Post here if you've ordered an S1Rii

[xaviergut]

This rolling shutter in video I think gets blown out of proportion. For a few it is important, 99% of video it simply isn't. Those pan tests violently panning the camera are rather ridiculous as where would you actually do this?

I totally agree. The rolling shutter is not a problem when recording a wedding, for example. You can make a video without having to record the orchestra's drummer and the curved drumsticks. Really. The reviewers are exaggerating with this story.

It may also affect if you want to record a hitter in a baseball game or someone playing golf, but it doesn't matter if both the bat and the golf club have a bit of a curve, for Christ's sake, what need do people have to create drama...

 

[Oíche]

It may also affect if you want to record a hitter in a baseball game or someone playing golf, but it doesn't matter if both the bat and the golf club have a bit of a curve, for Christ's sake, what need do people have to create drama...

Yeah sports, mine is cycle racing and for some years I hated the bendy wheel spokes era. For this it is important if using ES, I don't know why some cycling photographers were even using ES as for most it wasn't required. Maybe the first mirrorless for sports or something but it ruined the photos IMO. They could have used mech shutter, maybe they didn't know.

It wouldn't be unsurprising for pro sports photographers to not know as you'd be surprised how a proportion of them have no tech knowledge or interest. They just took the photos from sitting on the back of a motorbike for 7 hours a day which is a nighmare!

Famous cycling photographer Graham Watson never took RAWs ever, only jpeg even back in the early years of DSLR. I know similar sport/journalistic photographers nowadays.... Never RAW as they don't have edit time for 5000/day and are not doing artwork prints either... Just good enough for web publishing. All of them on Canon

 

[RBecker]

!

Famous cycling photographer Graham Watson never took RAWs ever, only jpeg even back in the early years of DSLR. I know similar sport/journalistic photographers nowadays.... Never RAW as they don't have edit time for 5000/day and are not doing artwork prints either... Just good enough for web publishing. All of them on Canon

In the past the usage of JPG was not only related to editing, also to the limited transfer rates of phone connection from stadium to the office. And even for full pages in newspapers the JPG is fine, if you take a bit care with your settings. Sports photographers from the analog area where used to expose their film correct! Even today the transfer of hundrets to thousands RAWs would take some time! And then it still needs to be developed somehow. So the output and processing of JPG is still so simple, that there will be no change in the near future…

My wifes smartphone can only save JPG. From a trip to Norway I created a calendar in A2, also containing pictures from my wife. They look great, even in A2. So very often the JPG OOC would be enough, we only don‘t want to hear this…

 

[dirk]

So very often the JPG OOC would be enough, we only don‘t want to hear this…

I agree. Nobody does postprocessing, because you have too mucg time and bired.

It is the same like in the analog times. 95-99% of the photographer made prints externally. Only a few had a darkroom.

With the massive improvements of modern sensors, matrix metering and jpeg engines, the need for postprocessing decreased dramatically. Fuji proved this very well already 10 years ago. Others catched up.

This is why some PP software companies have decreasing sales. There is less need for this.

 

[pdk42]

100% of my photos get post-processed. I never shoot JPEG.

 

[AlanC]

100% of my photos get post-processed. I never shoot JPEG.

Same here. And 100% electronic shutter as well.

 

[Nevyn72]

100% of my photos get post-processed. I never shoot JPEG.

And it shows in your photographs. You don't just capture images—you create art.

Too many so-called "pictures" today are merely snapshots without soul. People cherish their own photos because they're attached to the memories of those moments.
But true photography bakes emotion directly into the frame, allowing even strangers who weren't present to feel something profound when they gaze upon your work.

Your images don't require context or explanation—they speak their own emotional language that resonates with anyone who sees them.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I use the electronic shutter when I need to be quiet. Sometimes that's photographing my kids without disturbing them, other times it's events at school (or even work) where the sound of the shutter might bother people. I understand that on most cameras using ES reduces the dynamic range by a stop or so but I don't understand why.

I'd order an S1R II if I was willing to spend that amount of money on a camera right now - it seems pretty much perfect for me although all the video options would not be needed. A heavier duty, higher resolution S5 without the bulk of the original S1 line.

 

[AlanC]

I understand that on most cameras using ES reduces the dynamic range by a stop or so but I don't understand why.

Older Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras would reduce the bit depth from 12 to 10 when switched to electronic shutter to increase the readout speed, but this would also reduce the dynamic range. With more recent cameras the difference is usually very small: if you take a look at the Photons to Photos dynamic range charts for cameras that have been tested with both standard and electronic shutter (for example the G9ii) then the differences are typically within the margin of error for the tests.

 

[dmvillano]

I pre-ordered yesterday. This will be a backup and video focused camera to my SL3. The S5iiX is currently serving that purpose, but I like the extra resolution and pro-build and features that were announced, so I will make the switch and probably sell my SL2, which is my portrait backup to the SL3.

 

[dirk]

That is interesting. I would have thought that the S1Rii would replace your Leica SL3. Are the additional 16MP of the SL3 important for you or are there other reasons?

 

[dmvillano]

That is interesting. I would have thought that the S1Rii would replace your Leica SL3. Are the additional 16MP of the SL3 important for you or are there other reasons?

I love the user experience, image quality and low light performance of the SL3. It's my main camera and that's not going to change anytime soon. I also have a Q3 that I travel with. along with my SL3 (with the VE 24-90), as my main landscape/street setup. The S1Rii will consolidate the SL2 and S5iiX into a portrait backup that can cover my video requirements and pay for the S1Rii. That just makes the most sense for me, based on my preference.

 

[pdk42]

And it shows in your photographs. You don't just capture images—you create art.

Too many so-called "pictures" today are merely snapshots without soul. People cherish their own photos because they're attached to the memories of those moments.
But true photography bakes emotion directly into the frame, allowing even strangers who weren't present to feel something profound when they gaze upon your work.

Your images don't require context or explanation—they speak their own emotional language that resonates with anyone who sees them.

That's really very kind of you to say ! Even if I don't deserve it.

 

[Nevyn72]

That's really very kind of you to say ! Even if I don't deserve it.

You do... I try to do the same in my videos (and often still failing), but I see it in your Pictures

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I love the user experience, image quality and low light performance of the SL3. It's my main camera and that's not going to change anytime soon. I also have a Q3 that I travel with. along with my SL3 (with the VE 24-90), as my main landscape/street setup. The S1Rii will consolidate the SL2 and S5iiX into a portrait backup that can cover my video requirements and pay for the S1Rii. That just makes the most sense for me, based on my preference.

It will be interesting to hear your thoughts about how the SL3 & S1RII compare.

 

[Travis Butler]

100% of my photos get post-processed. I never shoot JPEG.

I do use the second slot on my S5 to save a JPEG copy, in case I need a quick bit before I can get back to post-process.

But yeah, even if the JPEG engine can do some nice stuff on both the S5 and the fp, I always shoot in RAW and post-process.

 

[dirk]

Interesting. I shoot always Jpeg & RAW, except for sports with 10fps

But in 95% of the cases I use the Jpeg images, because they are good enough. Only if I do not like the Jpeg image, I edit the RAW file. I store all my Jpeg and RAW files also longterm.

But this might also has something to do with the genre of your photography. For me this is street & travel photography plus the usual family pics. Today Jpeg ooc can easily compete with HCB images after his darkroom work

With landscape photos, I would do it differently.

 

[Travis Butler]

Interesting. I shoot always Jpeg & RAW, except for sports with 10fps

But in 95% of the cases I use the Jpeg images, because they are good enough. Only if I do not like the Jpeg image, I edit the RAW file. I store all my Jpeg and RAW files also longterm.

One of my biggest motivations is getting burned/future-proofing.

About 10-15 years ago, I used to shoot JPEG only. Then I'd go back a few years later with more experience and better software under my belt, only to find the JPEG really limited what I could do with them. So it's been RAW primary since then, with JPEG for quick access if helpful.

But this might also has something to do with the genre of your photography. For me this is street & travel photography plus the usual family pics. Today Jpeg ooc can easily compete with HCB images after his darkroom work

With landscape photos, I would do it differently.

Yeah, that's the other part... there's a lot of stuff around here that tends to stress JPEG engines. ^^;;

Like the stuff I posted from yesterday; the JPEG preview put the sky at a deep blue and the dried grass pretty faded; it took some tweaking to get both the sky and grass reasonably close to what I saw.