GiuseppeL wrote:
Yes, exactly like the A9. If you try to use the camera as it is and make the best out of it, you will soon realize that these discussions are simply ridiculous and do not mirror reality. If you insist that a camera cannot do this and that, you will never find a way around the small obstacles. Sorry, but this is silly. (And no, the S1R is simply not that fast (CPU) and has a smaller buffer, it also does not have the same video specs.) If you insist on details, then please look into all the details and do not close your eyes to the details you do not like.
And the rolling shutter on the SL2 is actually quite good (compared to the other cameras with the "same" sensor). ...Show more →
It's nothing like the A9, which can AF at 20fps and whose electronic shutter has a sensor readout rate of 1/150, which avoids rolling shutter for nearly all shooting scenarios. The S1R/SL2 sensor readout rate is approx 1/20. The SL2's rolling shutter is only manageable in video and accomplished with line skipping/binning.
Thank you for posting this video. Very informative/helpful. The first I've seen so far where a photographer actually goes into the details of the menu particularly the AF scenarios.
GiuseppeL wrote:
The SL2 shares some technology with the S1R - the excellent IBIS, the EVF (from Sony), the DFD technology, the USB power supply, the EVF optics (from Leica), the mount (from Leica), etc.). The SL2 offers 20 fps while the S1R offers only 9 fps. Do you really think this is possible if they share the same CPU and buffers ? Probably the sensor is related as it has the same resolution, but is maybe a newer version (double the frame rate ?!) ... And it has a thinner protection layer (good for vintage lenses, like M, R etc.)
The magnets were already implemented in the SL, but then nobody was interested in this detail.
The AF was at the time of the dpr review a preproduction software (and dpr successfully forgot to mention that). It is now at level 1.0 and much better. See e.g. the video from Robin Sinha (a tutorial) I expect further improvement with each new firmware release.
What remains is that the SL2 is as fast (20 fps) as the a9 II, but at double the resolution. Or twice as fast as the a7 IV (at almost the same resolution 47 Mp vs 61 Mp). And with a much faster Maestro III processor (visible in the video specs).
And the short battery life is no problem as external USB power packs (Anker and others) can be used to run the camera off them. (for days in a row if you need to)....Show more →
GiuseppeL wrote:
You play the typical game. I know nothing and have never tried the camera. So I invent numbers and try to convince the fools in the forum that I know the numbers. This is simply sh.....
I'm off. This is too stupid. A waste of time ... (I have the SL2, why should I discuss with a guy telling funny stories ... ?)
Thanks for participating in the discussion. Take care, and enjoy your SL2 - by most accounts it's a great camera.
GiuseppeL wrote:
The SL2 shares some technology with the S1R - the excellent IBIS, the EVF (from Sony), the DFD technology, the USB power supply, the EVF optics (from Leica), the mount (from Leica), etc.). The SL2 offers 20 fps while the S1R offers only 9 fps. Do you really think this is possible if they share the same CPU and buffers ? Probably the sensor is related as it has the same resolution, but is maybe a newer version (double the frame rate ?!) ... And it has a thinner protection layer (good for vintage lenses, like M, R etc.)
The magnets were already implemented in the SL, but then nobody was interested in this detail.
The AF was at the time of the dpr review a preproduction software (and dpr successfully forgot to mention that). It is now at level 1.0 and much better. See e.g. the video from Robin Sinha (a tutorial) I expect further improvement with each new firmware release.
What remains is that the SL2 is as fast (20 fps) as the a9 II, but at double the resolution. Or twice as fast as the a7 IV (at almost the same resolution 47 Mp vs 61 Mp). And with a much faster Maestro III processor (visible in the video specs).
And the short battery life is no problem as external USB power packs (Anker and others) can be used to run the camera off them. (for days in a row if you need to)....Show more →
The speed is unreal and video is top notch. It’s crazy going from the speed of the A7r4 to the SL2’s 20fps. If focus speed could catch up to the rest of the market Sony would have a serious issue. The SL2’s focus acquisition speed unfortunately is not comparable to the a9ii or A7r4.
I hope the AF gets better in firmware upgrades. Hopefully eye-AF will be released, as the current face/body detection is not eye detection (at least it does not show focus on a subject’s eye), and it is unusable for moving subjects. I saw Canon just released an update almost a year after their Mirrorless cameras hit the market. Hopefully it won’t take Leica that long . Nikon solved there poor eye-AF and subject tracking issues within a few short months of the Z7 release. They went from being the worst at eye-AF on their mirrorless cameras to now one of the best (though they do have PDAF and CDAF on their sensors). If Leica has the manpower to do so, people need to start complaining and emailing HQ to spur them on. The SL2 has the potential if Leica intends to expend the resources on resolving the AF-C issues.
GiuseppeL wrote:
Yes, exactly like the A9. If you try to use the camera as it is and make the best out of it, you will soon realize that these discussions are simply ridiculous and do not mirror reality. If you insist that a camera cannot do this and that, you will never find a way around the small obstacles. Sorry, but this is silly. (And no, the S1R is simply not that fast (CPU) and has a smaller buffer, it also does not have the same video specs.) If you insist on details, then please look into all the details and do not close your eyes to the details you do not like.
And the rolling shutter on the SL2 is actually quite good (compared to the other cameras with the "same" sensor).
If my Beetle could run 250 km/h (160 mph ?) then it was a Porsche ....
? No, not like the A9. Snapsy is right here, no comparison as AF is locked, ES has too slow a readout to avoid banding or other problems. Makes a big difference in _reality_.
I am not sure who lost sense of reality here, to be honest.
I cancelled my SL2 order after a lot of contemplation. Until they can get up to speed with the AF tech, my a7r iv will get me more keepers for what I shoot. I love my Q2 for what it can do - and I really like the colors coming out of the camera (I have to work harder in post with my Sony) but when I need to count on the eye being in focus in certain situations and tracking things I still grab my a7r iv.
saxguy wrote:
I cancelled my SL2 order after a lot of contemplation. Until they can get up to speed with the AF tech, my a7r iv will get me more keepers for what I shoot. I love my Q2 for what it can do - and I really like the colors coming out of the camera (I have to work harder in post with my Sony) but when I need to count on the eye being in focus in certain situations and tracking things I still grab my a7r iv.
Please tell me I'm not crazy and that colors are different between it and the a7r iv shooting RAW. Whenever I ask about this the only answer I get is that it can all be equalized in post. I can come close, but I can't seem to get it spot on - and I find the colors more pleasing from the Q2.
For those that want to look, here's what I'm getting color wise from the sensor in the Q2:
saxguy wrote:
Please tell me I'm not crazy and that colors are different between it and the a7r iv shooting RAW. Whenever I ask about this the only answer I get is that it can all be equalized in post. I can come close, but I can't seem to get it spot on - and I find the colors more pleasing from the Q2.
For those that want to look, here's what I'm getting color wise from the sensor in the Q2:
rji2goleez wrote:
I've been looking hard at the Q2 as well. I already have a Ricoh GRIII but the Q2 just looks so awesome. Tell me how much you love it!
It's an absolute joy to shoot and I'm very fond of the rendering from Summilux 28mm. In your extremely capable hands it would produce some amazing imagery for sure. I wrote about my first chance meeting with the Q on this post.
GiuseppeL wrote:
At least it is now clear that you have never actually used the SL2. (honesty ?) You just show your incompetence by these statements. Go to a shop and try it out instead of inventing problems that you know from Sony like banding. (which are unknown on the SL2).
Really cheeky to invent data, despite never using the camera.... But quite silly.
There are basics of camera and sensor technology that don't require having the specific camera in your hand to know. Banding is endemic to electronic shutters on all rolling-shutter based CMOS-sensors. It's a function of readout speed vs artificial light cycling frequency. It's only avoidable by increasing readout speed (A9 mostly avoids it although not entirely) or by using a global shutter, which currently isn't available on general-purpose cameras.
Dec 15, 2019 at 06:46 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Were you the one who was asking about manual white balance? Just wondering if the difference is still there, if so.
saxguy wrote:
Please tell me I'm not crazy and that colors are different between it and the a7r iv shooting RAW. Whenever I ask about this the only answer I get is that it can all be equalized in post. I can come close, but I can't seem to get it spot on - and I find the colors more pleasing from the Q2.
For those that want to look, here's what I'm getting color wise from the sensor in the Q2:
GiuseppeL wrote:
You talk about the silent shutter (ES), and I was talking about AF. (You mix it at will .... )
Yes, of course there is rolling shutter if the target moves too quickly (mainly sideways). And problems with artificial lighting (frequency). For these cases you need to use the mechanical shutter (10 fps, which is about as fast as the A9II, twice as fast as the A9).
This is not new. And was not part of my reply to snapsy.
Reality check is in the next Leica shop, most have now demo cameras.
You wrote "Go to a shop and try it out instead of inventing problems that you know from Sony like banding. (which are unknown on the SL2)." That's what my reply was addressing.
Dec 15, 2019 at 07:40 PM
imagesfromobjects Offline • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Ugh are we going back to the "banding" thing? I'm far from a Sony fan boy, but the last time this was brought up (by a somewhat combative newmember with a very low post count) the "proof" was rather flimsy.
imagesfromobjects wrote:
Were you the one who was asking about manual white balance? Just wondering if the difference is still there, if so.
The difference is there, but it's not as drastic a difference as I thought. I will say that AWB on the Q2 is very good - it seems much better than the a7r iv.
The other things that is better with the Q2 is the image stabilization. I can hand hold the Q2 at much slower shutter speeds than the a7r iv. I'm going to assume the SL2 has the same image stabilization, if not an improved system.
GiuseppeL wrote:
At least it is now clear that you have never actually used the SL2. (honesty ?) You just show your incompetence by these statements. Go to a shop and try it out instead of inventing problems that you know from Sony like banding. (which are unknown on the SL2).
Really cheeky to invent data, despite never using the camera.... But quite silly.
Obviously you are not well versed in some technical details. I use the A9 professionally. It is the only camera right now I can use in almost all situations with electronic shutter due to the fast readout of the sensor. Doing so with a camera with slower readout will lead to banding regularly. I just need to use our A7r3 in E-shutter mode in older churches to see that immediately.
This has nothing to do with you preferring a camera like the SL2 due to personal preference. But these mentioned technological constraints limit the shooting envelope of the SL2.
Same with AF. With fast primes, 20fps doesn't make sense for me, if AF is frozen for constantly moving subjects. You might not care, I do and my experience tells me that images are often too severely out of focus or I get too many unnecessary images filling up the card space (the SL2 is not the only one behaving like this. The Canon 1dxii had 16fps in LV mode with locked focus and exposure. ).
saxguy wrote:
The difference is there, but it's not as drastic a difference as I thought. I will say that AWB on the Q2 is very good - it seems much better than the a7r iv.
The other things that is better with the Q2 is the image stabilization. I can hand hold the Q2 at much slower shutter speeds than the a7r iv. I'm going to assume the SL2 has the same image stabilization, if not an improved system.
The Q2 and the Q1 both have the same in-lens stabilisation system whereas the A7riv has IBIS and in-lens stabilisation with certain lenses
