Not SL vs S1 but here's an interesting video comparing SL2 + SL APO 50/2 vs Canon R + RF 50/1.2. Check out the RAW images colors and the skin tone comparisons.
LBJ2 wrote:
Not SL vs S1 but here's an interesting video comparing SL2 + SL APO 50/2 vs Canon R + RF 50/1.2. Check out the RAW images colors and the skin tone comparisons.
I watched this video this morning as well.
I own both the Canon EOS R and the (original) Leica SL. I also own the RF 50mm f1.2 but I don't own the Summicron-SL 50mm (I do own the Summicron-SL 35mm).
In general I mostly prefer the Canon colors, more pleasing to my eyes, the Leica colors are for me personally often too contrasty, too saturated and a bit too murky. All very personal and very subjective IMO.
And in general (and although I am very new to the system) I prefer the Hasselblad colors and files to both of them...
LBJ2 wrote:
Not SL vs S1 but here's an interesting video comparing SL2 + SL APO 50/2 vs Canon R + RF 50/1.2. Check out the RAW images colors and the skin tone comparisons.
I saw this as well. I do wonder though whether this was more a comparison of how Lightroom handles the cameras rather than the cameras themselves. Put the Canon through DPP and things might be different, as would choosing a different profile in Lightroom.
esanchez wrote:
I seen people rave about the Leica SL colors. How close do the Panasonic S1 colors compare to Leica's colors?
SL or SL2? If SL2.....
Reasonably close. The Panasonic S1R and SL2 share a similar colour palette. In Lightroom the S1R files are slightly flatter and less saturated than the SL2 out of camera but getting them close is quite easy. Leica's dedicated profile in LR has really nice skin colours but I find it slightly heavy handed on the contrast. A subtle curve helps open the files up a bit.
I really like the colours out of either camera in most situations.
esanchez wrote:
I'm planning on using all sort of lenses. Manual vintage glass, Sigma L mount, Canon etc. and will shoot RAW most likely.
Either camera will do well for you as long as you don't mind a larger camera body (and the handling benefits that brings). The only real downside of them is the tracking focus usability. The viewfinder fluttering is an awful thing. Other than that they're absolutely spectacular cameras. Adapting manual focus glass is a joy, especially on the Panasonic, although AF with Canon lenses is not fast, generally. Single AF is fast and precise with natives, even in seriously low light. Handling is brilliant on the Panny and the build quality of them is fabulous, especially the Leica. Now we have a native 400mm coming it's starting to look like a pretty comprehensive list of epic glass to play with.
You preferred raw processor will make a small difference. Lightroom gives flatter look than C1 out of the box, which I prefer. I haven't run the SL2 or S1R files through the other software I own yet (DXO and Affinity) to see how they react. I'm perfectly happy with Lightroom for both cameras.
What is viewfinder fluttering? I haven't heard about that.
flash wrote:
Either camera will do well for you as long as you don't mind a larger camera body (and the handling benefits that brings). The only real downside of them is the tracking focus usability. The viewfinder fluttering is an awful thing. Other than that they're absolutely spectacular cameras. Adapting manual focus glass is a joy, especially on the Panasonic, although AF with Canon lenses is not fast, generally. Single AF is fast and precise with natives, even in seriously low light. Handling is brilliant on the Panny and the build quality of them is fabulous, especially the Leica. Now we have a native 400mm coming it's starting to look like a pretty comprehensive list of epic glass to play with.
You preferred raw processor will make a small difference. Lightroom gives flatter look than C1 out of the box, which I prefer. I haven't run the SL2 or S1R files through the other software I own yet (DXO and Affinity) to see how they react. I'm perfectly happy with Lightroom for both cameras.
esanchez wrote:
What is viewfinder fluttering? I haven't heard about that.
The Panasonics and Leicas use contrast detect AF with a system called DFD (defocus depth) for calculating tracking AF. Basically the system moves the focus point back and forth quickly to detect the actual point of focus when tracking a moving subject. You see this in the viewfinder as a *flutter* and loss of sharpness. Mostly it works OK but you'll have no idea until you review the shots.
This does not show in SAF (single shot AF). However the camera defaults to iAF (intelligent AF) which automatically switches between SAF and CAF. You'll need to turn this setting off or you may see either a flutter or softness in the VF. Once you set the camera to SAF the viewfinder is fabulous.
flash wrote:
The Panasonics and Leicas use contrast detect AF with a system called DFD (defocus depth) for calculating tracking AF. Basically the system moves the focus point back and forth quickly to detect the actual point of focus when tracking a moving subject. You see this in the viewfinder as a *flutter* and loss of sharpness. Mostly it works OK but you'll have no idea until you review the shots.
This does not show in SAF (single shot AF). However the camera defaults to iAF (intelligent AF) which automatically switches between SAF and CAF. You'll need to turn this setting off or you may see either a flutter or softness in the VF. Once you set the camera to SAF the viewfinder is fabulous.
I demo'd the Panny S1 last year and was testing the AF (in store) by moving from pointing at a near object, to a distant object. So, while my physical motion was to "swing" the camera from subject A to subject B ... I was NOT trying to track a moving subject, just focusing on a different subject that was in a different direction.
BUT, I was rather put off by what you described as the "flutter" while I watched the DFD do its thing for achieving focus on a static object. Sounds like I was experiencing the iAF kicking it into tracking CAF (iiuc). Are you suggesting that if I had turned off the iAF, the focus on the static objects would have been more "crisp" to lock on, rather than the DFD flutter?
For me, that DFD flutter was the deal breaker than stopped me from looking at the Panny any further. Now that the SL has caught my eye a bit, learning of it using the DFD concerns me a bit (not for tracking, just for repositioning with static focus).
RustyBug wrote:
I demo'd the Panny S1 last year and was testing the AF (in store) by moving from pointing at a near object, to a distant object. So, while my physical motion was to "swing" the camera from subject A to subject B ... I was NOT trying to track a moving subject, just focusing on a different subject that was in a different direction.
BUT, I was rather put off by what you described as the "flutter" while I watched the DFD do its thing for achieving focus on a static object. Sounds like I was experiencing the iAF kicking it into tracking CAF (iiuc). Are you suggesting that if I had turned off the iAF, the focus on the static objects would have been more "crisp" to lock on, rather than the DFD flutter?
For me, that DFD flutter was the deal breaker than stopped me from looking at the Panny any further. Now that the SL has caught my eye a bit, learning of it using the DFD concerns me a bit (not for tracking, just for repositioning with static focus).
Yep. In SAF there is no flutter. The image is crisp and the AF is very quick. And it’s exceptional in low light. CAF is where you see the DFD in action.
flash wrote:
Yep. In SAF there is no flutter. The image is crisp and the AF is very quick. And it’s exceptional in low light. CAF is where you see the DFD in action.
Gordon
Gotcha, thanks ... that gives hope for revisit of the Panny (Leica, et al), then.
Yes, I noticed that sometimes it was quick, other times it was flutterville.
I couldn't understand why the inconsistency, so I was put off. Makes a bit more sense now, that I was inducing it via the iAF (assumed) because of my erratic movement when switching subjects (not to be confused with tracking a subject).
I saw this video and could hardly tell a difference but for some reason he seemed to think that the the images comming out had much better color rendering from the summicron. despite the fact that for me the difference was minute, perhaps the difference could be due in part to the fact that dng is native to adobe?
Cant say i wouldnt love an sl2 and 50 summicron combo though! LBJ2 wrote:
Not SL vs S1 but here's an interesting video comparing SL2 + SL APO 50/2 vs Canon R + RF 50/1.2. Check out the RAW images colors and the skin tone comparisons.
Odinsoffphotography wrote:
I saw this video and could hardly tell a difference but for some reason he seemed to think that the the images comming out had much better color rendering from the summicron. despite the fact that for me the difference was minute, perhaps the difference could be due in part to the fact that dng is native to adobe?
Cant say i wouldnt love an sl2 and 50 summicron combo though!
I saw a notable difference in some of the photo compares presented even viewing on Youtube. Preference for one or the other is in the eye of the beholder IMO.
FWIW Alex ( the guy who made this video) has already moved on from the SL2. I think the R5 is knocking on his door. Ha Ha
At some point I too want to try the SL2 + SL 35 APO 35/2. But I have to be careful. If and when I do, I’m sure I’LL have to get the SL APO 50/2 too 🤩
Thanks, LBJ2. The SL APOs are simply wow. The Canon is really a commercial lens which may (will) influence its design and rendering outcomes. Enthusiasts may be more discerning. The SL Summicron's colour intensity - quite different from mere saturation - is extraordinary. And see the natural look to fabrics on the focal plane. Much more longitudinal separation too.
As we see with Cosina's APOs, backgrounds show more detail retention; you don't obtain depth with loads of blur, you must have visual cues, a vestigial effect inside the bokeh. Faces have more verisimilitude. The range of close tones - like the play of light on the sunhat - is much better. Greater apparent background DOF - the only kind that counts. Many Hispanic women have blue elements to their hair - only one lens shows this lovely effect.
Sooner or later (probably later!) photographers will stop with the Sharpness Grand Prix and start to look at other lens attributes. More front-lit bleeding artefacts on the RF. His front de-focus is a design artefact (a higher focus from APO correction), just as with the back focus effect. A well done video, with a very clear conclusion to the 'winner'.
Seeing the great strides they made over the past 50/1.2, I was wondering how the very good RF Canon would stand up against the best APOs. Here, Leica gets it done with 200g less, smaller filters, less complexity, smaller lens body. I'd like to see it compared against the 50/2 APO-Lanthar and the M 50/2 APO for a wider range of images.
