I have both, I’ve shot both pretty extensively - the SL2 a bit more on professional shoots. Buuut, the part you didn’t cover as much as far as differences go - and i did have my doubts about the 2S - is the color rendering differences with the 2S BSI. It’s simply so much better, and far more accurate, esp w/ challenging WB than the 2. It’s a warmer true-to-life color, deep, rich and accurate, than the ‘skitzy’ 2. The smaller file size helps the buffer and freezing issues, but the latest firmware also helps both. I dont shot much video, but the stills on the 2S are more than enough for me, in fact, in my opinion far better. I choose the 2S most always now for almost everything, and will sell my 2 soon and hope/wait for the future monochrom sensor. That’s what i shoot mostly, and let me end by saying that the 2S paired with my M glass, including old vintage lenses is about the best pudding in the store. It cannot be touched image-wise except possibly - someimes - w/ my m10m. I’m blessed with the best possible choices one could ever want.
@@DanMars27 I use a lot of vintage glass including older Crons like the rigid and the pre-asph Luxs. The AA is one of my favorites. The rendering of the old 50mm rigid and the 35 AA are about as good as it gets with the old “perfect”glass, and the Nocts (all of them) old and new doesn’t get much better. The 75mm Noct is as perfect as it gets. On the SL2S the ibis helps a lot. Still I’ll shoot all of these handheld on a M10m or 246 to work work work on nailing focus. Worth the practice…
For me this is the best comparison I have found (for SL2 vs: SL2-S) It touches all the bases. Completely informative and completely unbiased. Everybody has different needs and thanks to THIS video I now know exactly what I'm going for. The SL2-S (even though it means I will have to give up the white letters) On just the exterior asthenic level alone I would have wanted that.
Great news. So that means you can user faster shutter speeds and narrow apertures with higher ISO and don’t suffer for completely destroyed photos because of the higher noise on the sl2?
I’m a landscape photographer, I already own an SL2 and I just ordered a SL2-S to be used mainly for my astrophotography sessions. The SL2-S costs less than any SL lens so in my opinion it’s a very “convenient” addition to my kit considering its capabilities. In this way I also have a backup body for my travels, working exactly in the same way of my SL2 :)
I love this video! I have been a fan and support of your work for many years, this video reminded me of your older videos that were fun and smart, and very entertaining! Thank you
The question you didn't answer: although the color science is different and neither is right or wrong, good or bad, which one of the two most accurately represents what your eyes saw as they are radically different from each other.
Good question. Neither is quite right because I didn't have white balance correct in the camera. I simply chose a discrete white balance (I can't remember if it was daylight or cloudy) and shot in Raw so I could change it as needed in post.
Thank you for doing a side by side comparison of probably the most difficult scenario, a dawn shoot, banding is what I was expecting but did not see that in either which would have been nothing short of miraculous just 10 years ago and still amazes me, I am trying to decide between the two having finally being able to afford a 'Leica' now that the used market is favourable to amateurs like me who care about image quality. Still very difficult to make a decision!
this was a fantastic comparison. I am just looking at changing over from my Canon to Leica and have been torn between the two systems. I think you have helped seal the deal and i am going to go with the SL2 Thank you for taking the time to put this together
I bought the SL2 last year to use with my 9 M mount RF lenses. I also bought 2 zooms 14-24mm and 24-70mm, a 35, 45 , and 85 f1.4, those were Af capable lenses. Now I am hoping that the Q2 monochrome sensor finds its way into the SL2 type body so I can use all these lenses for B&W photos. Leigh tell your Leica contacts a lot of us M mount users went L mount and use adapters for our M lenses. We would love to buy a versatile monochrome body.
While the intro was a bit long in the tooth, the information provided was quite useful. I’m a former M8 rangefinder shooter with some of the older chrome lenses. Based on your excellent review, I would be more inclined to go with the SL2 that allows more latitude for cropping. The consideration of saving money with anything Leica is somewhat of an oxymoron.
mathphotographer just posted about the new firmware 3 update for the Leica SL2 and he says it now does everything the SL2S does. The original SL still looks a good buy these days too.
Hey Leigh, Quick thought. As a former Panasonic S1 owner (and I know that the sl2 shares much with this body), i found that the original SL has prettier colors and rendering. Have you ever considered looking at the older SL in the context of all the new lenses vis a vis the Sl2?
I'm not sure I understand the question. You're curious about how the SL would do with the new lenses that are out? Or you're interested in a comparison of the SL to the SL2?
What makes you think the SL has prettier colours and rendering to the SL2s? I am curious as I am thinking of upgrading my SL. Have you seen direct comparisons somewhere?
Hey Leigh, after binge watching many comparisons of these two amazing cameras I must appreciate ur effort, style, directness and fairness, this is simply the best comparison of these units (yes I am considering to buy one even though I know SL3 might be released). Like you, I also own a Q2 alongside a Leica M-D. Have you found marked difference between the two sensors i.e. Q2 and SL2? I am leaning towards SL2 but ur experience with Q2 Vs SL2 or keeping them as a combo will help. Thank u in advance! And if I may be greedy to ask more, I see u used 24-90, what would u say about this Vs 24-70, if price is not an issue :) thanks again :))
I still don’t know. Of course knee-jerk 1 was for the SL2. Then all the amazing SL2s reviews. But in analyzing my need, it’s to: 1) adapt my mf Zeiss ZE primes. I currently adapt to Canon R and R5. 2) adapt longer/faster M lenses for street and travel. I’ve got the Visoflex now and focusing those are so much easier than my M10M/R. IF I ever get a SL lens, it might be one: 28-90.
Your video is very timely for me. I have both SL2 and SL2S and I have been wondering which one to bring for taking group pictures in front of some massive structures. While the more favorable noise control of the SL2S is a plus for the low speed Super Elmer, I think the higher pixel of the SL2 should be better for the cropping (I want everybody including those standing on both ends of the row to look good). Do you agree?
I own the SL2-s and I really like it. I also have a Q2 which I am thinking selling to get an SL2 for the extra pixels. This way I can use my lenses. Q2 is nice but the focus length is limited.
Fantastic video, as always! Hobbyist here - after getting back into photography after a long break (late 90's), I went from Fujifilm (xPro2, GFX50r) to a used Leica CL with adapted M (Voightlander) glass and the kit Elmarit 18mm/2.8 and absolutely love it. I'd love to have one of the SL series for landscape and astrophotography, and a used SL may be a good stand-in for me until the SL2/SL2-S come down a bit on the used market. The CL would then be my go-to for street and travel until I can make the jump to an M. Oh, to dream :) Thanks again!!! I love your content!
Thank you for another great video! I currently have the SL2, and love it. I have been debating selling/switching to the SL2-S though for a couple of reasons. I really like street and lower light photography (a lot) as well as shooting indoors without a flash. Likewise, I am a beginner in astrophotography, and would like to use my camera for that purpose as well (landscape with sky), but will likely go with a dedicated astrophotography camera for deep sky. I love the SL2 for people, landscape, and daylight outdoor shooting, so am torn. I like the color science of the SL2 over the SL2-S. Very undecided. I may just need to keep my SL2 and add the SL2-S. Your video helped me to remember what I appreciate about my SL2, so I too think I will wait on the SL2-S.
@@angellondian7628 hey Angel, so I ended up buying the SL2-s and shoot both. The SL2-s is a bit warmer in color than my SL2. Both have great color, just slightly different. I shoot the SL2 for landscape shots primarily, as well as high res portrait shots. I shoot the SL2-s for everything else.
@@wosam regarding making money - both will do the same thing, so no difference. I saw an article by Shotkit, where the top three (in order) most used by working professionals are 1) Nikon, 2) Canon, 3) Sony. Leica wasn't even on the list. Investment - probably close to equivalent (with the exception of some lenses in the Leica M lineup which hold their value well). Photos are no better on either system - it is how they are taken and processed. The distinction is in the color science of the camera, and of course the character and characteristics of the lenses. Essentially, professional level cameras are equivalent - in my opinion. I recently shot with my Nikon D3 (circa 2008) with a vintage manual focus Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2 lens and absolutely love the images! For me where Leica cannot be beat is in the experience. I just love shooting my SL2 camera's, the lenses, using Leca M mount lenses like the 28mm 1.4 and 50mm APO. The system is the most intuitive I have shot, and the color science behind both of my SL2's is what I strongly prefer. There is a distinct Leica "look" that I love. Any of the systems will produce great photo's and it really comes down to personal preference - in my opinion.
@@johnsanchez1619 Thank you so much John. Great information. I have Leica M10 and APO Summicron 50mm. I will sell M10 to buy a professional camera. On the internet I don't see leica and disappointed really. I feel it is better in image quality and I wonder why professional photographers use it! It is like Rolls Royce while Nikon/Canon/Sony like Mercedes/BMW/Audi!
I'm shooting M but are looking to these, and the other L-alliances options mostly because of the IBIS. I will mostly use my M-glass anyway, or so I feel right now. The viewfinder means more to me than the autofocus. The questions have are: Is SL much better for M-glass than Lumix/Sigma? And is M glass on L-mount better than M mount on the Sony, Nikon, Canon alternatives? I basically have what I need, except IBIS. I feel I need to do something before I retire in about a years time, while I can afford some new gear. I also think about my eye sight, which will not improve.
SL2 with M glass is so much fun. Focusing is a snap. Overall size and weight is just a little more. According to many expert sources, SL, SL2, SL2-s are all designed to work very well with M lenses. The other cameras apparently tend to have ever so slightly thicker glass over the sensor, creating a bigger difference in rendering between them and how the M renders the same image.
Thanks for your comments! I am using a apo summicron 50mm f/2 asph 90% of what I do, actually including macro with extension tubes. But I use my M for extreme macro as well twitter.com/sigfridlundberg/status/1320026768066170886?s=19 Otherwise I'm a fairly typical example of someone doing diaristic photography, a flaneur with a camera. I think I'll go for a Lumix S1, a standard zoom (doesn't exist in my conservative collection) and a handfull of adapters. (Then I have budget for a new epson a3 printer as well).
I want to use still my TL lenses, especially the 55-135 which weighs only 540 gr., and want to carry just one Body. The SL2 gives me 20 MP with TL lenses. My other lenses are M-mount lenses. My whole package SL2, 21/3.4, 35/2.0, 90/4.0, 55-135/3.5-4.5 weighs only 2.3 kg! Only the Tele Zoom lens is cropped. All lenses are premium.
Today I rode my bicycle downtown to the local shop and picked up a novoflex m- to l-mount adapter, a lumix s 24-70/2.8 pro lens. One extra battery. Finally I opted for a leica sl2-s. In the end it was the micro-lenses for range-finder compatibility and the DNG in my workflow that settled the issue. It is wonderful to go downtown with a memory card and be able to test all raw files in my software. Initially I hadn't planned to buy such an expensive lens and it is still my idea to mostly stick to my old lenses. Anyway, thanks for these videos. Now, however, it is time to do some shooting rather than furthering my Gear Aquisition Syndrom.
@@GKhanKutar BSI sensor isn’t the end all sensor my man. Besides I have several bodies with a BSI sensor. SL2 has a stellar cmos sensorin its own right. Definitely no complaints from me at all.
@@rumporridge1 Also, the Denoise AI software will clean up a couple of stops of noise so you can use the full SL2 range of ISO. However I have Sony A9 and its a great high ISO camera with much better tracking and AF, and much smaller too. The thing about the SL2 is the colors, user interface and EVF
@@rumporridge1 SL2 sensor is not very good sensor in terms of noise and colors. Too many Leica users are not happy with its color rendering. They much prefer original SL and now SL2-S. 47 megapixel sensor needs BSI.
... thanks for the video! Using the Nikon Z7 for events and others besides a Leica M240 & M8.2 I made the "mistake" to enter the Leica shop in Constance/ at the Lake Constance. Highly recommended bz the way for their cafe, exhibition, location and friendly staff.. Why mistake? I asked and they gave me the Sl2 and Sl2s to use with my card for about 45 minutes. I could shoot outside, on the streets and inside, people and at the shop & gallery. What to say: as I am quite spoiled by the M-files already but not so much content with the Nikon Z files ... I was a bit disappointed by the Nikon files after opening and comparing them with those OOC as well as slightly edited. I couldn't believe it first when I saw them on the camera screen but later on it got confirmed on the computer screen. The Leica SL2 files are already much more "pleasing" and have a quite different outcome as well as micro contrast with the same adjustments (ISO, Time, Aperture 4.0 to 11, Lenses: 24 - 70, 50 2.0/1.8). So do the SL2s files. The same kind of amazement that "hit" me, when I first used the Nikon D700 some 13 years ago. Very strange, very strange. I think I am going to keep my Nikon Fx gear but otherwise - as I also own quite a few M-Lenses - am going to switch. Sorry Nikon Z! And, by the way: the haptics of the Leica are way more pleasant; for me at least.
I'm involved in too many camera systems already. But we do seem to be entering a golden age of mirrorless cameras. I can remember when you had to adapt old glass to Sony because they didn't have enough native lenses. Now we have a plethora of lenses, and a multitude of bodies, and competition is good.
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison Leigh. Like you I have the SL2 and a mix of SL, Sigma and adapted Zeiss and Voigtlander m mount lenses. All work very well on the SL2. Coming from professional Canon bodies I do notice the noise and wish it was less, but the cropability of the 84mb files really makes up for it. Just wish someone would produce an L mount telephoto prime. I had a Sigma 500mm f4 but had to sell it to move over to Leica. It would be a dream on the SL2 for nature photography. Cheers from DownUnder.
That`s a really good review. I`m a happy owner of a Q2 too. Also own a CL and 3 TL lenses, one Leica R and one Leica M.And a couple of Voigtlanders. Can´t make up my mind between these two. I`d love the high ISO of the SL2-S but to use my TL lenses I will need the SL2 47MP. Maybe I will buy a SL lens but can`t afford more than one. What would you do?
Thank-you. This was a helpful comparison! Leigh, what is your take on the best L-mount low light camera to complement my SL2? To your point, astrophotography with the SL2 is a bit of a challenge.
I think the sl2-s and the Panasonic s5 have the same sensors and they're pretty much the best I've seen at low light. Obviously the S5 is vastly less expensive
The only L mount camera I've used for astrophotography is the SL2, but I imagine the SL2-S would be very good. I do plan to do some with our new S5 this summer as well, which I'll certainly share on this channel!
That's a good question. I don't know the answer! They both have benefits and I think my answer would be different on different days. Honestly, I'd take either for most anything and be happy.
Hi Leigh, firstly thanks for operating such an informative (and entertaining!) channel. I always look at it to help with buying decisions. I'm primarily a Nikon shooter (but I do carry a Leica Q2 as a point and shoot) but I'm contemplating buying the SL2-S with the F/2.8 24-70 lens. I'm covering the national strike and other unrest in Medellín, Colombia, so I am considering the SL2-S instead of another Nikon Z6 with a F/2.8 z24-70. (I've been using a Z6 here, and it is certainly a capable camera but in terms of durability, there does not seem to be anything tougher than the SL2-S.) It looks like I'll certainly be sacrificing the speedier phase-detection AF on the Nikon, and covering demonstrations and unrest here is no so different than shooting sports--with the variable of sometimes having to dodge rocks, tear gas canisters, etc. Thanks again! Sincerely, Chris
Enjoyed your information in the video but hated the music. Just seeking my unicorn Leica SL2 - which would be the SL2 with Monochrome and a choice of CMOS or CCD sensor. - Make mine CCD!
I so wanted to see more comparisons between the two from side by side images. Most of the video was spent covering information that is already known. The opportunity here was to see the difference in how the two sensors render the same scene, not just in high ISO situations, but in all different kinds of light. The point of Leica is the "Leica look", so how do these two sensors render that "Leica look'? Sadly, after watching your video, I have very little idea.
If they’re not action based cameras who’d need to use the buffers to their limits? Having said that, being a SL owner I’m quite alarmed at the propensity for the body to collect dings and chips. I supposed that’s a result of an aluminium body.
Thanks for the Review and your time in making this :) I currently own 3 Panasonic S5's with mostly Sigma/Panasonic S Pro Lenses. Contemplating to buy another S5 or the SL2-S but is there much difference between the two?
Thank you! Appreciate the honest review. I had the SL2 and traded it for the SL2-S. It is due to low light performance that made me switch. I also switched because I knew I was getting the Fuji GFX100s - so that is my high megapixel camera. One day, the SL3 will come out and hopefully all the goodness of the SL2 & SL2-S combined will make a super camera.
I didn't like the high ISO performance or highlight clipping of the SL2 so I sold it. Now I am looking at the M10-R - you get high resolution, better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. Of course you give up AF, video, EVF and other aspects of the SL cameras (that's what my Q2 is for...). A SL2 with a new backlit sensor with better high ISO and dynamic range would be amazing.
SL2-S is much better at high ISO. I use the SL2 in adequate light, but I also fully utilize IBIS to hedge my high ISO needs, also I have a few F1.4 lenses for low light and a small flash too. I also use the E-shutter above 1/8000 and ND filters. I still have my Leica M4P and never had such fast lenses or above ASA 1600 film so I guess I got bye fine without the much better specs of the SL2.
Having the SL2 and fairly comfortable with it...the color science shift is troubling. Its not a slight shift, its almost an anomaly.. a defect in the SL2s. Maybe correctable with a firmware update but until then, for me, hard pass.
Wonderful comparison. However...the price you quoted for the SL2 ($5995), is now $6895 at B&H (October, 2021). Even more costly than the medium format Hasselblad X1D-2 with 50 mpix sensor ($5750).
Urrrgh. Half way through video before we hear about any differences between the models. Why are you surprised that the SL2 s only shots five frames a second? It has the same number of pixels to process but it’s a different sensor that is more sophisticated and is more complex to process the images. But. It can shoot an amazing 25s in electronic mode. The biggest noticeable difference is that it’s a backside illuminated sensor. I could get to the end of your review -you might have mentioned it.
Can't you save the SL-2 higher mega pixels in lossless compressed? Also, if your shooting at max iso settings just have a spare Nikon F5. Personally if I were shooting with a Leica I would use Leica glass or I have heard Voitlander glass is very good.
The only thing keeping me from the SL2-S to go along with my Leica Q is that I find that I like the color science in the SL2 a bit more. But i'm wondering if I can easily match in LR. The SL2 just seems to offer more of the classic "Leica look" that I love. Any feedback from SL2-S owners?
Great video! Owning the original Leica SL the build quality of the SL2-s seems a little “plasticky”. Anyway I might buy it next time I upgrade 😬 Does the SL2-s support eye tracking?
Interesting: I never regarded my SL2-S as plasticky in any way, but it does have less uncovered metal than the SL. Both the SL2 and 2S have eye tracking with the latest firmware update. Even before I updated the firmware, the SL2-S seemed to have a supernatural ability to focus on the irises of my models when doing studio portrait work. It's undoubtedly my favourite camera of all time, though I don't do any sports or wildlife with it.
@@Gynra I think I might try the 2S out then. I’ve been using the Canon EOS 1 series for 14 years and I loved how rock solid and reliable they were. My employer thought we (me and the other photographers) should upgrade the Sony a9 II but I hated it. I’m intrigued to use use the mirrorless camera systems why I bought the “Leica SL” with the new 24-70 f2.8 asph. But I must say that autofocus is a pain to use, compared to Canon and Sony. On the other hand my experience is that the Leica SL picture looks amazing on the computer and needs almost no editing. Considering the SL2-S has eye tracking I will test it out asap. Thanks a lot!
Well I would buy the SL2-S at the drop of a hat if it had a compact usable Leica lens but, they are all huge and heavy. There is absolutely no point buying Leica if you are not going to buy at least one general Leica lens and they don't make any I would consider. They are proud to have made the 35mm the same size as their 85mm and I wouldnt buy that either; I would buy the more compact Panasonic f1.8 primes. Zooms are no problem, I dont consider them serious and would use my APS Leica TL zooms which have amazing quality and 10MP is fine for snaps. What we need is the equivalent of the Leica Q AF macro prime and with that available I wouldn't wait. I would love to own one ;-)
Interestingly people seem to see positives in the SL2 because of its lesser resolution Then why do people consider the M10 yesterday’s news, a deleted superseded model and consider the M10R superior? I think the SL2 is nothing more than a marketing strategy
I give you 5 stars for the way you conduct the narrative flow of this video, Besides, your looks, Oh My... Towards the end of your back and forth analysis on the 2 sibling cameras you say (12:30) : "...when would I pick one over the other over my way out of the door? ........ The only time I would truly prefer the SL2-S is when doing astrophotography. I simply prefer the higher pixel count of the SL-2 so that I can crop when I want to". Well, that's pretty confusing, no? In this particular subject, astrophotography, I believe that your viewers should be more acquainted with the matter of pixels counting when choosing a camera with sensors providing higher or less number of pixels. So, please, let me entertain you, current or astrophotography lovers to be, with a number of important issues related to this particular art of photography: First, we must understand that a drive for more resolution means dealing with smaller sized pixels. The higher amount of pixeks (more resolution) on a given sensor means smaller sized pixels, thus the drive for smaller pixels comes from wanting more resolution. But in astrophotography, bigger pixels capture more light. Pixel size is a big consideration when selecting a camera for astrophotography. Smaller pixels have both some inherent advantages and disadvantages over larger pixels, but the truth is that in most things that matter, larger pixels are generally better. However, CMOS-based sensors for astrophotography are becoming increasingly popular. As a result, it’s getting harder and harder to find cameras with larger pixels. Why does this matter? Cameras with larger pixels are generally more sensitive to light and have better signal-to-noise characteristics. This is an important matter-of-fact technical data in astrophotography. When Sony came out with its A7s mirrorless camera that had such tremendous capability for capturing the Milky Way, people would speculate about what it’s sensitivity secret was. It wasn’t a secret: It had big pixels. Nine microns in fact, whereas most DSLRs or point-and-shoot cameras at the time had pixels at least half that size. Twice the pixel size is actually four times the surface area for collecting light. The drive to “more megapixels” is driven by a desire for more resolution. Unfortunately, for astrophotographers, , there is a big difference between a 5-minute exposure at night through miles of atmosphere and a 1⁄2000-second image of a sunlit hummingbird that is four feet away. Unfortunately, the sensor market cares more about hummingbird photography than it does for imaging galaxies far, far away. For longer focal-length telescopes, you really need larger pixels to achieve proper sampling and a good signal-to-noise-ratio per pixel. Small pixels aren't always bad. In fact, there is a place or two in astrophotography to which smaller pixels are very well suited and even preferred. In deep-sky work, a small-aperture, short-focal-length optic is sampled properly with smaller pixels. That fast focal ratio will deliver a great deal of light to those smaller pixels, which mitigates the signal-to-noise benefit that typically comes from larger pixels. (It overcomes some of the inherent signal loss from using a color camera as well.) if you are shooting around f/4, give or take, I wouldn't let the signal-to-noise issues with small pixels bother me; I’d focus only on proper sampling. Smaller pixels in the past also suffered from poor well depth, that is, a low number of the electron storage capacity that's used to count photons. This disadvantage is disappearing as semiconductor technologies improve. The new Sony IMX 455 CMOS sensor, for example, has pixels smaller than 4-microns square but has a full-well capacity of more than 50,000 electrons. Sampling rules also go out the window when it comes to lucky imaging. Small pixels rule here, as the targets are very bright, and the exposures are very short. Pixel scales as low as 1⁄10 of an arcsecond are not uncommon for these targets (the Moon, Sun, or planets). The slow focal ratio, due to the extreme magnification of the target, is less of an issue because of the target is also bright. Over-sampling just makes large “mushy” images with a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Under-sampling, however, will generally not ruin an image. What's more, there are dither and drizzle techniques pioneered by Hubble Space Telescope scientists that can help recover some lost resolution in post-processing when this is the case. So, when shopping for your next great CMOS or CCD camera, don’t just focus on read noise and quantum efficiency. Make sure you take the sensor's pixel size into account as well. So, my dear, given the fact that the two Leica SL2s are just about identical in all aspects, except with regard to the amount of pixels on their sensors, one final question remains: does the $1,100.00 difference cost between the two cameras justify, just on the account of a higher sensor pixel density over the other? My final answer to this is: being an ad-hoc astrophotographer (I take pictures of light brilliant objects out there) just like the vast majority of astrophotographers NOT fully compromised with professionally dedicated scientists, I will, definitely, choose the SL2 as my camera. Most of the times, the larger pixel sized of the SL2-S will not compromise the final output yielded, compared to the SL-2, when doing astrophotography over well lighted astro objects. Furthermore, regarding color science, have a close look at those initial photos on the video comparing the rendering of the two cameras in a shot depicting a shadowed silhouetted cactus and other desert plants against the sky. Noticed the much more natural blued sky from the SL-2? Compare it to the dull grey hue faded blue from the SL2-S. So, YES, I will pay $1,100,00 more for the SL-2 and, if, one day, any of my pictures are found good enough to be shown in a huge display somewhere, their magnificent display will be overwhelmingly applauded in ecstasy despite it, the crowd, not aware of any bit of cameras' pixels peculiarities.
Let me correct the text above: Most of the times, the larger pixel sized of the SL2-S will not compromise the final output yielded, compared to the SL-2,..." This should be read as: " Most of the times the smaller sized pixel sized of the SL-2 will not compromise the final output yielded, compared to the SL-2,S when doing astrophotography over well lighted astro objects.
In other words, if you intend to photograph a larger spectrum of the stellar universe, capturing the farthermost dimly lighted objects, yes, you need the utmost bigger singled sized pixels on a given sensor, just like what the most powerful telescopes do, yes, you need large single sized pixels found in lesser number of pixels on a given sensor.
"ride a painted pony , let the spinning wheel spin" BST, your probably too young to remember that song 🙄 very enjoyable video young lady and another great presentation, your a natural👍
I have both, I’ve shot both pretty extensively - the SL2 a bit more on professional shoots. Buuut, the part you didn’t cover as much as far as differences go - and i did have my doubts about the 2S - is the color rendering differences with the 2S BSI. It’s simply so much better, and far more accurate, esp w/ challenging WB than the 2. It’s a warmer true-to-life color, deep, rich and accurate, than the ‘skitzy’ 2. The smaller file size helps the buffer and freezing issues, but the latest firmware also helps both. I dont shot much video, but the stills on the 2S are more than enough for me, in fact, in my opinion far better. I choose the 2S most always now for almost everything, and will sell my 2 soon and hope/wait for the future monochrom sensor. That’s what i shoot mostly, and let me end by saying that the 2S paired with my M glass, including old vintage lenses is about the best pudding in the store. It cannot be touched image-wise except possibly - someimes - w/ my m10m. I’m blessed with the best possible choices one could ever want.
Though I shoot M most of the time, I am also interested to get a SL2/2S soon for the better EVF. Your feedback is helpful indeed. Thanks a lot.
What M glass have you tried?
@@DanMars27 I use a lot of vintage glass including older Crons like the rigid and the pre-asph Luxs. The AA is one of my favorites. The rendering of the old 50mm rigid and the 35 AA are about as good as it gets with the old “perfect”glass, and the Nocts (all of them) old and new doesn’t get much better. The 75mm Noct is as perfect as it gets. On the SL2S the ibis helps a lot. Still I’ll shoot all of these handheld on a M10m or 246 to work work work on nailing focus. Worth the practice…
Have you tried both with r lenses ?
So the 2s is Warner and rich in color. Thanks. This was the issue I needed help with on deciding between the two.
Lord how I love that you don’t start with “what’s up guys”
LOL totally agree-I cringe every time I hear that as the first thing in a video. 😂
For me this is the best comparison I have found (for SL2 vs: SL2-S) It touches all the bases. Completely informative and completely unbiased. Everybody has different needs and thanks to THIS video I now know exactly what I'm going for. The SL2-S (even though it means I will have to give up the white letters) On just the exterior asthenic level alone I would have wanted that.
Just sold my SL2 last month after 2 years of use and bought an SL2-S and didn’t miss the SL2 at all. The low light capability is superb 😍
Great news. So that means you can user faster shutter speeds and narrow apertures with higher ISO and don’t suffer for completely destroyed photos because of the higher noise on the sl2?
I’m a landscape photographer, I already own an SL2 and I just ordered a SL2-S to be used mainly for my astrophotography sessions. The SL2-S costs less than any SL lens so in my opinion it’s a very “convenient” addition to my kit considering its capabilities. In this way I also have a backup body for my travels, working exactly in the same way of my SL2 :)
I bought the SL2-S because of the 24 megapixels and the file size. I`m so happy with the SL2-S.
THE Best comparison of the two models. It is hard to find a similar video with the details nd quality like this one! Great job!
I love this video! I have been a fan and support of your work for many years, this video reminded me of your older videos that were fun and smart, and very entertaining! Thank you
The question you didn't answer: although the color science is different and neither is right or wrong, good or bad, which one of the two most accurately represents what your eyes saw as they are radically different from each other.
Good question. Neither is quite right because I didn't have white balance correct in the camera. I simply chose a discrete white balance (I can't remember if it was daylight or cloudy) and shot in Raw so I could change it as needed in post.
Thank you for doing a side by side comparison of probably the most difficult scenario, a dawn shoot, banding is what I was expecting but did not see that in either which would have been nothing short of miraculous just 10 years ago and still amazes me, I am trying to decide between the two having finally being able to afford a 'Leica' now that the used market is favourable to amateurs like me who care about image quality. Still very difficult to make a decision!
this was a fantastic comparison. I am just looking at changing over from my Canon to Leica and have been torn between the two systems. I think you have helped seal the deal and i am going to go with the SL2
Thank you for taking the time to put this together
I bought the SL2 last year to use with my 9 M mount RF lenses. I also bought 2 zooms 14-24mm and 24-70mm,
a 35, 45 , and 85 f1.4, those were Af capable lenses.
Now I am hoping that the Q2 monochrome sensor finds its way into the SL2 type body so I can use all these lenses
for B&W photos. Leigh tell your Leica contacts a lot of us M mount users went L mount and use adapters for our M lenses.
We would love to buy a versatile monochrome body.
I love your review, it’s very detailed and practical 🎉thank you
Great presentation. I about to purchase an SL, this little review certainly helps in the decision process.
While the intro was a bit long in the tooth, the information provided was quite useful. I’m a former M8 rangefinder shooter with some of the older chrome lenses. Based on your excellent review, I would be more inclined to go with the SL2 that allows more latitude for cropping. The consideration of saving money with anything Leica is somewhat of an oxymoron.
Great review but please stop moving them around on the concrete…it’s hurting my eyes!
If I had to choose between those cameras and Sony alpha 1. I think it would be a shoot out between the a1 and sl2.
mathphotographer just posted about the new firmware 3 update for the Leica SL2 and he says it now does everything the SL2S does. The original SL still looks a good buy these days too.
Hey Leigh,
Quick thought. As a former Panasonic S1 owner (and I know that the sl2 shares much with this body), i found that the original SL has prettier colors and rendering. Have you ever considered looking at the older SL in the context of all the new lenses vis a vis the Sl2?
I'm not sure I understand the question. You're curious about how the SL would do with the new lenses that are out? Or you're interested in a comparison of the SL to the SL2?
What makes you think the SL has prettier colours and rendering to the SL2s? I am curious as I am thinking of upgrading my SL. Have you seen direct comparisons somewhere?
Handling cameras on concrete surface is really disturbing for me. I guess it’s a nice review but I couldn’t finish it.
Hey Leigh, after binge watching many comparisons of these two amazing cameras I must appreciate ur effort, style, directness and fairness, this is simply the best comparison of these units (yes I am considering to buy one even though I know SL3 might be released). Like you, I also own a Q2 alongside a Leica M-D. Have you found marked difference between the two sensors i.e. Q2 and SL2? I am leaning towards SL2 but ur experience with Q2 Vs SL2 or keeping them as a combo will help. Thank u in advance! And if I may be greedy to ask more, I see u used 24-90, what would u say about this Vs 24-70, if price is not an issue :) thanks again :))
I own a q2. Am looking at the sl2. Curious which lens(es) you pick up the most with your sl2, to compliment your q2
Appreciated. Always thoughtful videos. Me borderline on SL2. I think they will come out soon with an SL3 and a Q3.
I still don’t know. Of course knee-jerk 1 was for the SL2. Then all the amazing SL2s reviews. But in analyzing my need, it’s to:
1) adapt my mf Zeiss ZE primes. I currently adapt to Canon R and R5.
2) adapt longer/faster M lenses for street and travel. I’ve got the Visoflex now and focusing those are so much easier than my M10M/R.
IF I ever get a SL lens, it might be one: 28-90.
Are these camera better than Canon R5 for professional photography and making money ? Thanks 🙏🏼 😊
Sometimes I wonder why I keep watching Leica videos when I know I can’t afford them 😛
Your video is very timely for me. I have both SL2 and SL2S and I have been wondering which one to bring for taking group pictures in front of some massive structures. While the more favorable noise control of the SL2S is a plus for the low speed Super Elmer, I think the higher pixel of the SL2 should be better for the cropping (I want everybody including those standing on both ends of the row to look good). Do you agree?
I own the SL2-s and I really like it. I also have a Q2 which I am thinking selling to get an SL2 for the extra pixels. This way I can use my lenses. Q2 is nice but the focus length is limited.
Fantastic video, as always! Hobbyist here - after getting back into photography after a long break (late 90's), I went from Fujifilm (xPro2, GFX50r) to a used Leica CL with adapted M (Voightlander) glass and the kit Elmarit 18mm/2.8 and absolutely love it. I'd love to have one of the SL series for landscape and astrophotography, and a used SL may be a good stand-in for me until the SL2/SL2-S come down a bit on the used market. The CL would then be my go-to for street and travel until I can make the jump to an M. Oh, to dream :)
Thanks again!!! I love your content!
Thank you for another great video! I currently have the SL2, and love it. I have been debating selling/switching to the SL2-S though for a couple of reasons. I really like street and lower light photography (a lot) as well as shooting indoors without a flash. Likewise, I am a beginner in astrophotography, and would like to use my camera for that purpose as well (landscape with sky), but will likely go with a dedicated astrophotography camera for deep sky. I love the SL2 for people, landscape, and daylight outdoor shooting, so am torn. I like the color science of the SL2 over the SL2-S. Very undecided. I may just need to keep my SL2 and add the SL2-S. Your video helped me to remember what I appreciate about my SL2, so I too think I will wait on the SL2-S.
What’s the color difference between them?
@@angellondian7628 hey Angel, so I ended up buying the SL2-s and shoot both. The SL2-s is a bit warmer in color than my SL2. Both have great color, just slightly different. I shoot the SL2 for landscape shots primarily, as well as high res portrait shots. I shoot the SL2-s for everything else.
@@johnsanchez1619 Is SL2 better than canon in terms of investment and make money? Better photos or same? Thanks 🙏🏼 😊
@@wosam regarding making money - both will do the same thing, so no difference. I saw an article by Shotkit, where the top three (in order) most used by working professionals are 1) Nikon, 2) Canon, 3) Sony. Leica wasn't even on the list. Investment - probably close to equivalent (with the exception of some lenses in the Leica M lineup which hold their value well). Photos are no better on either system - it is how they are taken and processed. The distinction is in the color science of the camera, and of course the character and characteristics of the lenses. Essentially, professional level cameras are equivalent - in my opinion. I recently shot with my Nikon D3 (circa 2008) with a vintage manual focus Noct-Nikkor 58mm 1.2 lens and absolutely love the images! For me where Leica cannot be beat is in the experience. I just love shooting my SL2 camera's, the lenses, using Leca M mount lenses like the 28mm 1.4 and 50mm APO. The system is the most intuitive I have shot, and the color science behind both of my SL2's is what I strongly prefer. There is a distinct Leica "look" that I love. Any of the systems will produce great photo's and it really comes down to personal preference - in my opinion.
@@johnsanchez1619 Thank you so much John. Great information. I have Leica M10 and APO Summicron 50mm. I will sell M10 to buy a professional camera. On the internet I don't see leica and disappointed really. I feel it is better in image quality and I wonder why professional photographers use it! It is like Rolls Royce while Nikon/Canon/Sony like Mercedes/BMW/Audi!
I'm shooting M but are looking to these, and the other L-alliances options mostly because of the IBIS. I will mostly use my M-glass anyway, or so I feel right now. The viewfinder means more to me than the autofocus.
The questions have are: Is SL much better for M-glass than Lumix/Sigma? And is M glass on L-mount better than M mount on the Sony, Nikon, Canon alternatives?
I basically have what I need, except IBIS. I feel I need to do something before I retire in about a years time, while I can afford some new gear. I also think about my eye sight, which will not improve.
SL2 with M glass is so much fun. Focusing is a snap. Overall size and weight is just a little more. According to many expert sources, SL, SL2, SL2-s are all designed to work very well with M lenses. The other cameras apparently tend to have ever so slightly thicker glass over the sensor, creating a bigger difference in rendering between them and how the M renders the same image.
We have several M mount adapters for our different systems and the M mount lenses work well on everything!
Thanks for your comments!
I am using a apo summicron 50mm f/2 asph 90% of what I do, actually including macro with extension tubes. But I use my M for extreme macro as well twitter.com/sigfridlundberg/status/1320026768066170886?s=19
Otherwise I'm a fairly typical example of someone doing diaristic photography, a flaneur with a camera. I think I'll go for a Lumix S1, a standard zoom (doesn't exist in my conservative collection) and a handfull of adapters. (Then I have budget for a new epson a3 printer as well).
I want to use still my TL lenses, especially the 55-135 which weighs only 540 gr., and want to carry just one Body. The SL2 gives me 20 MP with TL lenses. My other lenses are M-mount lenses. My whole package SL2, 21/3.4, 35/2.0, 90/4.0, 55-135/3.5-4.5 weighs only 2.3 kg! Only the Tele Zoom lens is cropped. All lenses are premium.
Today I rode my bicycle downtown to the local shop and picked up a novoflex m- to l-mount adapter, a lumix s 24-70/2.8 pro lens. One extra battery. Finally
I opted for a leica sl2-s. In the end it was the micro-lenses for range-finder compatibility and the DNG in my workflow that settled the issue. It is wonderful to go downtown with a memory card and be able to test all raw files in my software. Initially I hadn't planned to buy such an expensive lens and it is still my idea to mostly stick to my old lenses.
Anyway, thanks for these videos. Now, however, it is time to do some shooting rather than furthering my Gear Aquisition Syndrom.
Thank you for this very helpful comparison ... I am just at the edge of getting me one of those beauties alongside my Leica Q.
Colors looks more natural on sl2. Great vid👍
I got the SL2. 47mp and ibis was all I needed in the Leica world.
SL2 sensor is too noisy. It is not a BSI sensor
@@GKhanKutar BSI sensor isn’t the end all sensor my man. Besides I have several bodies with a BSI sensor. SL2 has a stellar cmos sensorin its own right. Definitely no complaints from me at all.
@@rumporridge1 Also, the Denoise AI software will clean up a couple of stops of noise so you can use
the full SL2 range of ISO. However I have Sony A9 and its a great high ISO camera with much better tracking
and AF, and much smaller too. The thing about the SL2 is the colors, user interface and EVF
@@rumporridge1 SL2 sensor is not very good sensor in terms of noise and colors. Too many Leica users are not happy with its color rendering. They much prefer original SL and now SL2-S. 47 megapixel sensor needs BSI.
@@zenjitsuman definitely agree with all your points on the SL2. Build, UI, and colors got me hooked.
... thanks for the video! Using the Nikon Z7 for events and others besides a Leica M240 & M8.2 I made the "mistake" to enter the Leica shop in Constance/ at the Lake Constance. Highly recommended bz the way for their cafe, exhibition, location and friendly staff.. Why mistake? I asked and they gave me the Sl2 and Sl2s to use with my card for about 45 minutes. I could shoot outside, on the streets and inside, people and at the shop & gallery. What to say: as I am quite spoiled by the M-files already but not so much content with the Nikon Z files ... I was a bit disappointed
by the Nikon files after opening and comparing them with those OOC as well as slightly edited. I couldn't believe it first when I saw them on the camera screen but later on it got confirmed on the computer screen. The Leica SL2 files are already much more "pleasing" and have a quite different outcome as well as micro contrast with the same adjustments (ISO, Time, Aperture 4.0 to 11, Lenses: 24 - 70, 50 2.0/1.8). So do the SL2s files. The same kind of amazement that "hit" me, when I first used the Nikon D700 some 13 years ago. Very strange, very strange. I think I am going to keep my Nikon Fx gear but otherwise - as I also own quite a few M-Lenses - am going to switch. Sorry Nikon Z! And, by the way: the haptics of the Leica are way more pleasant; for me at least.
I'm involved in too many camera systems already. But we do seem to be entering a golden age of mirrorless cameras. I can remember when you had to adapt old glass to Sony because they didn't have enough native lenses. Now we have a plethora of lenses, and a multitude of bodies, and competition is good.
Thanks for the comprehensive comparison Leigh. Like you I have the SL2 and a mix of SL, Sigma and adapted Zeiss and Voigtlander m mount lenses. All work very well on the SL2. Coming from professional Canon bodies I do notice the noise and wish it was less, but the cropability of the 84mb files really makes up for it. Just wish someone would produce an L mount telephoto prime. I had a Sigma 500mm f4 but had to sell it to move over to Leica. It would be a dream on the SL2 for nature photography. Cheers from DownUnder.
Great review and great energy! Congratulations! Ordering a SL2 and since I also love hiking, can you suggest a great pair of Leica lens? Many thanks.
That`s a really good review. I`m a happy owner of a Q2 too. Also own a CL and 3 TL lenses, one Leica R and one Leica M.And a couple of Voigtlanders. Can´t make up my mind between these two. I`d love the high ISO of the SL2-S but to use my TL lenses I will need the SL2 47MP. Maybe I will buy a SL lens but can`t afford more than one. What would you do?
Thank-you. This was a helpful comparison! Leigh, what is your take on the best L-mount low light camera to complement my SL2? To your point, astrophotography with the SL2 is a bit of a challenge.
I think the sl2-s and the Panasonic s5 have the same sensors and they're pretty much the best I've seen at low light. Obviously the S5 is vastly less expensive
The only L mount camera I've used for astrophotography is the SL2, but I imagine the SL2-S would be very good. I do plan to do some with our new S5 this summer as well, which I'll certainly share on this channel!
Which would you buy now, if you did not have SL2 already? Thanks for the beautiful video…
That's a good question. I don't know the answer! They both have benefits and I think my answer would be different on different days. Honestly, I'd take either for most anything and be happy.
Hi Leigh, firstly thanks for operating such an informative (and entertaining!) channel. I always look at it to help with buying decisions. I'm primarily a Nikon shooter (but I do carry a Leica Q2 as a point and shoot) but I'm contemplating buying the SL2-S with the F/2.8 24-70 lens. I'm covering the national strike and other unrest in Medellín, Colombia, so I am considering the SL2-S instead of another Nikon Z6 with a F/2.8 z24-70. (I've been using a Z6 here, and it is certainly a capable camera but in terms of durability, there does not seem to be anything tougher than the SL2-S.) It looks like I'll certainly be sacrificing the speedier phase-detection AF on the Nikon, and covering demonstrations and unrest here is no so different than shooting sports--with the variable of sometimes having to dodge rocks, tear gas canisters, etc. Thanks again! Sincerely, Chris
Enjoyed your information in the video but hated the music. Just seeking my unicorn Leica SL2 - which would be the SL2 with Monochrome and a choice of CMOS or CCD sensor. - Make mine CCD!
I so wanted to see more comparisons between the two from side by side images. Most of the video was spent covering information that is already known. The opportunity here was to see the difference in how the two sensors render the same scene, not just in high ISO situations, but in all different kinds of light. The point of Leica is the "Leica look", so how do these two sensors render that "Leica look'?
Sadly, after watching your video, I have very little idea.
I’m new in this channel and I have to say that you doing great job 👏. Subscribed
TT Artisans offers Lmount lenses
If they’re not action based cameras who’d need to use the buffers to their limits? Having said that, being a SL owner I’m quite alarmed at the propensity for the body to collect dings and chips. I supposed that’s a result of an aluminium body.
Thanks for the Review and your time in making this :)
I currently own 3 Panasonic S5's with mostly Sigma/Panasonic S Pro Lenses.
Contemplating to buy another S5 or the SL2-S but is there much difference between the two?
Yes, the SL/SL2/SL2-S is built like the proverbial "tank"---you could hammer nails with it. Solid. Quality. You get what you pay for, definitely.
@@arthurpeterson5273 Ok sweet and would go well with Think Tank haha
Wish i was on that desert too ...
My SL2 was a Leicaflex...
Thank you! Appreciate the honest review. I had the SL2 and traded it for the SL2-S. It is due to low light performance that made me switch. I also switched because I knew I was getting the Fuji GFX100s - so that is my high megapixel camera. One day, the SL3 will come out and hopefully all the goodness of the SL2 & SL2-S combined will make a super camera.
when do you use the sl2s over the gfx 100? The gfx shoots 5fps too
I didn't like the high ISO performance or highlight clipping of the SL2 so I sold it. Now I am looking at the M10-R - you get high resolution, better dynamic range and better high ISO performance. Of course you give up AF, video, EVF and other aspects of the SL cameras (that's what my Q2 is for...). A SL2 with a new backlit sensor with better high ISO and dynamic range would be amazing.
SL2-S is much better at high ISO. I use the SL2 in adequate light, but I also fully utilize IBIS to hedge my high ISO
needs, also I have a few F1.4 lenses for low light and a small flash too. I also use the E-shutter above 1/8000 and
ND filters. I still have my Leica M4P and never had such fast lenses or above ASA 1600 film so I guess
I got bye fine without the much better specs of the SL2.
Bummer! The M10-R is a great body but I did not find that it had better dynamic range.
Having the SL2 and fairly comfortable with it...the color science shift is troubling. Its not a slight shift, its almost an anomaly.. a defect in the SL2s. Maybe correctable with a firmware update but until then, for me, hard pass.
This is so helpful! Thank you.
Wonderful comparison. However...the price you quoted for the SL2 ($5995), is now $6895 at B&H (October, 2021). Even more costly than the medium format Hasselblad X1D-2 with 50 mpix sensor ($5750).
Urrrgh. Half way through video before we hear about any differences between the models. Why are you surprised that the SL2 s only shots five frames a second? It has the same number of pixels to process but it’s a different sensor that is more sophisticated and is more complex to process the images. But. It can shoot an amazing 25s in electronic mode.
The biggest noticeable difference is that it’s a backside illuminated sensor. I could get to the end of your review -you might have mentioned it.
Can't you save the SL-2 higher mega pixels in lossless compressed? Also, if your shooting at max iso settings just have a spare Nikon F5. Personally if I were shooting with a Leica I would use Leica glass or I have heard Voitlander glass is very good.
No, neither camera has Raw compression options. I have a variety of lenses, including Voigtlander. I like the variety. :)
The only thing keeping me from the SL2-S to go along with my Leica Q is that I find that I like the color science in the SL2 a bit more. But i'm wondering if I can easily match in LR. The SL2 just seems to offer more of the classic "Leica look" that I love. Any feedback from SL2-S owners?
I see it the other way around!
I read a post earlier in this thread much preferring the sl2s and he explained why.
Do i want to purchase the SL2s? *Shrug*
Great video! Owning the original Leica SL the build quality of the SL2-s seems a little “plasticky”. Anyway I might buy it next time I upgrade 😬
Does the SL2-s support eye tracking?
Interesting: I never regarded my SL2-S as plasticky in any way, but it does have less uncovered metal than the SL. Both the SL2 and 2S have eye tracking with the latest firmware update. Even before I updated the firmware, the SL2-S seemed to have a supernatural ability to focus on the irises of my models when doing studio portrait work. It's undoubtedly my favourite camera of all time, though I don't do any sports or wildlife with it.
@@Gynra I think I might try the 2S out then. I’ve been using the Canon EOS 1 series for 14 years and I loved how rock solid and reliable they were.
My employer thought we (me and the other photographers) should upgrade the Sony a9 II but I hated it.
I’m intrigued to use use the mirrorless camera systems why I bought the “Leica SL” with the new 24-70 f2.8 asph.
But I must say that autofocus is a pain to use, compared to Canon and Sony.
On the other hand my experience is that the Leica SL picture looks amazing on the computer and needs almost no editing.
Considering the SL2-S has eye tracking I will test it out asap.
Thanks a lot!
The stuffed horse reminds me of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".
Thank you for the review.
Just a small correction: you are using the term lattitude incorrectly, it has nothing to do with crop.
The horse 🐴!!! Love it
Well I would buy the SL2-S at the drop of a hat if it had a compact usable Leica lens but, they are all huge and heavy. There is absolutely no point buying Leica if you are not going to buy at least one general Leica lens and they don't make any I would consider. They are proud to have made the 35mm the same size as their 85mm and I wouldnt buy that either; I would buy the more compact Panasonic f1.8 primes. Zooms are no problem, I dont consider them serious and would use my APS Leica TL zooms which have amazing quality and 10MP is fine for snaps. What we need is the equivalent of the Leica Q AF macro prime and with that available I wouldn't wait. I would love to own one ;-)
A lot of rock guitar coolness and a lot of scrolling.
For a Lecia buyer isn't a lower price a turnoff? LOL
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Great intro with pony!
Interestingly people seem to see positives in the SL2 because of its lesser resolution
Then why do people consider the M10 yesterday’s news, a deleted superseded model and consider the M10R superior?
I think the SL2 is nothing more than a marketing strategy
I give you 5 stars for the way you conduct the narrative flow of this video, Besides, your looks, Oh My...
Towards the end of your back and forth analysis on the 2 sibling cameras you say (12:30) : "...when would I pick one over the other over my way out of the door? ........ The only time I would truly prefer the SL2-S is when doing astrophotography. I simply prefer the higher pixel count of the SL-2 so that I can crop when I want to".
Well, that's pretty confusing, no?
In this particular subject, astrophotography, I believe that your viewers should be more acquainted with the matter of pixels counting when choosing a camera with sensors providing higher or less number of pixels.
So, please, let me entertain you, current or astrophotography lovers to be, with a number of important issues related to this particular art of photography:
First, we must understand that a drive for more resolution means dealing with smaller sized pixels. The higher amount of pixeks (more resolution) on a given sensor means smaller sized pixels, thus the drive for smaller pixels comes from wanting more resolution. But in astrophotography, bigger pixels capture more light.
Pixel size is a big consideration when selecting a camera for astrophotography. Smaller pixels have both some inherent advantages and disadvantages over larger pixels, but the truth is that in most things that matter, larger pixels are generally better.
However, CMOS-based sensors for astrophotography are becoming increasingly popular. As a result, it’s getting harder and harder to find cameras with larger pixels. Why does this matter?
Cameras with larger pixels are generally more sensitive to light and have better signal-to-noise characteristics. This is an important matter-of-fact technical data in astrophotography.
When Sony came out with its A7s mirrorless camera that had such tremendous capability for capturing the Milky Way, people would speculate about what it’s sensitivity secret was. It wasn’t a secret: It had big pixels. Nine microns in fact, whereas most DSLRs or point-and-shoot cameras at the time had pixels at least half that size.
Twice the pixel size is actually four times the surface area for collecting light. The drive to “more megapixels” is driven by a desire for more resolution. Unfortunately, for astrophotographers, , there is a big difference between a 5-minute exposure at night through miles of atmosphere and a 1⁄2000-second image of a sunlit hummingbird that is four feet away.
Unfortunately, the sensor market cares more about hummingbird photography than it does for imaging galaxies far, far away. For longer focal-length telescopes, you really need larger pixels to achieve proper sampling and a good signal-to-noise-ratio per pixel.
Small pixels aren't always bad. In fact, there is a place or two in astrophotography to which smaller pixels are very well suited and even preferred. In deep-sky work, a small-aperture, short-focal-length optic is sampled properly with smaller pixels. That fast focal ratio will deliver a great deal of light to those smaller pixels, which mitigates the signal-to-noise benefit that typically comes from larger pixels. (It overcomes some of the inherent signal loss from using a color camera as well.)
if you are shooting around f/4, give or take, I wouldn't let the signal-to-noise issues with small pixels bother me; I’d focus only on proper sampling.
Smaller pixels in the past also suffered from poor well depth, that is, a low number of the electron storage capacity that's used to count photons. This disadvantage is disappearing as semiconductor technologies improve. The new Sony IMX 455 CMOS sensor, for example, has pixels smaller than 4-microns square but has a full-well capacity of more than 50,000 electrons.
Sampling rules also go out the window when it comes to lucky imaging. Small pixels rule here, as the targets are very bright, and the exposures are very short. Pixel scales as low as 1⁄10 of an arcsecond are not uncommon for these targets (the Moon, Sun, or planets). The slow focal ratio, due to the extreme magnification of the target, is less of an issue because of the target is also bright.
Over-sampling just makes large “mushy” images with a poor signal-to-noise ratio. Under-sampling, however, will generally not ruin an image. What's more, there are dither and drizzle techniques pioneered by Hubble Space Telescope scientists that can help recover some lost resolution in post-processing when this is the case.
So, when shopping for your next great CMOS or CCD camera, don’t just focus on read noise and quantum efficiency. Make sure you take the sensor's pixel size into account as well.
So, my dear, given the fact that the two Leica SL2s are just about identical in all aspects, except with regard to the amount of pixels on their sensors, one final question remains: does the $1,100.00 difference cost between the two cameras justify, just on the account of a higher sensor pixel density over the other?
My final answer to this is: being an ad-hoc astrophotographer (I take pictures of light brilliant objects out there) just like the vast majority of astrophotographers NOT fully compromised with professionally dedicated scientists, I will, definitely, choose the SL2 as my camera. Most of the times, the larger pixel sized of the SL2-S will not compromise the final output yielded, compared to the SL-2, when doing astrophotography over well lighted astro objects.
Furthermore, regarding color science, have a close look at those initial photos on the video comparing the rendering of the two cameras in a shot depicting a shadowed silhouetted cactus and other desert plants against the sky. Noticed the much more natural blued sky from the SL-2? Compare it to the dull grey hue faded blue from the SL2-S.
So, YES, I will pay $1,100,00 more for the SL-2 and, if, one day, any of my pictures are found good enough to be shown in a huge display somewhere, their magnificent display will be overwhelmingly applauded in ecstasy despite it, the crowd, not aware of any bit of cameras' pixels peculiarities.
Let me correct the text above: Most of the times, the larger pixel sized of the SL2-S will not compromise the final output yielded, compared to the SL-2,..." This should be read as: " Most of the times the smaller sized pixel sized of the SL-2 will not compromise the final output yielded, compared to the SL-2,S when doing astrophotography over well lighted astro objects.
In other words, if you intend to photograph a larger spectrum of the stellar universe, capturing the farthermost dimly lighted objects, yes, you need the utmost bigger singled sized pixels on a given sensor, just like what the most powerful telescopes do, yes, you need large single sized pixels found in lesser number of pixels on a given sensor.
"ride a painted pony , let the spinning wheel spin" BST, your probably too young to remember that song 🙄 very enjoyable video young lady and another great presentation, your a natural👍
Not that $100 is a big deal in the Leica world but the price of the SL2-S is $4995 not $4895.
2king
How much is Leica is paying you for this review
bizarre disingenuous facial expressions. You should work on that
Stick to camera talk and stop staring weirdo.
bizarre disingenuous fecal verbalisms. You should work on that
@@nelsonclub7722 work on my knob
I’d like to see your videos. Care to share?