LBJ2 wrote:
I was wondering if the green fringing you highlighted had something to do with the lens used. But curious that user snapsy was not able to replicate with the same file. My guess is there is some settings askew somewhere. Either way thanks for posting the RAWs which I will take a look at later today.
BTW. How did the SL2 DFD +SL 50/Lux AF compare to the A7rIII + FE 50 F1.4 AF when taking these test images?
The Planar FE 50/1.4 has very little fringing, was stopped down, and is T* coated. But don't worry, I'll use the same lens in the some of the tests. On AF in low light, the α7R III's PDAF felt like it was locking on faster, but the 50 Summilux-SL didn't hunt. Anyway, the place wasn't baldy lighted for SL2's AF to perform noticeably worse than the Sony's. I was very happy with the AF system and knew that the Leica files wouldn't show any PDAF banding when shadows were pushed.
Chaemono wrote:
I have good news, folks. Sony offered me a big check to stop posting the comparisons. I'm thinking about it.
I'm sure considering how famous you are and how much competition SL2 is to the SONY cameras that are priced at half of Leica, you should be able to buy a cup of coffee with $5 and your check.
Chaemono wrote:
The Planar FE 50/1.4 has very little fringing, was stopped down, and is T* coated. But don't worry, I'll use the same lens in the some of the tests. On AF in low light, the α7R III's PDAF felt like it was locking on faster, but the 50 Summilux-SL didn't hunt. Anyway, the place wasn't baldy lighted for SL2's AF to perform noticeably worse than the Sony's. I was very happy with the AF system and knew that the Leica files wouldn't show any PDAF banding when shadows were pushed.
Yes, there should be no PDAF banding on the SL2 images 😉😉
snapsy wrote:
Dpreview just posted a sample gallery from the SL2 including low-light base ISO raws. I processed one with +5EV in PS and the DR looks excellent. Here's a link if you'd like to process one yourself:
It does look good. I'm actually in the process of simplifying my Sony lens kit to a 35 and 85. I loved my SL and have some amazing shots from it with the both the SL50 1.4 and the APO 50 Summicron M Mount lens. It's an interesting thought - going to the SL2 and the 35/75. I just lose the low light advantage of the 1.4 lenses I'm used to carrying with the Sony.
Yes. The SL2 is looking to be very compelling. Add the MTF monster, the Leica APO-SUMMICRON-SL 35mm f/2 and not sure I can resist the potential IQ extravaganza.
LBJ2 wrote:
Yes. The SL2 is looking to be very compelling. Add the MTF monster, the Leica APO-SUMMICRON-SL 35mm f/2 and not sure I can resist the potential IQ extravaganza.
I easily can. The SL2 is 6000 Euros in Germany. The 35/2 is 4400 Euros. So 10400 Euros for a camera and single lens is bit too much for me _personally_, giving that other combos will be comparable in performance.
Holger wrote:
I easily can. The SL2 is 6000 Euros in Germany. The 35/2 is 4400 Euros. So 10400 Euros for a camera and single lens is bit too much for me _personally_, giving that other combos will be comparable in performance.
I stay with the A7r3 and 35/1.2 Art instead.
No argument from me. From a glass half-full perspective, the SL2 launch price is lower than most expected compared to the launch price of the original SL. From what I read, Leica wanted to keep the SL2 price low( for Leica) in an effort to bring in more new customers to the brand. As you wrote, add the 35/2 SL Cron and viola, €10,400 😳
I guess it's relative. I dare not add up all the money I've sent buying A7r and then upgrading to A7rII, A7rIII, A9 and currently A7rIV oh and a "few" FE/GM lenses along the way too 😉😉😉.
I use the A7r4 but pre-ordered the SL2. In the a7x/SL2 shadow banding tests, did your SL2 clip the exposure? My Leica m10-p has a setting to clip the DNG’s exposure at the high and low end. If this works like I think it does (as I always turn it off) the shadows can never exhibit banding or other irregularities when pushed, as the files will only show pure black in the darkest shadows regardless of pushing exposure/shadows.
Some of the shadows in the SL2 photos look like they are pure black as well. Was the exposure clipped on the SL2 by means of a setting in the SL2’s menu. My m10-p did it by default I think.
I’m pumped about the SL2, but will miss the Sony’s small size/weight when taking it out with the 24GM, 35/1.8 or the 55/1.8. The latter two lenses also can be purchased for $500-600 used. I’m not pumped about the price of the $4500-$5000 summicrons, though will be biting the bullet soon on one or two of them. No used market yet either unfortunately. The latest GM’s (24 and 135) are Leica-comparable definitely. The 85 GM for me bests the 75/2 SL only because swirly bokeh (including heavy mechanical vignetting) bothers me and the 75 is very swirly (at least when I rented it with an S1r). Glad though the 35/1.2 Sigma is offered for L mount, as well as the 28/1.4 Art (a very stellar lens for E and L mount). The 50/1.4 Planar may compete with the sheer resolving ability 50/2 Cron, but i appreciate the low light ability for indoor family shots especially with dim lighting and toddlers at home. Hopefully the 28 Summicron SL is not too far away either, as I’m sure it’ll be awesome.
Perhaps Leica will release some Elmarit lines of f/2.8, small sized, high resolving, less costly L mount lenses, but I’m not holding my breath. Or Techart may save the day with a good AF mount adapter, M to L mount, it’d def save me some dough.
NRKStudio wrote:
I use the A7r4 but pre-ordered the SL2. In the a7x/SL2 shadow banding tests, did your SL2 clip the exposure? My Leica m10-p has a setting to clip the DNG’s exposure at the high and low end. If this works like I think it does (as I always turn it off) the shadows can never exhibit banding or other irregularities when pushed, as the files will only show pure black in the darkest shadows regardless of pushing exposure/shadows.
Some of the shadows in the SL2 photos look like they are pure black as well. Was the exposure clipped on the SL2 by means of a setting in the SL2’s menu. My m10-p did it by default I think.
I’m pumped about the SL2, but will miss the Sony’s small size/weight when taking it out with the 24GM, 35/1.8 or the 55/1.8. The latter two lenses also can be purchased for $500-600 used. I’m not pumped about the price of the $4500-$5000 summicrons, though will be biting the bullet soon on one or two of them. No used market yet either unfortunately. The latest GM’s (24 and 135) are Leica-comparable definitely. The 85 GM for me bests the 75/2 SL only because swirly bokeh (including heavy mechanical vignetting) bothers me and the 75 is very swirly (at least when I rented it with an S1r). Glad though the 35/1.2 Sigma is offered for L mount, as well as the 28/1.4 Art (a very stellar lens for E and L mount). The 50/1.4 Planar may compete with the sheer resolving ability 50/2 Cron, but i appreciate the low light ability for indoor family shots especially with dim lighting and toddlers at home. Hopefully the 28 Summicron SL is not too far away either, as I’m sure it’ll be awesome.
Perhaps Leica will release some Elmarit lines of f/2.8, small sized, high resolving, less costly L mount lenses, but I’m not holding my breath. Or Techart may save the day with a good AF mount adapter, M to L mount, it’d def save me some dough. ...Show more →
I'm a bit confused. What does your soon to be SL2 give you that you can't get in the Sony/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron/CV world? Second question...When ignoring all but the keeper rate and image, what is the advantage of the Leica?
bwcolor wrote:
I'm a bit confused. What does your soon to be SL2 give you that you can't get in the Sony/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron/CV world? Second question...When ignoring all but the keeper rate and image, what is the advantage of the Leica?
I'm not who you asked and I went from the original SL to the a7r iii and now the a7r iv. I have been struggling with moving to the SL2 and even ordered it plus the APO Summicron SL 50. I'm having second thoughts, though.
For me, the primary reason for considering moving to Leica is because of the way it portrays colors. It's different from the Sony. I had the Q2 for a while and, although I can get a lot f the same look from my a7r iv, I can't get the color to match up easily. There were concerns I had with the Q, though, namely that high ISO performance (anything over 3200) created a lot of noise in my images.
Yesterday I went out with my a7r iv and the Sigma 35 1.2. I was all set to sell it all, but when I worked on my files this morning I can't really complain. I am more of a 50 shooter than a 35 shooter, though and - although the 50 1.4 ZA is excellent, it still doesn't give me the look of the Sigma 35 1.2 (even stopped down a little). For now I think I'm going to wait to see if Sigma releases their patented 50 1.2. If so, that may be my best option.
Zony_user wrote:
Bummer there's no comparable 35mm lens in e-mount.
The Sigma 35 1.2 is an amazing lens - it may be worth a rental just to see. There are differences, of course, but I love the way it renders (I'm still a 50 shooter, though)
bwcolor wrote:
I'm a bit confused. What does your soon to be SL2 give you that you can't get in the Sony/Zeiss/Sigma/Tamron/CV world? Second question...When ignoring all but the keeper rate and image, what is the advantage of the Leica?
That’s a great question. I am also having second guesses. The big positive is that the SL2 can handle all my M mount lenses as well or better than my m10. Also the handling I felt with an S1r is undoubtedly better than Sony A7x’s, however the small Sony size has its merits.
The 35 Cron and 50 Cron are in a league of their own, but the 35 Sigma is so unique it doesn’t compete with any Sony or Leica lens. Luckily it’s on L mount as well. If the 28/2 SL comes out soon, Sony will not have an answer except the 28/1.4 Art which is great but cumbersome.
I do enjoy the ability to crop 61mp files any which way, but the price is noise, and huge file sizes in my laptop. The 47mp Leica is less MP, but I am hoping the file sizes will be smaller, and the cropability (sp?) is pretty good itself.
Some people compare the colors coming out of the Leica as better. I can’t attest to that, but the Sony is at times harder to nail skin tones than my m10-p, which is very easy to make skin tones appear real or with extra vitality.
I think there’s no winning or losing by going from one to the other. I hate to say that almost as much as I like photography, I like the reviews and reviewing, the gadgetry, and joy of using state of the art technology.
Very reasonable IMO to compare the SL2 with the Sony A7rIV.
My guess is the ultimate decision will come down to a few decision points:
1. Usability
2. Sensor quality
3. Lenses
*I didn't include price since if some are comparing/considering these two systems, the same are very aware of the costs associated with both systems.
**We already know Sony wins the AF race, at least for now.
***Surprisingly, Leica wins the Fotos Mobile App race compared to Sony's Imaging Edge, at least for now.
I want to play with the profile that Andrew Reid has on his site for the a7r iii colors. I don't know if it will work on the a7r iv, but if I can get closer to the color output of the Leica I'll be very happy.
NRKStudio wrote:
That’s a great question. I am also having second guesses. The big positive is that the SL2 can handle all my M mount lenses as well or better than my m10. Also the handling I felt with an S1r is undoubtedly better than Sony A7x’s, however the small Sony size has its merits.
The 35 Cron and 50 Cron are in a league of their own, but the 35 Sigma is so unique it doesn’t compete with any Sony or Leica lens. Luckily it’s on L mount as well. If the 28/2 SL comes out soon, Sony will not have an answer except the 28/1.4 Art which is great but cumbersome.
I do enjoy the ability to crop 61mp files any which way, but the price is noise, and huge file sizes in my laptop. The 47mp Leica is less MP, but I am hoping the file sizes will be smaller, and the cropability (sp?) is pretty good itself.
Some people compare the colors coming out of the Leica as better. I can’t attest to that, but the Sony is at times harder to nail skin tones than my m10-p, which is very easy to make skin tones appear real or with extra vitality.
I think there’s no winning or losing by going from one to the other. I hate to say that almost as much as I like photography, I like the reviews and reviewing, the gadgetry, and joy of using state of the art technology. ...Show more →
I can understand wanting to use your lenses. In fact, that was one of the appeals of the Sony system when I first bought into the Nex-7. but my Zeiss Biogons in 21 and 35mm just didn't work well with the thick cover glass. Some of my other M lenses worked out just fine, such as my 90mm Leica APO Asp. I have now replaced the 21 and 35mm with Loxia and the 90 with the faster 85mm GM and slower Loxia. The 35mm F/1.4 ZM works well with the E-mount bodies but pretty sure that the thinner Leica cover glass would be better. The A9 and sports is for me, the most unique Sony capability.
Perhaps, the more important question is why would one choose it over the Panasonic S1R. One advantage would be weight/size as nearly 200gr lighter and much thinner it is a viable option for size conscious people (like me ). It has fewer buttons/dials meaning it relies essentially on the touch operation on the back screen compared to the Panasonic. As other people have speculated, it seems very close to the Panasonic regarding the inner parts and features. AF-wise it isn't up to the new Sony models. As a landscape camera, I assume the AF accuracy (and low light AF ability) matter more than AF tracking. For street photography, eye-AF / face detection may prove very handy features where Sony excels.
Sony cameras are however lighter and smaller (advantage). A7r iv is nearly half the price while A7r iii can be found used at less than a third of the price of SL2. I just don't see much of a point in the Leica other than someone insisting on the 'brand prestige' or something like that. Oh wait, the Leica is a much better looking camera than the Sony A7/9 series!
PS. I know it has a better weather sealing than A7r iii.
raminolta wrote:
Perhaps, the more important question is why would one choose it is over the Panasonic S1R. One advantage would be weight/size as nearly 200gr lighter and much thinner it is a viable option for size conscious people (like me ). It has fewer buttons/dials meaning it relies essentially on the touch operation on the back screen compared to the Panasonic. As other people have speculated, it seems very close to the Panasonic regarding the inner parts and features. AF-wise it isn't up to the new Sony models. As a landscape camera, I assume the AF accuracy (and low light AF ability) matter more than AF tracking. For street photography, eye-AF / face detection may prove very handy features where Sony excels.
Sony cameras are however lighter and smaller (advantage). A7r iv is nearly half the price while A7r iii can be found used at less than a third of the price of SL2. I just don't see much of a point in the Leica other than someone insisting on the 'brand prestige' or something like that. Oh wait, the Leica is a much better looking camera than the Sony A7/9 series!
PS. I know it has a better weather sealing than A7r iii. ...Show more →
I can't answer why it would be better than the S1R. Apparently there is a difference in the way the image is processed, one less layer of glass on the sensor, and micro lenses that help when using M glass on the SL2. I've run into some (very few) situations, where I can't grab focus in low light with my a7r iv, but I think part of that is because the PDAF isn't as good as an all contrast AF when trying to lock on to horizontal contrasting areas.
I had the Q2 for a short time and I didn't have a problem with focus. I did not, however, use tracking AF with the Q2. I do not expect the SL2 to perform as well as the a7r iv with respect to AF-C and, more specifically, Eye-AF.
I do have one on order with the 50 APO Summicron-SL. I still have my a7r iv, Sigma 35 1.2, 50 1.4 ZA and 85GM. I've put all my other lenses up for sale (not because I am set on moving away from the a7r iv, but rather because I use these three lenses more than any other). In the Sigma 35 thread I extended an invitation to anyone who wanted to try the SL2/50 Cron next to the a7r iv/50 1.4 ZA. I'm in NJ. Just bring a couple of SD cards and we can put both cameras through their paces. I'm very curious to see how the 50s will perform on their respective systems.
saxguy wrote:
I can't answer why it would be better than the S1R. Apparently there is a difference in the way the image is processed, one less layer of glass on the sensor, and micro lenses that help when using M glass on the SL2. I've run into some (very few) situations, where I can't grab focus in low light with my a7r iv, but I think part of that is because the PDAF isn't as good as an all contrast AF when trying to lock on to horizontal contrasting areas.
I had the Q2 for a short time and I didn't have a problem with focus. I did not, however, use tracking AF with the Q2. I do not expect the SL2 to perform as well as the a7r iv with respect to AF-C and, more specifically, Eye-AF.
I do have one on order with the 50 APO Summicron-SL. I still have my a7r iv, Sigma 35 1.2, 50 1.4 ZA and 85GM. I've put all my other lenses up for sale (not because I am set on moving away from the a7r iv, but rather because I use these three lenses more than any other). In the Sigma 35 thread I extended an invitation to anyone who wanted to try the SL2/50 Cron next to the a7r iv/50 1.4 ZA. I'm in NJ. Just bring a couple of SD cards and we can put both cameras through their paces. I'm very curious to see how the 50s will perform on their respective systems. ...Show more →
I am in the same boat as you. I sold all my lenses except 24GM, 35/1.2, and 135GM. Wish I kept the 50/1.4 ZA to compare with the 50 Cron SL. I’d be very surprised if the 50 Cron SL can get much better on center vs the 7r4 + 50/1.4 ZA. The Zeiss also has smoothish bokeh and a big front element to help with mechanical vignetting.
It should be noted though that the Q2 had excellent tracking, even before the 7r3 or 7r4 were given tracking as a feature. The difference though is that Sony’s tracking features in AF-C will automagically switch to tracking a face or an eye via eye-AF tracking (or what they call real time eye-AF I believe). I don’t believe the SL2, when tracking a subject, will switch from the user-selected point of focus to the subject’s eye/face fluidly without user input. Didn’t see it in a review.
The Q2 also was contending with a 28mm Lux requiring heavy distortion correction in real time and the Maestro II processor. The Q2 did a decent job at locking on to faces even with the wide angle FOV, in which faces can be relatively small within the frame. At that time when it was released, even my a7r3 had some eye-af blunders with the 24GM. So we will see if the SL2 takes a leap past the technology in the Q2 tracking. Hopefully the progression will be as dramatic as Sony’s jump in tech from the eye af in the 7r3 to the tracking in the7r4.
FE/GM lenses along the way too 😉😉😉.
). It has fewer buttons/dials meaning it relies essentially on the touch operation on the back screen compared to the Panasonic. As other people have speculated, it seems very close to the Panasonic regarding the inner parts and features. AF-wise it isn't up to the new Sony models. As a landscape camera, I assume the AF accuracy (and low light AF ability) matter more than AF tracking. For street photography, eye-AF / face detection may prove very handy features where Sony excels.