SL2 or SL2-S for soccer games

[stump4545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any thoughts on which body is better for Sports?

The added pixels of the SL2 might be better when I crop into photo when sport action is past the reach of my 90-280mm.

Is the SL-S better for sports?

Maybe I don't need 47mp.

I don't care about video.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

The main factor is the photographer... There were fantastic sports photographs taken with gear that is now dismissed as unsuitable - like a film M with Visoflex 3. Either camera will do just fine. Now it is up to you.

[stump4545]

Is true for sure but is picking a body from scratch either the SL2 or SL2-S, one might lend itself better for sports then the other. 

[Cattoo]

Which do you value more, the ability to crop or speed?  I'd go with the latter personally.  

[SrMi]

20 minutes ago, Cattoo said:

Which do you value more, the ability to crop or speed?  I'd go with the latter personally.  

In what context is there a speed difference? 

For sport (and wildlife), the continuous mode with AF-C is most relevant. On SL2, it is 6fps; on SL2-S, it is 5fps. SL2's buffer will fill up after 78 raw images, which is quite nice. SL2-S's buffer never fills up  (assuming UHS-II card, I guess).

Interestingly, SL2-S switches to 12-bit DNGs when shooting in "Very High Speed" mode. It would have been nice if we could configure i14/12-bit, as it is likely that above ISO 400, there is no advantage of using 14-bits.

[caissa]

I am interested to know where is documented that it switches to 12 bit ?    Any links or hints ?

Edited January 1, 2021 by caissa

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/30/2020 at 8:47 PM, stump4545 said:

Any thoughts on which body is better for Sports?

The added pixels of the SL2 might be better when I crop into photo when sport action is past the reach of my 90-280mm.

Is the SL-S better for sports?

Maybe I don't need 47mp.

I don't care about video.

You have to be more specific. Sports can mean anything to different people.   For chess or bowling or darts  both systems are certainly quick enough.  Leica has shown some examples with the SL2-S and among them is a picture of team sports. So they seem to suggest that they think this is a case for the SL2-S.   See red dot forum, the report about the SL2-S.

In the title you mention soccer. I know of at least one person who uses a SL2 for shooting at soccer games (Bundesliga). But if he will now switch to the SL2-S I don’t know ....    It also depends on your personal style, if you shoot from the border of the soccer field, close to the players or referees, or from a distance with a tele lens. (On the SL2 maybe in APS-C mode.)

Edited January 1, 2021 by caissa

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, caissa said:

I am interested to know where is documented that it switches to 12 bit ?    Any links or hints ?

Technical data for SL2-S:

https://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-SL/Leica-SL2-S/Downloads

Color depth: DNG: 14 bit, 12 Bit (super high continuous shooting), JPG: 8 bit

[Cattoo]

On 12/31/2020 at 12:20 PM, SrMi said:

In what context is there a speed difference? 

I understand the auto focus is faster with the sl2-s.  That, and with higher iso you can use faster shutter speed, no? I assume it might not matter so much on a sunny day, but it might make the difference between a missed or blurred shot on a cloudy one. 
 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Cattoo

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, caissa said:

You have to be more specific. Sports can mean anything to different people.   For chess or bowling or darts  both systems are certainly quick enough.

I think that people generally take it to mean "your kid's football game" (or soccer, depending where you live).

I've read quite a few interviews with professional sports photographers where they mention that they rarely use AF. That takes years of practice, of course, which most people don't have.

The other thing about sports is that an optical viewfinder is an absolute necessity. You can't make a career out of being 1/10th of a second behind the action. As such, it's silly to ponder about which mirrorless is best for professional sports. It's the one that will pay you the most money to appear in an advert.

[mantoz]

i think sl2 or sl2s are not the best candidates for the sport. image quality and robustness are top notch, but the problem is autofocus and shots per second. I made some tests by photographing with the different possible modes of the menu, a person walking towards me. if the light goes down and the person runs instead of walking, it is practically useless. (in comparison I used a nikon d500 which instead had almost no problems.) so I imagine that in a well-lit football field it can be done, in "critical" situations you cannot hope to chase a subject in action

[BernardC]

9 minutes ago, mantoz said:

(in comparison I used a nikon d500 which instead had almost no problems.)

Exactly. Any DSLR, especially Nikon's top-of-the-range APS-C DSLR, will be much better than a mirrorless camera for sports. AF will be better, of course (with an equivalent lens), but also you can't beat the speed of light when anticipating action.

It's a real art. A top player might reveal their intentions with a minute twitch, something that an experienced photographer can read. That's really really hard to do when looking at a video screen that is a frame or two behind. Your camera is pointing at where the ball used to be, because you haven't seen the clever side pass.

[BernardC]

I should of course mention that a camera like the M or SL are hugely better in other situations, like taking candids in low light. I've covered events where the room lighting was barely brighter than candle light, and come back with sharp, fully exposed images. Those situations were a nightmare with 5D's, even with the same lenses.

[frame-it]

On 1/1/2021 at 2:20 AM, SrMi said:

AF-C is most relevant. On SL2, it is 6fps

and are all those 6 frames in perfect focus ?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, mantoz said:

i think sl2 or sl2s are not the best candidates for the sport. image quality and robustness are top notch, but the problem is autofocus and shots per second. I made some tests by photographing with the different possible modes of the menu, a person walking towards me. if the light goes down and the person runs instead of walking, it is practically useless. (in comparison I used a nikon d500 which instead had almost no problems.) so I imagine that in a well-lit football field it can be done, in "critical" situations you cannot hope to chase a subject in action

Agreed. Great cameras but far behind for AFC and sports photography. I'd get a Canon R5 if sports were my main goal....

Gordon

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

and are all those 6 frames in perfect focus ?

If AF-C is active while shooting continuously, then the focus can follow the moving subject. If the focus is fixed with the first shot in a series, then the continuous mode has limited functionality.

[frame-it]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

If AF-C is active while shooting continuously, then the focus can follow the moving subject. If the focus is fixed with the first shot in a series, then the continuous mode has limited functionality.

good info..thanks

[Tp2000]

On 1/2/2021 at 1:48 PM, BernardC said:

I've read quite a few interviews with professional sports photographers where they mention that they rarely use AF. That takes years of practice, of course, which most people don't have.

 

I'm not sure that I buy that any more. I shot sport for UK national papers in the 00s and there were a few folks then who, in specific conditions, did still use follow focus, but they were also some of the folks who had grown up shooting film at live sporting events and getting that transmitted back. The majority were all using autofocus with good success - and its fair to say having picked up a R5 this week and shot with it, the autofocus 10 years later is just stupidly good now. 

I am forever in awe of those folks who did shoot sport on the Canon F1/Nikon F3 cameras. I learnt sport (mountain bike photography) on a canon A1 and my father drumming into me how to pre-focus and latterly follow focus. But my goodness it is hard. And, I'll add, considerably easier on those cameras (or an M with the rangefinder patch) than with focus peaking on a SL(2) as the split screen/overlay makes it much easier to see the speed at which the subject is coming into focus.

 

On 12/30/2020 at 7:50 PM, jaapv said:

The main factor is the photographer... There were fantastic sports photographs taken with gear that is now dismissed as unsuitable - like a film M with Visoflex 3. Either camera will do just fine. Now it is up to you.

 

I think this is true to a point, but the advantage of manual focus in those situations is that those photographers were entirely in control. They were not attempting to second guess what the camera was doing, which is the problem that I have with the SL2 AF. It either needs to be predictable (ie in x situation, it will do y) so that an experienced photographer can anticipate what the camera will do (as they aren't controlling it) or, it needs to just work. I'm ok with the idea that the occasional frame may not be tack sharp, but the wild variance that you get on the SL2 does irk me. 

 

For balance, I should add, the SL2 is the one camera I've used where I have repeatedly gasped when I look at some of the files that come out of it, so on balance I'm a fan, just for specific uses.

 

However to come back to the original question:

If you are shooting seriously, then see canon/nikon/sony

if you are just shooting your kid's game, then Id lean towards the SL2-S (smaller file size, faster buffer clearance, less susceptibility to motion blur from the higher mpx sensor, better low light and - from early reports - better AF performance)

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[stump4545]

What do you mean by, "motion blur from the higher mpx sensor?

All things being equal, will the SL2 with its 47mp sensor  produce better image quality then the SL2-S or does that only matter when printing big and cropping?

 

 

[Tp2000]

1 hour ago, stump4545 said:

What do you mean by, "motion blur from the higher mpx sensor?

All things being equal, will the SL2 with its 47mp sensor  produce better image quality then the SL2-S or does that only matter when printing big and cropping?

 

 

Probably wrong terminology, but Higher mpx are sensitive to camera shake, as a result of the higher resolution. Canon 5d(s)r were particular susceptible to this. Ibis makes a difference, but if your subject is moving and unless you have a particularly high (more so than 1/focal length) then I’ve found that it’s harder to get moving subjects tack sharp. 
 

Your statement  is correct, although I’d argue for moving subjects then the lower resolution may well get you a better outcome for any given print size (within reason)