Not sure if this is from PP, but the bit darker clouds near the center seem more greyish in the bottom photo and a bit darker blue/bit purple in the top photo. More clear to see this color shift on the lower right stones and on the mulch in the garden bed. The M11 tends to be more in the reddish color saturation. Regarding sharpness, not much difference - the garden bed limiter in the lower left seems to be a bit sharper in the bottom photo, but this can be caused by a slight shift in camera position/angle.
Regarding color, I personally prefer the bit more saturated top photo but this is subjective taste. I remember that the M11 supposedly is prone to a more red/purple shift if not corrected in PP.
Yeah, there is a massive color difference noticeable in neutral tones between the M11 and SL3 images - pavers at bottom right and palm trunks, for example. M11 has an undesirable (IMO) magenta tint that I recall seeing in early sample images. At screen resolution I can't really discern much sharpness difference.
retrofocus wrote:
Not sure if this is from PP, but the bit darker clouds near the center seem more greyish in the bottom photo and a bit darker blue/bit purple in the top photo. More clear to see this color shift on the lower right stones and on the mulch in the garden bed. The M11 tends to be more in the reddish color saturation. Regarding sharpness, not much difference - the garden bed limiter in the lower left seems to be a bit sharper in the bottom photo, but this can be caused by a slight shift in camera position/angle.
Regarding color, I personally prefer the bit more saturated top photo but this is subjective taste. I remember that the M11 supposedly is prone to a more red/purple shift if not corrected in PP. ...Show more →
Both shots on tripod that was not moved between switching cameras, but could be a bit different in framing, but to me it was about the same when comparing top right tree.
Regarding color differences, keep in mind C1 has not yet implemented a ProStandard Profile for the SL3. I will keep looking for one and then reprocess.
stgrove wrote:
Both shots on tripod that was not moved between switching cameras, but could be a bit different in framing, but to me it was about the same when comparing top right tree.
Regarding color differences, keep in mind C1 has not yet mplemented a ProStandard Profile for the SL3. I will keep looking for one and then reprocess.
Do you have the unedited sooc / raw / dng comps ... using neutral profile or similar. I'm wondering how much influence the -100 has on the different images. I'd really just like to see how they come out of the cameras, natively ... no edits, no equalizing, etc. ... same exposure, same WB.
That said, the diff's in sharpness aren't screaming at us here, I'm assuming there was some wind though.
RustyBug wrote:
Do you have the unedited sooc / raw / dng comps ... using neutral profile or similar. I'm wondering how much influence the -100 has on the different images. I'd really just like to see how they come out of the cameras, natively ... no edits, no equalizing, etc. ... same exposure, same WB.
That said, the diff's in sharpness aren't screaming at us here, I'm assuming there was some wind though.
I can do that sooc jpegs once back home to accomplish. Yes a slight breeze, but both shot at 1/250, but remembered I forgot to set self timer on both. ISO 100 and f5.6 if I remember correctly. Will check EXIF data to confirm.
Ok, complete redo on tripod with self timer 2 sec on M11 and new 6 sec (Like it better than 12 sec) on SL3. ISO 100 on both and f stop 5.6 on both (EXIF says f16 on M11-maybe stop got moved to f8 but not 16) with SS 125 on both,
I have downloaded the latest C1 with the SL3 ProStandard profile. NO changes made in C1-none whatsoever. M-=M11-top image; Z=SL3. This time morning light.
stgrove wrote:
Ok, complete redo on tripod with self timer 2 sec on M11 and new 6 sec (Like it better than 12 sec) on SL3. ISO 100 on both and f stop 5.6 on both (EXIF says f16 on M11-maybe stop got moved to f8 but not 16) with SS 125 on both,
I have downloaded the latest C1 with the SL3 ProStandard profile. NO changes made in C1-none whatsoever. M-=M11-top image; Z=SL3. This time morning light.
Definitely a bit of color difference with the M11 being warmer.
Abuttolph wrote:
Definitely a bit of color difference with the M11 being warmer.
Agree. So if one wants SL3 files to look like the M11 file increase the saturation and contrast sliders a bit. Conversely, if one wants M11 files to look like the SL3 files then decrease the saturation and contrast sliders a bit.
In this way one can set their own profile based on how you the photographer wants your files to look.
I was wondering if those 2 images would provoke color difference discussions or the intent of the two images to see how well the SL3 handles extremely wide M glass. To me it does a fine job. Comments?
Has anyone conducted a comparison of M lenses that perform well on the SL2 to see if the performance carries over to the SL3? Based on my own tests with the SL2, here are the M-mount lenses that perform similarly to Leica M bodies:
Wolfgang1756 wrote:
And what about on Panasonic Lumix L-Mount bodies, like S1R & S5 II?
Unfortunately, Panasonic bodies have a thick sensor stack like other mirrorless cameras, which does not work well with most wide and normal FL M-mount lenses.
stgrove wrote:
Both shots on tripod that was not moved between switching cameras, but could be a bit different in framing, but to me it was about the same when comparing top right tree.
Regarding color differences, keep in mind C1 has not yet implemented a ProStandard Profile for the SL3. I will keep looking for one and then reprocess.
Oh, don't use ProStandard unless you want to have your colors intentionally skewed toward what the developer of that profile felt looked "more natural" (yellows for example are completely muted). This was from an extended conversation I had with a C1 tech support person who went back and forth between me and the ProStandard developer. Always use the generic version of a camera profile in C1 if you want color similar to what the manufacturer intended.
Wolfgang1756 wrote:
Really? Has anyone actually tested this? I ask, because all lenses are interchangeable in the L-Mount "Alliance"
The L-mount Alliance is about the lens mount being shared. The sensor toppings (microlenses, cover glass thickness, IR/UV filtration, etc.) is not part of that.
Were there any you tested where the M lens performed poorly on the SL2?
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone conducted a comparison of M lenses that perform well on the SL2 to see if the performance carries over to the SL3? Based on my own tests with the SL2, here are the M-mount lenses that perform similarly to Leica M bodies:
Fred Miranda wrote:
Unfortunately, Panasonic bodies have a thick sensor stack like other mirrorless cameras, which does not work well with most wide and normal FL M-mount lenses.
+1. Actually it seems newer Nikon MLCs have become the better choice when adapting M-lenses to mirrorless due to its thinner sensor stack.
