Canon SL2 Image Quality

The Canon SL2 features a new, higher-resolution 24-megapixel APS-C sensor compared to the older 18-megapixel sensor in the SL1. The increase in resolution is definitely visible, as the SL2 displays better detail than its predecessor here at base ISO, with improved color and contrast as well. The SL1 does a little better in our tricky red-leaf swatch, though, however that's partially because the SL2's higher resolution resolves more of the individual threads which it likely treats as noise and tries to suppress, blurring the subtle leaf pattern more in the process.

Both these cameras use 24-megapixel Bayer-filtered APS-C sensors, so resolving power is closely matched. The X-A3 image is however sharper and crisper, although sharpening halos around high-contrast edges are even more obvious than from the Canon. While noise is quite low from both cameras at base ISO, chroma noise is a bit higher from the SL2, however luma noise is higher from the X-A3, though keep in mind the Fuji's higher base ISO of 200. Colors are generally a bit warmer and brighter from the Fuji.

Here we compare the Canon SL2 to possibly its closest rival, the Nikon D5600. Both cameras have 24-megapixel APS-C sensors but the Canon's sensor has an optical low-pass filter which the Nikon does not, giving the Nikon an edge in per-pixel sharpness. However, much of the Nikon's crispness above is due to different approaches to processing, with the Nikon sharpening more effectively by default, though it does generate slightly more obvious sharpening halos. Noise is a little more visible from the Nikon, and both cameras offer pleasing default color reproduction.

Above we compare the 24-megapixel APS-C SL2 DSLR to the 16-megapixel Micro Four Thirds Olympus E-M10 III mirrorless camera, which both sell for about the same price at time of writing. As you can see, the higher resolution SL2 does resolve a bit more detail, however the E-M10 III image is much crisper, with better contrast and somewhat brighter colors. Sharpening halos are also quite visible from the Olympus, but it uses a tighter radius than the Canon, arguably making them less objectionable. Noise levels are similar, despite the E-M10 III's higher base ISO.

Although we believe the Sony A6000's 24-megapixel APS-C sensor has an optical low-pass filter, it must be a fairly weak one. Again, the big difference here is in processing, as the Sony's default sharpening is more advanced than the Canon's, producing a crisper, more detailed image with almost no sharpening artifacts, though noise appears to be a little higher. We prefer the color from the Canon, though, as it is more accurate with less of a yellow to green shift.

Here at ISO 1600, we can see the SL2 continues to deliver better detail, contrast and color than the SL1. The SL2 displays just slightly higher luminance noise levels, however the noise "grain" is a little more consistent than from the SL1. Both cameras blur our troublesome red-leaf swatch pretty heavily, though.

The Fuji X-A3 comes out ahead here at ISO 1600, producing a cleaner, crisper image with better detail, although interestingly, chroma noise is actually a little higher from the Fuji, and more noise reduction and edge enhancement artifacts are visible.

The Nikon D5600 retains more fine detail in the mosaic crop, with fewer noise reduction artifacts as well. Overall, the D5600 continues to produce a sharper, crisper image, and the noise grain from the Nikon in the shadows is also tighter. The SL2 does a better job with our difficult red-leaf pattern, though.

The E-M10 III produces a cleaner, crisper, brighter image here at ISO 1600, though its more aggressive default noise reduction has introduced some distracting artifacts in the form of small clusters of black pixels in the mosaic crop. Overall, though, we prefer the E-M10 III's image quality here, despite the lower resolution.

The Sony A6000 continues to hold onto more fine detail here at ISO 1600, while producing a sharper image with lower luminance noise, however its anti-noise processing produces a grain pattern that doesn't look quite as natural and film-like as the SL2's, and the SL2 continues to produce better color.

Once again, the SL2 delivers better detail, higher contrast and more pleasing color than its predecessor here at ISO 3200. Luma noise appears a little higher from the SL2 in flat areas, however chroma noise is lower, and the noise "grain" appears more consistent.

The Fuji X-A3 continues to pull away from the SL2 here at ISO 3200, delivering much better fine detail, lower noise levels, higher sharpness (albeit with more noticeable sharpening halos along high-contrast edges) and better contrast (except in our tricky red-leaf swatch where the Canon produces slightly higher contrast). An easy win for the Fuji.

The Nikon continues to deliver much crisper details here at ISO 3200, though sharpening halos and other edge artifacts are more obvious. The images have similar noise levels in flatter areas however the D5600's noise pattern is a bit more fine-grained if not quite as consistent. This time the SL2 blurs our red-leaf fabric more than the D5600, but offers slightly higher contrast. Overall, it's a fairly close race here but we'd give the edge to the Nikon here at ISO 3200.

Similar to what we saw at ISO 1600, the Olympus E-M10 III still manages to deliver a much crisper, cleaner, sharper image here at ISO 3200, and those clusters of black pixels in our mosaic crop are much less obvious. Impressive performance for a Micro Four Thirds camera.

The Sony's noise reduction processing does well to remove more noise than the Canon's, but it appears more aggressive and less natural, and is particularly noticeable in flatter areas such as in the bottle crop. Very fine detail in the mosaic crop looks better from the Sony, though both cameras produce smudging and other noise reduction artifacts. Our infamous fabric swatches prove troublesome for both cameras with NR impacting detail in different ways from each camera. The Sony appears to hold onto more detail in our red-leaf fabric, however much of that apparent detail is heavily distorted and false.