I think the reality is that from Leica's standpoint, though they do care about perhaps selling a few units to Sony users, their primary market for the SL2 are well heeled leicanistas, who likely have a bit different priorities and desires than your "average" sony shooter.
The biggest dig against the SL and SL2 is AF, and for Leica shooters that are happy with the autofocus performance from a Leica M240, M10, Q or Q2 etc, then they'll generally think a SL2 is fine as well. I'm sure Leica uses that more conservative, accurate contrast based system as more in keeping with the slower process of shooting with Leica.
I think doing an SL2 vs A7R mk3 comparison is kind of missing this point, as realistically most Sony shooters (that don't already have an enduring love for Leica glass and shooting experience) won't really value the things that justify the price premium in the Leica. You get a Leica because of the way they feel in your hands, about how they look (I mean let's be real, there's a reason why Leica markets these cameras to the same people that buy luxury watches), and that because they don't have a million different custom settings/functions, they're simpler and easier to shoot if you are used to Leicas. I love my Leicas, but personally I'm more a fan of the rangefinder size, especially when it comes to lenses. One of my favorite aspects of Leica is the rangefinder style of focusing, which is why I don't adapt my M lenses on my A7R mk3. For studio shooting, I'd rather use my A7r or Z7. I suppose another big turn off for me on the L mount has always been the size of the lenses - they're near GFX system size.
GiuseppeL wrote:
To Holger and LBJ2
Now the question is what is the meaning of these numbers. After all they are relative to ISO.
Then I added the S1R, which has a very similar sensor (maybe even the same as the Q2 and the SL2). And the curve is almost identical with the Sony, but different than the SL2.
So what does it mean ? Scientifically I think it means simply that ISO is handled differently in these cameras (SL2 vs S1R). I am not the specialist, so I wonder what a specialist infers from that ....
So sorry, but I think the whole DXO stuff is usually not really helpful for daily use. But I am glad if you can convince me otherwise .......Show more →
I was surprised by the result and am not sure it to be "correct" in the sense, that it refers to the full sensor. The result follows the A7riv-APSC measurement very closely. Therefore, I suspect it to be the measurement for the APSC-area only. I cannot imagine Leica to include a FF sensor with APSC performance in their new camera.
GiuseppeL wrote:
Obviously every camera is limited. And yes of course the electronic shutter in the a9 (II) is currently the fastest.
The problem for me is that first this was a comparison with the a7R iv (e-shutter was not part of the equation) and then suddenly the switch to the a9 ii. So first I misunderstood the "banding" mentioned. (You meant banding because of artificial light effects (wrong frequency) when using e-shutter, and I understood the banding coming from PDAF sensor points in high ISO (a misunderstanding). That's why I said it is not happening in the SL2.
So I call this not banding but "frequency incompatibility". (To keep it apart from PDAF banding)
I do not know how fast the e-shutter in the SL2 is (are there actual measurements anywhere ?). It's slower than the a9 for sure. (but probably shorter than 1/20 s, otherwise I could not get 20 fps)
If you use "hybrid"mode on the SL2 the mechanical shutter is used by default, but not if it is out of range (then e-shutter automatically jumps in). So typically e-shutter is nothing I would use in a disco or church or generally in bad light (There are exceptions if I need to be totally silent.). It is typically/often a feature for very bright environments where an extremely short shutter time is needed that the mechanical shutter cannot provide. (shorter than 1/8000, e.g. f 1.0 in bright daylight at the beach or in the snow). (But not for fast objects etc.)
Of course I agree that at 20 fps there is usually a lot of garbage. But I wanted to stress that with shorter bursts (4-5 pics) there is a lot less garbage and the first few pics are often not too far off. (because the object had no chance to move far away in 0.2 s). Of course this depends on the speed and direction of the object. So the 20 or 10 fps are not simply lost but under certain circumstances it is possible to use them. Just like with old SLRs, only that they never were as fast). (I think of an animal hunting in parallel to the camera. I can find many other things in older films/nature reports. )
I don't know if it was possible to clear the misunderstanding.
And yes, the SL2 is not a replacement for the a9 in sports photography (where 47 MP is unnecessary anyway). It also does not have the "white optics". Although at 7 fps a lot can be photographed in football and other popular sports. (It is definitely more than fast enough for the referees. ;-) So I would certainly not use it at 20 fps but probably at 7 fps (I think 3, 7 or 11 are the possible options). With 47 Mp you can crop quite bit and compensate the missing reach.
...Show more →
I am sure the SL2 is a joy to use and should definitely be a great camera. It is not a camera for me personally, though.
I happen to live close to Wetzlar and visited Leica with my colleagues and students this year. I am all for German companies having success ;-).
However, I think too, that a lot is pushed into the luxury segment - Lenny Kravitz was promoted everywhere including custom designed Leicas for the very rich.
GiuseppeL wrote:
To Holger and LBJ2
Now the question is what is the meaning of these numbers. After all they are relative to ISO.
Then I added the S1R, which has a very similar sensor (maybe even the same as the Q2 and the SL2). And the curve is almost identical with the Sony, but different than the SL2.
So what does it mean ? Scientifically I think it means simply that ISO is handled differently in these cameras (SL2 vs S1R). I am not the specialist, so I wonder what a specialist infers from that ....
So sorry, but I think the whole DXO stuff is usually not really helpful for daily use. But I am glad if you can convince me otherwise .......Show more →
I just message Bill Claff about it. He brought to my attention that his SL2's PDR measurements are almost exactly that of his Q2 measurements so it appears the SL2 doesn't share the same sensor as the S1R. When I saw how the SL2's pixel-shift mode exactly matched the S1R's I assumed Leica was using the same entire sensor+IBIS mechanism as the S1R but with these results it appears Leica used Panasonic's IBIS mechanism and pixel-shift logic but with the Q2's sensor. I was completely wrong about the S1R/SL2 sharing the same sensor - my apologies.
snapsy wrote:
I just message Bill Claff about it. He brought to my attention that his SL2's PDR measurements are almost exactly that of his Q2 measurements so it appears the SL2 doesn't share the same sensor as the S1R. When I saw how the SL2's pixel-shift mode exactly matched the S1R's I assumed Leica was using the same entire sensor+IBIS mechanism as the S1R but with these results it appears Leica used Panasonic's IBIS mechanism and pixel-shift logic but with the Q2's sensor. I was completely wrong about the S1R/SL2 sharing the same sensor - my apologies.
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for msging Bill Claff for clarification. I had the same thoughts when I first saw Q2 results compared to S1R and now SL2. What difference any of this data effects real-world is yet to be seen and probably more specific to certain scenarios/conditions than others.
GiuseppeL wrote:
I do not know how fast the e-shutter in the SL2 is (are there actual measurements anywhere ?). It's slower than the a9 for sure. (but probably shorter than 1/20 s, otherwise I could not get 20 fps)
I just measured the readout speed of my Q2's electronic shutter - it's approx 1/28. If the SL2 does in fact share the same sensor as the Q2 then it should be the same.
I measured the speed by taking a photo of my Dell IPS monitor, which has a 200Hz CCFL backlight. The readout speed of the sensor can be calculated by counting the number of visible bands in the image divided from the known frequency of the light (200Hz in this case). I compared it to my A7rIV for control, which has an approx 1/10 readout speed per Jim Kasson's measurements. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-L5SZP8H/0/1268c4cd/O/i-L5SZP8H.jpg
The A7rIV has 18 bands, so 200/18 = 11, so a readout speed of approx 1/11
The Q2 has 7 bands, so 200/7 = 28, so a readout speed of approx 1/28
Form factor of the SL2, for me, is better. I have big gorilla hands and I can't shoot with gloves on with the a7r iv. I tried last week and had no choice but to take them off. I should probably rent it for a weekend and see what I can do with it shooting my a7r iv side by side. That's really the only way to know what tradeoffs there are between the two systems.
LBJ2 wrote:
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for msging Bill Claff for clarification. I had the same thoughts when I first saw Q2 results compared to S1R and now SL2. What difference any of this data effects real-world is yet to be seen and probably more specific to certain scenarios/conditions than others.
More info on the topic of SL2 vs S1R DR measurement/comparison:
"Frenchtouch wrote:
I am pretty surprised by the performance: Leica insisted on an outstanding dynamic range performance for the SL2.. it turns out it is significantly Lowe than the S1R Panasonic. And pretty underwhelming. Did I miss something?"
[Rishi Sanyal reponded: ]
"The dynamic range between the SL2 and S1R are broadly similar. At base ISO for each camera Bill measures 11.17 vs 11.37 EV for the Leica and the Panasonic, respectively. 0.2 EV difference is hardly photographically relevant. Furthermore, the Panasonic has noise reduction applied to its Raws at lower ISOs (and higher ones), so that will skew the measurements since they're affected by noise reduction.
Furthermore, the camera's ISOs are rated differently, and not because of actual sensor efficiency or full-well capacity differences. This makes it difficult to directly compare without first normalizing the X axis (to 'measured ISO' as DXO would call it).
-------------------------
Rishi Sanyal, Ph.D
Science Editor | Digital Photography Review"
LBJ2 wrote:
More info on the topic of SL2 vs S1R DR measurement/comparison:
"Frenchtouch wrote:
I am pretty surprised by the performance: Leica insisted on an outstanding dynamic range performance for the SL2.. it turns out it is significantly Lowe than the S1R Panasonic. And pretty underwhelming. Did I miss something?"
[Rishi Sanyal reponded: ]
"The dynamic range between the SL2 and S1R are broadly similar. At base ISO for each camera Bill measures 11.17 vs 11.37 EV for the Leica and the Panasonic, respectively. 0.2 EV difference is hardly photographically relevant. Furthermore, the Panasonic has noise reduction applied to its Raws at lower ISOs (and higher ones), so that will skew the measurements since they're affected by noise reduction.
Furthermore, the camera's ISOs are rated differently, and not because of actual sensor efficiency or full-well capacity differences. This makes it difficult to directly compare without first normalizing the X axis (to 'measured ISO' as DXO would call it).
-------------------------
Rishi Sanyal, Ph.D
Science Editor | Digital Photography Review"
That's comparing the Q2/SL2's ISO 50 to the S1R's ISO 100, which is fair in terms of DR comparisons but still indicates the Q2/SL2 sensors might be entirely different designs than the S1R sensor.
snapsy wrote:
That's comparing the Q2/SL2's ISO 50 to the S1R's ISO 100, which is fair in terms of DR comparisons but still indicates the Q2/SL2 sensors might be entirely different designs than the S1R sensor.
Bill Claff has the measured ISO/nominal ISO comparison. If the SL2 and Q2 sensor behave similarly, this could be an indication regarding the ISO rating mentioned by Sanyal above: The difference isn't huge, however.
Holger wrote:
Bill Claff has the measured ISO/nominal ISO comparison. If the SL2 and Q2 sensor behave similarly, this could be an indication regarding the ISO rating mentioned by Sanyal above: The difference isn't huge, however.
The Q2's ISO 100 measures as ISO 87 by Bill, whereas he measures the S1R's ISO at 82, so close enough where it shouldn't make a difference in the DR comparisons at equal nominal ISOs.
I am surprised to see the Bill Claff numbers that SL2 and Q2 are similar, since per dxomark, the difference btw S1R and Q2 is bigger: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/
I have not shot the S1R, but the dxomark results mirrors my Q2 experience compared to Sony sensors... Q2 is closer to A7 II levels per dxo and that matches to what I can get with pushing the images for highlights/shadows, etc. in comparison to A7R III and RX1 M2 in Lightroom (I used to have A7 II)...
LBJ2 wrote:
More info on the topic of SL2 vs S1R DR measurement/comparison:
"Frenchtouch wrote:
I am pretty surprised by the performance: Leica insisted on an outstanding dynamic range performance for the SL2.. it turns out it is significantly Lowe than the S1R Panasonic. And pretty underwhelming. Did I miss something?"
[Rishi Sanyal reponded: ]
"The dynamic range between the SL2 and S1R are broadly similar. At base ISO for each camera Bill measures 11.17 vs 11.37 EV for the Leica and the Panasonic, respectively. 0.2 EV difference is hardly photographically relevant. Furthermore, the Panasonic has noise reduction applied to its Raws at lower ISOs (and higher ones), so that will skew the measurements since they're affected by noise reduction.
Furthermore, the camera's ISOs are rated differently, and not because of actual sensor efficiency or full-well capacity differences. This makes it difficult to directly compare without first normalizing the X axis (to 'measured ISO' as DXO would call it).
-------------------------
Rishi Sanyal, Ph.D
Science Editor | Digital Photography Review"
serhan_ wrote:
I am surprised to see the Bill Claff numbers that SL2 and Q2 are similar, since per dxomark, the difference btw S1R and Q2 is bigger: https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/
I have not shot the S1R, but the dxomark results mirrors my Q2 experience compared to Sony sensors... Q2 is closer to A7 II levels per dxo and that matches to what I can get with pushing the images for highlights/shadows, etc. in comparison to A7R III and RX1 M2 in Lightroom (I used to have A7 II)...
The DxOMark numbers track Bill's results pretty closely - at the same ISO the S1R is approx 1EV to 1.3EV better better than the Q2. Bill's results are about the same.
This thread has been an interesting read. The original banding that was discussed was LOCA visible in the Sony lens and not visible in the Leica lens. The discussion of Sony camera being better ( I have an A7R4) is relevant to the sensor. The A7R4 has the best colour that I have seen from a Sony body yet.
The problem with Sony, is that their lenses are inferior to the Leica SL/Canon offerings. AND Price is a function of this, so it is to be expected. Sony needs to up their GM game, the 24mm/1.4 is an example of what is, hopefully, coming in the future. I also really like Sony's Attention to weight.
The SL2's weakness is AF. Better lenses do yield a better image than the comparable Sony, as seen in the images posted at the beginning of the thread. Make no mistake, the SL lenses are exceptionally good, and are probably the best AF mirrorless lenses in the world - with the price to match.
Panasonic's lenses are also very good, comparable to Canon's RF offerings. And you get access to the L mount Alliance, which will grow. If Panasonic brings TOF (Time of flight) AF to their bodies, and Leica gets the same tech, lookout.
Canon RF appears to have better lenses than the equivalent Sony's, but their body is well - behind... The new year will tell if the Canon has seen the error of their "crippling" ways. If they bring an A7R4 equivalent, then the RF system will be very compelling.
The best thing, is that we are spoiled for choice, and any one of these systems are more than adequate if used within their limits.
