinder from the SL and sometimes a Zoom would be nice.

I wish the S007 was 5k less in price than it actually is.

 

[Godfrey]

Well, I prefer optical viewfinder, allready own S lenses and do like the IQ from the S006...

I wouldnt mind the video capability in combination with the viewfinder from the SL and sometimes a Zoom would be nice.

I wish the S007 was 5k less in price than it actually is.

Sounds like the choice is obvious. Just think: you don't have to pay $5000 for a dedicated SL lens ...

Just trying to be helpful!

G

 

[jonoslack]

Bottom line: The SL is a lot of fun to use and turns out really great images, but the S007 is still tops for IQ.

Hi there David - I really couldn't disagree with this - even with my rather limited experience with the 007.

Thanks for the honest answer.
I am afraid it doesnt make my decisions easier.

I think the point is that the SL isn't intended to be a competitor for the S. It's clearly meant to be the missing link between the T and the S. Its very responsive and very fast.

 

[Paratom]

Hi there David - I really couldn't disagree with this - even with my rather limited experience with the 007.



I think the point is that the SL isn't intended to be a competitor for the S. It's clearly meant to be the missing link between the T and the S. Its very responsive and very fast.

I guess need to look at the SL and at images from it myself to make my final decision.

For some reason I would have hoped that IQ from the SL (for its price and for its size) would come closer to an S than to an Q. 24MP would be fine for me but I would want the character of sensor and lenses comparable to the S.

Some things where I am a little concerned:
-Color: When I used the Q for some weeks I wasn't totally happy with color. Skin looked sometimes a little to warm and pinkish, greens too yellowish. I read in some reports about the same tendency for the SL. Why is it not possible to make sure LR has proper profies once a product is launched?
-DR: If its true what we see on DPReview the Sensor of the SL is good but not class leading in regards of noise/dynamic range

I hope to be able to testdrive a SL myself, since pricewise it would fit me much better than the S

 

[ptomsu]

I guess need to look at the SL and at images from it myself to make my final decision.

For some reason I would have hoped that IQ from the SL (for its price and for its size) would come closer to an S than to an Q. 24MP would be fine for me but I would want the character of sensor and lenses comparable to the S.

Some things where I am a little concerned:
-Color: When I used the Q for some weeks I wasn't totally happy with color. Skin looked sometimes a little to warm and pinkish, greens too yellowish. I read in some reports about the same tendency for the SL. Why is it not possible to make sure LR has proper profies once a product is launched?
-DR: If its true what we see on DPReview the Sensor of the SL is good but not class leading in regards of noise/dynamic range

I hope to be able to testdrive a SL myself, since pricewise it would fit me much better than the S

Hi Tom,

for me this would be a no-brainer if it comes down to IQ. The has to be better and I think it easily shows. No compromise here.

WRT usability, better price performance ratio etc. the SL should clearly win. At least as soon as more native SL glass will be available.