thanks for your reply. Your comment about the SL3-P being somewhat closer to the M10-R caught my attention, because this is exactly the aspect I am interested in.
I have compared the SL2 and SL3 extensively, including DNG files in Lightroom and Capture One, and my impression is that the SL3 has a different colour signature: stronger reds/magenta, more vivid greens and a less neutral rendering of some natural tones (especially foliage, browns and mixed light situations).
Interestingly, ColorChecker comparisons show much less difference, but real-world scenes reveal it much more clearly.
Could you say whether your impression of the SL3-P is that it is actually closer to the M10-R/SL2 character — for example in reds, greens, skin tones and overall colour balance — or is it more a general feeling of the image rendering?
If you have the chance to compare identical DNG files from the SL3 and SL3-P, especially in natural light, I would be very interested to hear your observations.
I am always confused by people discussing colors in raw files. While raw files differ, they do not have color defined by themselves. The post-processor and the profile you choose matter a lot to how you will see the colors from a raw file, with the characteristics of the data in the raw file being only one part of the equation.
When someone says the reds are better with camera A, I always ask myself: but with which profile and post-processor?
Also, with a new camera, it may take a while until post-processors stabilize how the color data is interpreted.
SrMi wrote:
I am always confused by people discussing colors in raw files. While raw files differ, they do not have color defined by themselves. The post-processor and the profile you choose matter a lot to how you will see the colors from a raw file, with the characteristics of the data in the raw file being only one part of the equation.
When someone says the reds are better with camera A, I always ask myself: but with which profile and post-processor?
Also, with a new camera, it may take a while until post-processors stabilize how the color data is interpreted.
Because for the average person, isn't it a distinction without a difference?
In any case, when I think about the "color character" of a camera, I think about:
Level 1 – how the JPEGs look on the LCD when using the default film sim
Level 2 – how the colors react when manipulated in C1/LRC
Level 2 is highly dependent on C1/LRC, but if I can be blunt, so what? Until the profiles in C1/LRC provide the expected color to the user, the fact that advanced users can bypass this means nothing. I suppose you could make the case that if someone is going to bother with using a "real" camera and edit the RAWs, then they should take ownership of the color profiles in post. But I think that might be asking too much of the average person that edits RAWs. It's like expecting everyone that plays a musical instrument to dive deep into music theory.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Because for the average person, isn't it a distinction without a difference?
<snip>
If person A shares their experience based on the Adobe Color profile, while another uses Adobe Landscape, they will not be able to find common ground when discussing color coming from raw files.
SrMi wrote:
If person A shares their experience based on the Adobe Color profile, while another uses Adobe Landscape, they will not be able to find common ground when discussing color coming from raw files.
That’s not the point I was making but rather that the person uses any and all available profiles to inform their opinions on the color character of a given camera — they just don’t dive into the deep end.
Honestly most of what people think of as a camera’s “color” has to do with white balance. That is most easily adjusted via the in camera menu to shift white balance. We have that on the M11 now, but I don’t think we have it for SL3 variants, which is odd. Leica should have added white balance shift to all cameras at the same time.
highdesertmesa wrote:
That’s not the point I was making but rather that the person uses any and all available profiles to inform their opinions on the color character of a given camera — they just don’t dive into the deep end.
Honestly most of what people think of as a camera’s “color” has to do with white balance. That is most easily adjusted via the in camera menu to shift white balance. We have that on the M11 now, but I don’t think we have it for SL3 variants, which is odd. Leica should have added white balance shift to all cameras at the same time....Show more →
I think the point is that out of camera RAW color should not be a primary determinant for which camera we prefer as it is totally malleable and dependant on so many things besides the camera. All of which can be tuned to be what one likes by applying an on import preset or color profile making it an invisible issue most of the time.
I think SOOC JPEG colors are are more important a criteria for those that don't edit.
1bwana1 wrote:
I think the point is that out of camera RAW color should not be a primary determinant for which camera we prefer as it is totally malleable and dependant on so many things besides the camera. All of which can be tuned to be what one likes by applying an on import preset or color profile making it an invisible issue most of the time.
I think SOOC JPEG colors are are more important a criteria for those that don't edit.
I’m just saying that most people don’t go any further than using the available profiles in C1/LRC. Some of that is on them, some is on the manufacturer relationship and coordination with Adobe and C1.
The assertion that the colour output from a raw file is determined solely by software is, unfortunately, false. Otherwise every camera could look exactly the same by creating a user profile. I tried this once and it was a futile exercise. I could get two cameras ridiculously close under one lighting condition and then they were still off under another. I even went down the rabbit hole of dedicated software and multi-illumination profiles.There are hardware differences that matter like stack thickness, OLPF, micro lenses, the CFA and lens selection. These can be very small but if you’re sensitive enough to colour balance they’re there.
I’m not denying the power of a colour profile but if you compare a M11 to a M11R on their base profiles they do show similarities in colour shift between the cameras and it’s not all software. The M10R does have a CFA bias to cyan in blues that the M11 does not. The M9 is more IR sensitive than the M(240). These in part, are hardware differences. And they show in most software in the same way.
Can I manipulate those things in post so a shot looks like another? Absolutely. Can I make a dual illuminate profile that works to get them so close for a certain lighting condition? Sure. But I defy any of you to have a profile for all cameras that needs nothing more than a white balance click to make them identical in all scenarios. If it were possible, someone would have done it.
thanks for your reply. Your comment about the SL3-P being somewhat closer to the M10-R caught my attention, because this is exactly the aspect I am interested in.
I have compared the SL2 and SL3 extensively, including DNG files in Lightroom and Capture One, and my impression is that the SL3 has a different colour signature: stronger reds/magenta, more vivid greens and a less neutral rendering of some natural tones (especially foliage, browns and mixed light situations).
Interestingly, ColorChecker comparisons show much less difference, but real-world scenes reveal it much more clearly.
Could you say whether your impression of the SL3-P is that it is actually closer to the M10-R/SL2 character — for example in reds, greens, skin tones and overall colour balance — or is it more a general feeling of the image rendering?
If you have the chance to compare identical DNG files from the SL3 and SL3-P, especially in natural light, I would be very interested to hear your observations.
Thanks again for sharing your impressions.
L.A. ...Show more →
This is something I’ve heard, not something I’ve seen or tested myself. So don’t believe it until you see it. I did do all this from my M10R to the M11 and SL3 but I’m unlikely to bother with the SL3-P.
I am unlikely to go down this rabbit hole cause I mostly don’t care. I prefer the M11 profiles but I’m OK with the M10R as well. Neither is as nice as a HNCS workflow with a Hasselblad and I only do that for 1 file in 500. Leica don’t calibrate their sensor individually and I can change software and get as big a difference as there is in hardware. If I were in studio anymore (I’m not) I’d just make a custom profile for that place. But I shoot allover the world so that’s pointless and I select a file out of a hundred for post and printing. I cull in LR and post in DXO or Phocus or something else. On the road I use a near impossible to calibrate MBP with a mini LED screen (blech!!). I used to work in a colour managed workflow. Now I barely bother with any colour management until I’m ready to print, which is about the only place perfect colour starts to matter for me any more. I’ve gotten old and lazy. It’s a bit of a shitshow, my workflow. I’m fine with that.
I’ve moved away from the perfect colour managed workflow because it doen’t matter to me, personally. All I want it a perfect screen to print match, or as good as can be done and I have that. I do my final colour tweaks with a soft proof prior to printing and since I now print travel and landscapes perfectly consistant colour is not important.
Go to a Leica store with a memory card. They’ll let you shoot all the raw files you want on the SL3 and SL3-P. Please don’t trust me on colour now as I’m not doing any imperial testing.
What I find interesting is that we both use the Hasselblad X2D 100C. Even within the Hasselblad system, the X2D 100C and X2D II 100C do not render exactly the same colors🤷♂️😂.
And that is not a bad thing — it simply shows that color rendering is a matter of tuning and interpretation.
That is why I find these endless discussions about “correct” Leica colors a bit strange.
If Leica itself acknowledges differences between the SL2 and SL3 rendering, why does one have to be considered right and the other wrong?
Even with calibrated monitors and technical measurements, there is still a subjective part involved. What one photographer considers neutral, another may perceive as too warm, too cool, too magenta, or simply less pleasing.
In the end, the important question is not whether a camera has the “correct” colors, but whether the rendering works for your own photography.
SrMi wrote:
If person A shares their experience based on the Adobe Color profile, while another uses Adobe Landscape, they will not be able to find common ground when discussing color coming from raw files.
I agree that a meaningful RAW comparison requires the same workflow, including the same converter, profile and settings.
But even when those conditions are identical, differences in rendering between cameras can still be observed. The SL2 and SL3 do not interpret every color in exactly the same way — for example in greens, reds and browns.
The key point is to separate the observation from the interpretation: the difference in rendering can be a fact, while whether someone considers one version more neutral, natural or pleasing remains subjective.
So the discussion is not really about one camera having “correct” colors and the other one being wrong, but about different color interpretations.
As to the colors ... Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome.
None were ever 100% correct, but folks definitely had their passions about their profile of choice.
If you wanted to tweak a print, you could give instructions to the lab on what you wanted different from what the film stock profile yielded.
Today, the sensor and profiles are our film stock. We are the lab.
It's what we dreamed about back in the day ... and, now we've got it ... double edged sword that it is.
Got to mess around with the SL3-P today. Neat camera and the AF in limited testing was sticky AF. Those APOs are ludicrously sharp. Good landscape & art reproduction lenses, for sure. Big and heavy though.
I played around the SL3-P today at the Leica store in Düsseldorf, and I was really taken back by how responsive and solid the tacking was. Once it acquired the subject it didn’t let go. Really impressed by it.
jigesh wrote:
Now that SL3-P is out, I wonder if anyone tested whether the SL3-P EVF gets blurry while magnifying during manual focusing an adapted M lens. Thanks!
Which models has this been susceptible to so far ... SL3, SL3-S ... both, SL2, SL2-S, etc. I've only got my SL2-S right now, so wanting to better understand what others are experiencing.
Which models has this been susceptible to so far ... SL3, SL3-S ... both, SL2, SL2-S, etc. I've only got my SL2-S right now, so wanting to better understand what others are experiencing.
From what I understand and read, this issue was first observed in the SL3 and SL3-S models where latest firmware for each has still not addressed this issue. It is "not" observed in SL2 and SL2-s models. As for the new SL3-P, I have only read/heard of a single instance where one individual mentioned that the issue is still observed in the SL3-P. Apparently some indivialds more than others seem to be more sensitive to noticing this phenomenon.
... double edged sword that it is. 
