The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Leica SL vs S IQ

Paratom

Well-known member
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.
Just to not be misunderstood: I think for the price difference the S should deliver better IQ, the question is by how much.
Of course absolute technical IQ is not everything, but the images from the S have a special look which I like a lot.
The closest to this would be when using the 50APO on the M.
If I look at the user interface of the SL,the design of lenses (I mean large, robust, weatherproof) it looks like a mini S.
The question is how will the lenses render, and how will the sensor "render". The problem is it is not so easy to judge until proper profiles for the raw converters do exist. At least for someone like me who doesn't make his own profiles/ isn't very experienced with post-processing/cooking images.
I mostly like to just work a bit on shadows/exposure/WB and that's it.
 
Of course absolute technical IQ is not everything, but the images from the S have a special look which I like a lot.
The closest to this would be when using the 50APO on the M.
Fully agree on both those comments.
I tried out a 007+70mm recently and (in a non-scientific way) compared images with my M240+50mm APO.
The M+50mm APO is the best an M can deliver, a lovely combo in that small form factor.
But for larger print sizes, I discovered the 007 is a very long way ahead in image quality over my M ..... by much more than just megapixel differences. Yes, the extra resolution is very noticeable for larger prints, but I was especially stunned at the smoothness of the S' rendering, its accurate colors out of camera, the 3D'ness of the images, etc etc.
All I can conclude is that a larger sensor size is perhaps much more important than I'd previously assumed in producing a "look" and final image quality.
Oddly enough, I'm not sure that should be a surprise, given my background in MF and LF Film ...... perhaps some things when it comes to tonality & smoothness don't change in the Digital era (even if, on a resolution basis, 35mm FF cameras are cramming in a comparable # of megapixels as many MF backs .....).
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Fully agree on both those comments.
I tried out a 007+70mm recently and (in a non-scientific way) compared images with my M240+50mm APO.
The M+50mm APO is the best an M can deliver, a lovely combo in that small form factor.
But for larger print sizes, I discovered the 007 is a very long way ahead in image quality over my M ..... by much more than just megapixel differences. Yes, the extra resolution is very noticeable for larger prints, but I was especially stunned at the smoothness of the S' rendering, its accurate colors out of camera, the 3D'ness of the images, etc etc.
All I can conclude is that a larger sensor size is perhaps much more important than I'd previously assumed in producing a "look" and final image quality.
Oddly enough, I'm not sure that should be a surprise, given my background in MF and LF Film ...... perhaps some things when it comes to tonality & smoothness don't change in the Digital era (even if, on a resolution basis, 35mm FF cameras are cramming in a comparable # of megapixels as many MF backs .....).
I really wonder how much comes from sensor size. Maybe for fun I will take the same image with 70mm using full s-sensor size and with 45mm cropped to 24x36 and with 50mm APO and the M. Just for fun, not that I expect to really understand something from just one image.

"smoothness of the S' rendering, its accurate colors out of camera, the 3D'ness of the images, etc etc." that's exactly what I mean
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I just shot some first images with an SL and an S007 in my garden.
It looks like DNG from both cameras converted in LR seem to match pretty close in color.
Closer than I expected. It seems (just first impression) colorwise the 2 sensors/cameras could work together pretty good.
Obvious is that the Bokeh of the SL-Zoom is not up to good primes ( I compared 70mm on the S at f5,6 vs the SL at 55mm/3.5), the SL-Zoom bokeh can be a bit busy. Sharpness of the Zoom at this focal length looks quite good as well.
more to follow
 

JeRuFo

Active member
I think this is too personal a question for anyone to answer.
The IQ of the SL can't be quite as good as a cropped S sensor, because of flange distance. The S lenses and sensor just have a much simpler task than the SL/M lenses.
The question is if you can get the extra IQ out with your subjects and way of shooting. The SL is ofcourse a lot more portable, especially with M-lenses. AF is also much faster on the SL, but there is only one lens available with it righ now. If you need AF on all your lenses and you don't shoot indoors or fast paced stuff the S would be your choice for at least the next year.
And then there is OVF vs EVF. While the OVF of the S is brilliant, it does mean you need higher shutter speeds or a tripod.
I personally would buy the SL as a camera for social stuff or for when I need portability and speed and keep another camera for the IQ (I still shoot LF film, so I don't need my 2nd camera to have that much resolution).
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I just shot some first images with an SL and an S007 in my garden.
It looks like DNG from both cameras converted in LR seem to match pretty close in color.
Closer than I expected. It seems (just first impression) colorwise the 2 sensors/cameras could work together pretty good.
Obvious is that the Bokeh of the SL-Zoom is not up to good primes ( I compared 70mm on the S at f5,6 vs the SL at 55mm/3.5), the SL-Zoom bokeh can be a bit busy. Sharpness of the Zoom at this focal length looks quite good as well.
more to follow
I'm looking forward to hearing and seeing more about the differences.

G
 

jonoslack

Active member
more to follow
We wait with baited breath . . .

I've had both in my hands this year, but not at the same time, so no real opportunity to compare.
I think I feel the same way about the colour. I hadn't compared the bokeh in any meaningful way, but I think the 24-90 does pretty well for a zoom, but it's different at different focal lengths.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
If you want to compare the color ......set both cameras to custom WB and use a grey card or WHIBAL . This eliminates differences in WB and in addition any temp or tint bias caused by lens coatings , sensor glass etc etc . (want to match files you need to get the WB matched first ).

Then using a Passport color checker for each camera ....take a few captures . Using those images you can see how the cameras render both color and the tone curve using .....embedded, the adobe profile and a custom profile made from the color checker .

In 30 minutes you will know all you need to about the color rendering .

The other issue is much more complex ...the highlights and shadows can develop color shifts that defy a simple profile correction . Read David Frakas comparison of CCD to CMOS sensors . He had to apply adjustments to the shadows to bring the M9 and M240 closer together .

I found with the M9 and the M240 that I could get the colors pretty close ...much closer than I could come with the D810 and this was using custom profiles ...but the aesthetic was more affected by the tone curve . And more in the highlights ...the CCD files had a lower highlight setting and a flatter highlight to light transition ..the CMOS M240 file had a very linear (straight ) tone curve with a brighter highlight . Move the CMOS file to a medium tone curve in light room and compare to the CCD tone curve without adjustment . Makes sense ..you have more DR to work with in the CMOS file so you want a flat tone curve you can work with .

Since I did these tests on the M240 back now almost two years ...the LR profiles have gotten much better and I miss the M9 aesthetics much less .

Still I think its going to be challenging to match the SL CMOS files with the S 006 CCD to create a common aesthetic .
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Thanks for posting these. What f-stops were used on each camera?
zoom wide open f3.7 and the 70 at f5.6 (which I felt could be equivalent in regards of DOF)
and since I used auto ISO 1/250 for both the S007 shot is with higher ISO than the SL shot.
But I was only interested in color not in noise here.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I think I'm going to have to screw on my spectral analyzer to see a significant difference ...!

G
 
M

mjr

Guest
Morning

I haven't seen an SL yet and I don't think it fits so well for me but as I own a 007 I clearly prefer the first of each series.

That said, posting unprocessed jpegs for me means very little, all we are looking at is LR's standard profile for each camera, we certainly aren't looking at what each camera can produce. Why not process them Tom? Are they both easy to get what you want from the shot? Why not shoot at the optimal settings for each camera rather than try and match them? I'd like to see you shoot an interesting scene in the best way you can within the restrictions of the camera, process them to your taste and then let us know what you think the positives and negatives of each file are. Can you shoot a standard landscape style shot at f11 and a portrait wide open? Then we can get an idea what the differences are, if any.

I can see a lot of value in the SL being able to produce smaller files but of equal quality, that would be great but it's only relevant if you are shooting each camera to its abilities, I see no point in being able to match if your shooting is compromised.

Are you testing both or have you bought one or both??

Mat
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Morning

I haven't seen an SL yet and I don't think it fits so well for me but as I own a 007 I clearly prefer the first of each series.

That said, posting unprocessed jpegs for me means very little, all we are looking at is LR's standard profile for each camera, we certainly aren't looking at what each camera can produce. Why not process them Tom? Are they both easy to get what you want from the shot? Why not shoot at the optimal settings for each camera rather than try and match them? I'd like to see you shoot an interesting scene in the best way you can within the restrictions of the camera, process them to your taste and then let us know what you think the positives and negatives of each file are. Can you shoot a standard landscape style shot at f11 and a portrait wide open? Then we can get an idea what the differences are, if any.

I can see a lot of value in the SL being able to produce smaller files but of equal quality, that would be great but it's only relevant if you are shooting each camera to its abilities, I see no point in being able to match if your shooting is compromised.

Are you testing both or have you bought one or both??

Mat
Hi Mat,
LR is the software I mostly use for conversion as a starting point. And if color of images from both S and SL come out close at this starting point, this means life will be easier. For example it should not be too difficult to mix images from both cameras.
If I try to make the best of each file, I am afraid it would be too much a matter of personal taste to have any value for other people.


.... Are they both easy to get what you want from the shot? ...
From the first impression (that's all I have so far) the images come out of LR pretty close to how I like the to look like from both cameras:
- some pop in the colors but still natural looking
- same seems to be the case for skin tones
- also with good sharpness and contrast
It seems not much postprocessing is needed for my taste, which I like.

I can see a lot of value in the SL being able to produce smaller files but of equal quality, that would be great but it's only relevant if you are shooting each camera to its abilities, I see no point in being able to match if your shooting is compromised.
I see the value for the SL compared to an S in:
- speed and AF - with being able to focus nearly everywhere in the viewfinder and also with face detection it is easier to hit focus on the eyes as soon as people are not still
- flexibility of that 24-90 Zoom
- EVF is nice for video
- One backup body which works for T/M/S
- low light

I see the advantages of the S in a) the great (and available) lenses, the nice OVF, and the tonal transitions and also the transition from focus plane to background.
I also do like the S color I can achieve (at least I did for the S006 and I hope to achieve the same with the S007). So I was pleasantly surprised to see the SL color out of LR looks similar to the color from S007 out of LR.
 
Top