$6'000 LEICA SL2 Multishot vs $40'000 PHASE ONE XF IQ4
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- The new Multishot feature in Firmware 2.0 of the Leica SL2 can shoot 187MP RAW files. Here, I compare the Leica SL2 with Multishot enabled with the Phase One XF IQ4 which natively shoots 150MP RAW files on a full size medium format sensor.
The price difference between the two cameras is huge - see yourself how close the Leica SL2 gets to the Phase One XF IQ4 in terms of resolution and capacity for large prints.
Watch in 4K to make the impressive resolution visible.
See also my introductory video on the Leica SL2 Multishot feature:
• LEICA SL2 new 187MP MU...
Music: epidemicsound.com
Daniel M said it: it is beyond my understanding why the shots were made on F/16 and not F/8 for instance. The defractions introduced with the smaller aperture are very much to be considered on this type of comparison! I consider this to be a mistake.
The Leica SL2 image at f/16 is diffraction limited in multi-shot mode.
Greater resolution is achievable at f/4, though at expense of DOF.
Given the diffraction limitation, these aren’t really meaningful comparisons.
That high resolution can be lost with such closed aperture I think. Wouldn't something like f/8 or f/11 be better?
I think it might be diffraction making the 187mp image look softer as the smaller pixels are more susceptible to it.
yes
thought from Phase Ones videos on the xf system that diffraction for their sensor/lenses starts at f 11, and gets worse thereafter, so OPEN apertures are better, also the softness is very likely due to the "averaging" of the exposure during the stacking of the images, and the multiplication of the aperture value, ie as you multiply exposure, the iris value gets bigger (smaller hole), so the D.O.F. gets wider and wider, also the image gets darker, as the lower the light allowed into the sensor.
f16 would be diffraction limiting the IQ4 as well. My 50MP IQ250 is diffraction limited beyond f11, and I have heard it said that the IQ4-150 is limited beyond f8. f16 is certainly a no-no on both systems!
to be honest, the difference between the two is day and night. I never expect there is such huge difference. forget about Leica, Sony, Nikon, Canon... thanks for the review.
F/16 introduces way to much diffraction on Full Frame. That's way the Phase one has more "clarity"
On the other hand the 55 is not really the sharpest SK lens. The 120mm macro could have been a better lens to use to test image resolution.
Yup, even in the diffraction calculator with the 1dx2 20mp FF it gives a min apeture of f10.5 so it f5.6 or maybe f8 would be the best result
I would say 2-3 stops max above the largest aperture. But i'm no expert on this. The best way to know is testing all the values and comparing results
Despite the criticisms in the comments, I loved this video and found your test to be very exciting and very interesting indeed! I don't think there are too many photographers that are in possession of this equipment to do this test, never mind film it and post it on UA-cam for others to see, so can I say, THANK YOU!!!
Thanks Peter, you are making my evening :)
Thanks for the effort here. Can we please do a test with both lenses wide open on both lenses and then at F5.6/F8 SL2/Phase One, respectively (and manually focus both with focus peaking)? Going past F11 on any digital sensor with pixels of these sizes is counterproductive (and the open book is a great test; also the texture on the front screen of the bubble gum machine). Thanks again.
Not sure if the comparisons are strictly equal: I noticed that you have ‘upgraded’ the clarity on the Leica shot in CaptureOne by 20 points, but left the clarity slider at zero on the Phase One shot. They should have been treated equally in Capture One software, in my humble opinion.
Hello Matt, good review as always great content 👍 that said, shooting at f/16 on the Leica APO 35mm lens disfraction sets in however, if shot at f/5.6 the Leica would give the Phase One a proper run for the shootout. Cheers! 🥃
it is not tiny difference sorry. Iq4 is much sharper although it has less megapixel. (27 megapixel more on SL2) PS: I never pay that much money for Phase One! Go with GFX100 !
Thanks for the hard work. Forget about diffraction. These are 2 different tools for different jobs. The phase one is a beast, most at home in a studio environment. The SL is a portable, remote workhorse with incredible capabilities on location. Leica’s pixel shift technology is amazing but twitchy to get to these limits. The phase one gets there natively with no excess fuss or bother. Conversely, give me the Leica for landscape, etc. Still, I love seeing the boundaries and appreciate the effort that went into doing this test. The cost difference is significant. Glass is incredibly expensive for both of these marvelous machines. Me, I want great pics and to heck with pixel count. We’re already at the point where files of this size are choking the best of our computers.
I think you shouldn't have used f16. Leica's new SL APO lens suffers from diffraction more simply because it is sharper. I won't go over f8. Even in normal photo mode you can see f8 is much sharper than 16 and personally I find it the most sharp around f4-5.6.
I am using S1R and not SL2. But it should be mostly the same since Leica pretty much copied Panny's homework on this one...
Whatever anyone says, especially the camera makers 5 x4 CM is not a FULL SIZE medium format sensor. It's still has a crop factor from the MINIMUM medium format size od 6.x 4.5 cm
Brilliant tutorial yet again explaining the differences.
This is a great comparison and impressive performance from the SL2 on multishot. I would say that a 35mm lens at f/16 will be showing some diffraction, which may account for the slight softness of the SL2 multishot image. I appreciate that you kept the same settings for both cameras, however I would think it may be even better at f/8?
thanks for using Native glass directly on an xf body, so you can get the best out of the systems, all with native glass, on the assigned bodies, this will realy show what the Phase One can do!!
Very good video. Obviously the P1 is better out of camera and shoots 150MP without using multi shot so is much more versatile (moving subjects).
However as you point out the Leica SL2 achieves for me the same performance at 100% for static subjects when using multi shot and some post processing.
The only issue I have is that you should have done another test with the Summicron at f/5.6 because no doubt that would have given you more contrast and a better result for the Leica.
Thanks and agree, the Summicron at f/5.6 is a good choice.
how on earth do you have so many crazy expensive cameras?? I've never seen a photographer who could afford all of that!
He is one of the best cat photographers.
@@DrHumorous cat? as in kitty cat??
We all would like to know his secrets
He's rich.
@@chepo1956 hahha thanks, it is not that hard
I think the phase1 looks better. Not sure multiple shots really works. Seems like long exposures on any camera achieves the same goal, as combining multiple shots.
I wonder how the APO-Summicron-90SL asph. would fare against Rodenstock's new 138mm HR Digaron_SW ...
mate the Phase one is killing the test..too much difference
:)
Medium format is many different film and sensor sizes unlike 35mm. That particular Phase one back is a full frame "645" medium format sensor.
Fabulous review. Thanks! I am wondering how the Panasonic S1R to the SL2.
Very nice, gut gemacht, always scholarly, never pedantic. Danke.
Thanks Zoltan.
Thanks for the review. From the examples you share, the Phase is stunning in clarity compared to Leica. Granted when you tweak the Leica file it looks much closer, overall the Phase looks natural...and you don't have the limitation of maximum of 1s exposure with Leica. Nothing against Leica, but the Phase wins in a big way.
Even though I think the phase one will always come out ahead, I think f/16 has too much diffraction on the leica to make it at its best. Still great comparison
Good test 👍🏻 FWIW, according to Photo Pills, f10 on the SL is similar to f16 on the Phase One. Would also liked to have seen the a7r4 in this test.
At f/16 on the Phase One you still have lots of headroom to keep reducing aperture (viz. f/64 club on LF), whereas at f/16 on a full frame camera you're on the verge of diffraction effects being introduced. Maybe a slightly larger apeture on the full frame would have kept it fair. :)
sabamacx No. Phase One has smaller pixel size than Leica SL2 so F16 will be worser for Phase 1 than SL2. You can’t beat medium format IQ
You should have made 4 images. One with a relatively wide open aperture and one with a closed one like you did. For each camera.
I would be very interested to compare Fuji GFX100s with phase one XF IQ4 since the price difference is huge...
Diffraction is very obvious on the Leica images. The likely reason you sometimes get more artifacts when using the multishot feature on your Sony A7r iv is likely that the Sony have more pixels and will therefore be more sensitive to camera shake.
Good reason why I get what I get. Nevertheless hope Sony gets this better with improved firmware
Hello my friend... I was blown away by both of these camera's resolving power... clearly the quality of the lenses are a major factor... Can I ask you to do an insane comparison "just for me"? Multi-shot on a M43 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 and compare to the Leica SL-2... I suppose you could use the Leica Varient 42.5 f/1.2 from Panasonic to the Leica 90mm SL Lens... I would be fascinated... Thank you for your tech reviews...
Nice test! Is there a reason that you used Manual Focus on the Phase One and Autofocus on the Sl2 ?
Cool vid. The multishot is nice but its very niche to static scenes that dont need long exposure either...... The higher res is still useful for moving subjects (waves, people etc...) or long exposures. dont need $40K though. 100mp is fine. GFX100 does the job. a little big though. and they will support 400mp multi-shot :D (Id like to see a comparison of that 400 vs the Hasselblad as they are using different tech for the multishot)
I shall mention I own a SL2 and GFX100 :) (and the X1dii because I can get rid of the sublime HB color)
How is the GFX 100? I had it once in my hands and totally disliked the form factor. But seems that image quality is terrific. How do you get used to the form factor and which one do you use more often, the SL2 or the GFX100?
Danke für den Vergleich! Jedoch sind zwei Punkte zu berücksichtigen, Capture One ist perfekt auf Phase one Raws abgestimmt! Blende 16 bei einem 35mm Kleinbildobjektiv bedingt schon eine Beugungsunschärfe die man in diesem Test auch sieht , 5.6 wäre die Idealblende gewesen... Liebe Grüße Lars
I agree with the comment below, it makes no sense to shoot the Leica at f/16 - the image becomes visibly soft beyond f/11 due to diffraction.
I see a bigger differnence between the cropped pictures as Math says. Sure, the pricetag is amazing but when you want to make photos in the best quality ever possible, you need a phase one with an good digitalback.
For the last quantum of quality of large prints for clients, Phase One is the tool to go for.
To be honest, IQ4 still blows SL2 multishot away without any fuss. Want to know if XT with IQ4 can produce similar result in typical landscape scene.
IQ4 is unbeated, you are right. It is amazing though what you can squeeze out of the Leica SL2. But for best results, the IQ4 is best, on both actually, XF and XT.
Danke, toller Vergleich...
First of All, love your channel..... I noticed you don't have the S3 it would have been a good addition to this comparison any reason why?
Thanks for the test! but shooting f16 on the Sl is a huge mistake if you want to compare resolution of the two cameras since diffraction is real !!
No noticeable diffraction at f/16 in my opinion but in general your comment is fair and right.
@@mathphotographer It would really have been interesting to have done a few variations of the aperture with each lens to test the degree that diffraction plays! What is the optimum aperture of each lens? How much does diffraction does come in with each lens when stopped down to the smallest aperture? Also, if you do the test again, use the longest time for the self-timer, I have heard some experienced photographers say that the camera+tripod takes more than 2 seconds to settle after your hand leaves the shutter button.
Does anyone know if the Leica only offers you a high resolution jpeg after doing the multishot? Its a nice feature, but I would prefer it in raw. The Leica test should have been done at F8. I think people have already said that. I shoot medium format with digital lenses on a Arca Swiss. I have tested the IQ4. It's amazing. If you need all that resolution in single shot, it's the only option. Currently I am shooting on 60mp. However, the Leica makes more sense from a cash flow perspective. I have already heard of a medium format photographer who is shooting on the SL2. 35mm has come along way!
The multishot image out of camera is a DNG means RAW on the Leica SL2.
Very interesting comparison. With my own X1D II, stoping down smaller than f/5.6 introduces a noticeable loss of contrast and detail compared to wider apertures, and f/16 looks terrible compared to something around f/4 with any Hasselblad lens that I have used on that camera. I would enjoy seeing a quick recap of this video with both lenses shot much closer to wide open, where diffraction would have a far lesser effect. I think the results here are almost exclusively about how effectively the software in the cameras and Capture One correct the the large amount of aperture diffraction that you have introduced by shooting at f/16.
Do you have some diffraction concerns at f/16?
Theoretically yes, in practice I did use f/16 from time to time and never saw noticeable issues with diffraction in that lens. But this could also be due to software optimization. In general I think that diffraction as an issue is "over-rated" these days given how far technology went on modern cameras and lenses.
did you consider lens difraction when compare and try the best performance apperture for sharpness?
The test is in a very static and controlled environment. There really is no comparison when shooting landscapes with moving grass, branches, or water. Multi shot could not combine the images into one clear photo where P1 would deliver a single sharp image. My Sony or your Leica can stand up to the P1 only for archive photography of fine art, or architecture details for example. I shoot portraits, sports, and landscapes. I may be wrong but I think for the type of photography I do, there wouldn't be any contest between the two.
aside from the pure sharpness and technical correctness of the shots - the phase ones' images feels nicer, it may be down to the lens or interrnal processing but the colours and the perspective simply feels better in that. Not to do any disservice to leica, the image is still lovely but the phases image just has more character in this case, more saturated and it feels more natural.
Nice observation. I think what you describe as "feels better" is the difference between medium format and full frame sensors. Medium format just almost always looks "more right" ... although not many people really see or notice the difference.
Is it diffraction or micro vibrations affecting the pixel shift ?
how does a 2.5 X turn into 0.64 ? isn't the factor just divide by 2.5??( a simple reverse of the factor?).
Ambiante or flash light ? thanx
Honestly my £600 sigma sd quattro in multi shot gives me a 600mpix image will give it a run for the money even with the 30mm kit
12:15 - I wouldn't say the difference is only " a little bit "
Tonal balance, colour, sharpness, and detail is clearly better on the phase one but not $34,000 better .
Agree. The Phase One is good to have if you can activate clients who pay significantly more for the higher resolution. I have such clients, thats why I love my Phase One :)
@@mathphotographer I have only ever used an early p45 phase one and even that blew me away .. when you have light (flash, daylight) the images are simply beyond anything I have ever seen. You are blessed to have the IQ4 .. best wishes 👌
But of course the pixel shift has very limited applications. Anything totally still on a tripod. The Phase One is still the gold standard.
Yes - Phase One is the unreachable gold standard, in particular due to the XT body and ALPA Swiss bodies with their fantastic shift functionality.
not considering equivalence is wrong given the fact that we have gear costing 50'000. Its about depth of field with the 2 sensors. And in your configuration in the studio it probably matters. It is necessary to have a setup that renders exactly the same DoF. Your test is useless.
Lieca cannot compare the best quality image with PH1 cause sensor size, bit color over spec normal full frame that mean you should get full frame compare full frame sensor.
LS2 should have been at F/8.
Nice & Thanks :)
Leica doesn't sharpen the image in the on-camera image processor. Phase One... DOES.
Nive tezt, but it so obvious that they differ radically in terms of color science, color tonality, dynamic range and even in the tonality of black and white area, which is , I.e the black and white is the greatest thing to do if going to test or judge the value of color science in a camera.
The thing which I dont like about the full frame medium format is the aspect ratio of the sensor.
Don‘t mind this my comment too much, as it will be critical. I have subscribed to your channel and frequently watch your videos. I like them, in a way. What I do not like ist the apparent haste you run through your reviews and often glossing over interesting facts without explaining (example: „just for me“, „this is very sharp“. What does that mean? Etc.) You seem to wanting bringing your point home in desperation. I think the F/16 setting is an example of such a glitch. BTW: if something would need to be adjusted comparing the two sensors, it would be the ISO setting with a relationship of the squareroot of the sensor areas to be compared. But it also could be disregarded, but please then do not mention you should have adjusted the F stop (quote: but this is just for me). Be more careful and: relax in your presentation! All else: keep up the work. Cheers! Hjp
Thanks for the constructive criticism, appreciated and points taken.
mathphotographer ... you made my day! Thank you.
Leica, это панты для любителей. Phase one, это система высшего класса, намного интересней hasselblada. Сравнение в видео, это все равно, что член с карандашом сравнивать.
Leica loses some feathers, PhaseONE soars above the turbulance.
Man I wish I afford an XT & lenses for Western Northern America landscapes & nature/ macro photography. Oh well, I guess a D850 will have to do.
The Nikon D850 is a fantastic camera, I used to shoot with it too. Top resolution, top image quality. Your landscape over there must be fantastic!
@@mathphotographer Thanks for the reply & I imagine they are buy what I see on the net. Been to Yosemite once for a day while traveling for work & a couple here in the Mid Alantic East Coast. Hoping to make it out West for a couple of months next year if possible. Still shooting the D810. Not a bad camera but not that good for a wildlife which I dabble in. Vested in Nikon F lenses.
Phase one 👍💪💪💪
F16 on Full Frame is not a good idea because of diffraction which will reduce iq while it won’t on the mf camera where diffraction kicks in later. So dof aside this is not a good idea.
Thanks for the comment. I doubt (and have not noticed yet) in this particular setup that f/16 yields noticeable diffraction. Up to f/16 the lens always did well. Would not go beyond though.
I Normally like your videos but this one is totally irrelevant.the two cameras are totally different and I have both of them so I can tell you that .there is no comparison .two different cameras altogether .
Thanks for the comment, appreciated. These are indeed two completely different cameras and by construction the Phase One IQ4 is unbeated. What I wanted to show is that the Multishot is indeed a nice feature and gives you some extra you typically do not have. But as said in the video, a native 150MP sensor (and in medium format) is a totally different beast than a full frame sensor with IBIS and algos to boost resolution. So this is a very fair comment from your side. Having said that, most people will not be able to make meaningful use of an IQ4 whereas you seem to have the IQ4 and then clearly know what I am trying to say: if clients do not appreciate that extra quantum of quality and pay for it, an IQ4 is pointless and a Leica SL2 is the more meaningful system.
shd have compares hasselblad xd
100% Gimmick! Subscribers beware! Don’t be fooled into the hype about multi shot. It’s not designed for use outdoors. Still life indoor use only under control;ed lighting conditions. If you attempt to use either outdoors the different colour channels will leave ghosting of any movement in your final image. Unless you’re using them for indoor studio use of still life / macro / product photography don’t waste your money on a function completely useless for outdoor use
Hi John,
You would think so, however not all the photos from outdoors reflect your thoughts. Simple things like people walking or leaves blowing in the breeze are properly resolved. I suspect you are right with faster moving objects. It has to be on a tripod. Some stunning examples are out there if you google.
Graham Bowes Hi Graham. I tested the H6D 400MS for just over 3 months and tried it outdoors in a variety of situations including architecture. Something as subtle as leaves moving distorts the image on the H6D and renders it useless but I can’t blame Hasselblad as it’s designed specifically for shooting in strictly controlled internal environments. For macro / archival or product photography multi shot is an incredible tool but multi shot most definitely isn’t a substitute for shooting outdoors relative to say an IQ4 150 paired with an ALPA :)
John
Schneider optics is far far superior, than leica! Also tones and colors on PhaseOne clearly outperforms this "el-cheapo" Panasonic sensor inside SL2... Very disappointing results for Leica!
I compared them, but in fact they are far away in terms of price. Does the much higher price on Phase One give you a lot more! No, but if you are a professional like me and can sell Phase One Photos for a significantly higher price tag then it is worthwhile to go for Phase One since no other camera offers this kind of resolution and quality.
Phase One looks better.
Ha! 😉
@@mathphotographer Would you disagree?
Piz Out