Leica announced SL discounts - precursor to SL3 or end of line?

[stout_trapdoor9]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, jplomley said:

If you down-sample the SL2 to 24 MP, does that not equalize the noise performance between cameras? Just curious, because if that is the case, I would go with the SL2 as the more versatile platform. When not operating at high ISO, you have more latitude in cropping and possibilities for larger prints, or printing at higher resolution when dealing with images containing a lot of high frequency detail (thinking landscapes here).

These are good points - ultimately I think I will go to the Leica shop here in DC and do a loaner test. A pro advised me to go with the SL2 - but that lowlight performance...

[robb]

3 hours ago, stout_trapdoor9 said:

Robb, what is the decision making process that makes you pick up the SL2 vs the SL2-S when you are making images? I ask because the discount now is good enough that I am considering purchasing an SL2 or an SL2-S. My sticking point has been that I like to do citycscapes and urban photography, particularly at night - it is a straight choice between more pixels and better lower light performance. I am not concerned with video although I do "play" with it from time to time. Both give great weather sealing which is why I want one because I like shooting in crap weather.

Sean

Sean, I use the SL2 for my primary camera when shooting architecture, interiors, and infrastructure.  I need the multishot mode for 17,000 pixel wide images requested for trade show booths in particular, so about 3 to 4 images out of about 30-50 on a typical shoot are done this way.  I also use this camera to shoot environmental portraits of people with strobes and when I hear a client will want to print these 3-4 feet.  
 

I select the SL2-S for business conferences indoors where people are attending meetings, classes, or seminars. I’ll use it primarily because of its high iso because I don’t like the SL2 above 1600 really.  SL2-S up to 6400.  I also grab the SL2-S for relaxed city travel images for myself or family that are likely to never be printed.  I don’t ever use multishot mode with this camera because I can grab the other anytime.  I’ll also use the sl2-s for headshots for companies or showing people working at a desk, or collaborating in a space.  Because these images are only used for digital submittals or online use.
 

I used to have a Nikon D3s and a D3x.  Or a canon 1D and 1Ds In that similar situation, it was more about frames per second for sports or moving action.  But todays cameras are all fast enough with the drives so it really comes down to high iso and to not shoot bigger than absolutely necessary…

I would look forward to a SL3 with variable resolution so it would have best features of both the SL2 and SL2-s so you you only need one camera to change a setting based on best situation in front of you.

Based on what you indicated in your post, I’d recommend the SL2-s and then you likely won’t need a tripod often unless you decide to print larger and tap into its 100mp multishot mode.  The high iso on it is really freeing and you can pretty much shoot in any darkness with the summicrons and summilux.  I use mine with a noct and it’s one of my favorite cameras I have ever owned…

Robb

[Advertisement]

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

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, robb said:

Based on what you indicated in your post, I’d recommend the SL2-s and then you likely won’t need a tripod often unless you decide to print larger and tap into its 100mp multishot mode.  The high iso on it is really freeing and you can pretty much shoot in any darkness with the summicrons and summilux.  I use mine with a noct and it’s one of my favorite cameras I have ever owned…

 

Agree with all of that. And to add, the most significant difference between the S and the regular SL is the resolution trade-off for more juice in the shadows at higher ISO. At normal ISOs, say 200-800, both cameras show similar performance in colour rendition. But the S yields more juice (and less noise) in the shadows from ISO 1600-6400, which is about 2-3 stops. By juice, I don't mean more saturation but a visibly more extensive palette of colours that allows for better high-ISO performance. And you cannot substitute that by oversampling when reducing the image size from 47 MP to 24 MP. 

The fact that the S is cheaper is only marketing. Both cameras are equally well designed to Leica's high standard, serving different use cases. Ultimately, the use case should dictate which camera one should buy/use. Rob eloquently described that, and I can only confirm his opinion from many assignments. Telling from your description, I'd recommend the S.

--

We don't know when the SL3 will be available. But it will be associated in one way or another with Panasonic's new S series model. There's no rumour that either camera is to be released shortly. Moreover, the SL3 will be very likely the replacement of the SL2 and not the SL2-S. That means that the resolution-optimised sibling of the SL line will be released first. Because there's no free lunch, the next iteration with, say, 60+ MP won't perform significantly better in high ISO than the SL2. Even if one has the means, the upcoming SL3 won't be a replacement for the SL2-S. For that, we have to wait another year or so. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by hansvons

[stout_trapdoor9]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:11 PM, robb said:

Sean, I use the SL2 for my primary camera when shooting architecture, interiors, and infrastructure.  I need the multishot mode for 17,000 pixel wide images requested for trade show booths in particular, so about 3 to 4 images out of about 30-50 on a typical shoot are done this way.  I also use this camera to shoot environmental portraits of people with strobes and when I hear a client will want to print these 3-4 feet.  
 

I select the SL2-S for business conferences indoors where people are attending meetings, classes, or seminars. I’ll use it primarily because of its high iso because I don’t like the SL2 above 1600 really.  SL2-S up to 6400.  I also grab the SL2-S for relaxed city travel images for myself or family that are likely to never be printed.  I don’t ever use multishot mode with this camera because I can grab the other anytime.  I’ll also use the sl2-s for headshots for companies or showing people working at a desk, or collaborating in a space.  Because these images are only used for digital submittals or online use.
 

I used to have a Nikon D3s and a D3x.  Or a canon 1D and 1Ds In that similar situation, it was more about frames per second for sports or moving action.  But todays cameras are all fast enough with the drives so it really comes down to high iso and to not shoot bigger than absolutely necessary…

I would look forward to a SL3 with variable resolution so it would have best features of both the SL2 and SL2-s so you you only need one camera to change a setting based on best situation in front of you.

Based on what you indicated in your post, I’d recommend the SL2-s and then you likely won’t need a tripod often unless you decide to print larger and tap into its 100mp multishot mode.  The high iso on it is really freeing and you can pretty much shoot in any darkness with the summicrons and summilux.  I use mine with a noct and it’s one of my favorite cameras I have ever owned…

Robb

This is very helpful, thankyou.  I have been trending towards the SL2-S as I rarely take a tripod with me anymore since switching to Leica.  I also like the idea that it's cheaper which will enable me to pick up one of the APO lenses or possible the SL 50 Summilux which will give me a lens that I don't currently have in M format. I like the idea of waiting for the SL3, but at the end of the day I need something to shoot with in the winter months, and as they say, it's better to shoot with the camera have then the camera you wished you had/are waiting for.

Sean

[stout_trapdoor9]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:22 PM, hansvons said:

Agree with all of that. And to add, the most significant difference between the S and the regular SL is the resolution trade-off for more juice in the shadows at higher ISO. At normal ISOs, say 200-800, both cameras show similar performance in colour rendition. But the S yields more juice (and less noise) in the shadows from ISO 1600-6400, which is about 2-3 stops. By juice, I don't mean more saturation but a visibly more extensive palette of colours that allows for better high-ISO performance. And you cannot substitute that by oversampling when reducing the image size from 47 MP to 24 MP. 

The fact that the S is cheaper is only marketing. Both cameras are equally well designed to Leica's high standard, serving different use cases. Ultimately, the use case should dictate which camera one should buy/use. Rob eloquently described that, and I can only confirm his opinion from many assignments. Telling from your description, I'd recommend the S.

--

We don't know when the SL3 will be available. But it will be associated in one way or another with Panasonic's new S series model. There's no rumour that either camera is to be released shortly. Moreover, the SL3 will be very likely the replacement of the SL2 and not the SL2-S. That means that the resolution-optimised sibling of the SL line will be released first. Because there's no free lunch, the next iteration with, say, 60+ MP won't perform significantly better in high ISO than the SL2. Even if one has the means, the upcoming SL3 won't be a replacement for the SL2-S. For that, we have to wait another year or so. 

It's good to hear this from someone who has made extensive use.  As I mentioned to Robb, I think I will give the SL2-S a go and pick up a nice lens with it which my budget wouldn't allow with the SL2.  I also thought the oversampling idea was dodgy based on previous reading, but it's not something I've tried so thanks for confirming my thoughts on the subject. I'll hit the Leica store sometime next week!

Sean

[LBJ2]

 

On 11/25/2022 at 1:22 PM, hansvons said:

Agree with all of that. And to add, the most significant difference between the S and the regular SL is the resolution trade-off for more juice in the shadows at higher ISO. At normal ISOs, say 200-800, both cameras show similar performance in colour rendition. But the S yields more juice (and less noise) in the shadows from ISO 1600-6400, which is about 2-3 stops. By juice, I don't mean more saturation but a visibly more extensive palette of colours that allows for better high-ISO performance. And you cannot substitute that by oversampling when reducing the image size from 47 MP to 24 MP. 

The fact that the S is cheaper is only marketing. Both cameras are equally well designed to Leica's high standard, serving different use cases. Ultimately, the use case should dictate which camera one should buy/use. Rob eloquently described that, and I can only confirm his opinion from many assignments. Telling from your description, I'd recommend the S.

--

We don't know when the SL3 will be available. But it will be associated in one way or another with Panasonic's new S series model. There's no rumour that either camera is to be released shortly. Moreover, the SL3 will be very likely the replacement of the SL2 and not the SL2-S. That means that the resolution-optimised sibling of the SL line will be released first. Because there's no free lunch, the next iteration with, say, 60+ MP won't perform significantly better in high ISO than the SL2. Even if one has the means, the upcoming SL3 won't be a replacement for the SL2-S. For that, we have to wait another year or so. 

"But the S yields more juice (and less noise) in the shadows from ISO 1600-6400, which is about 2-3 stops. By juice, I don't mean more saturation but a visibly more extensive palette of colours that allows for better high-ISO performance. And you cannot substitute that by oversampling when reducing the image size from 47 MP to 24 MP. "

Would someone that owns both SL2 and SL2-S be willing to post a side by side ( same image, lighting, lens, settings etc.) comparison of this scenario? Or maybe provide DNG samples on something like Google Drive for download? I am not challenging the comment rather, would like to see this for myself between these two particular cameras. I currently own the SL2 but not the SL2-S. 

Edited November 27, 2022 by LBJ2

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

 

"But the S yields more juice (and less noise) in the shadows from ISO 1600-6400, which is about 2-3 stops. By juice, I don't mean more saturation but a visibly more extensive palette of colours that allows for better high-ISO performance. And you cannot substitute that by oversampling when reducing the image size from 47 MP to 24 MP. "

Would someone that owns both SL2 and SL2-S be willing to post a side by side ( same image, lighting, lens, settings etc.) comparison of this scenario? Or maybe provide DNG samples on something like Google Drive for download? I am not challenging the comment rather, would like to see this for myself between these two particular cameras. I currently own the SL2 but not the SL2-S. 

Note that this would be comparing an older generation FSI sensor (SL2) with a newer generation BSI sensor (SL2-S). The SL2-S has an additional advantage in such a comparison.

I had the M11 (BSI), and while I did not do a direct comparison at high ISO, I did compare at base ISO, and I preferred the color from the SL2-S. Shooting the M11 and resizing to 24mp is not a bad solution if you need high resolution and good high ISO. But I would not recommend the SL2 if you need the highest color integrity at ISO 6400 and up.

I believe David and Josh address the SL2-S high ISO versus the SL2 in their video from 2020:

 

Edited November 27, 2022 by hdmesa

[LBJ2]

27 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Note that this would be comparing an older generation FSI sensor (SL2) with a newer generation BSI sensor (SL2-S). The SL2-S has an additional advantage in such a comparison.

I had the M11 (BSI), and while I did not do a direct comparison at high ISO, I did compare at base ISO, and I preferred the color from the SL2-S. Shooting the M11 and resizing to 24mp is not a bad solution if you need high resolution and good high ISO. But I would not recommend the SL2 if you need the highest color integrity at ISO 6400 and up.

I believe David and Josh address the SL2-S high ISO versus the SL2 in their video from 2020:

 

Thank you. Good thing I didn't have to listen through that two-hour video again as these guys were kind enough to post a timeline reference for this topic. Unfortunately no photos to compare SL2/SL2-S. I am particularly interested to see a comparison of the "more extensive palette of colours" comparison between these two cameras at higher ISOs.

No debate, at least from me the SL2-S is a well known and proven high ISO performer and the SL2 is not. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Note that this would be comparing an older generation FSI sensor (SL2) with a newer generation BSI sensor (SL2-S). The SL2-S has an additional advantage in such a comparison.

Don't assume that the 47MP sensor isn't BSI. People on the internet assume that only Sony's sensors use BSI, but Sony didn't invent the technology, and they weren't the first to implement it. I don't know the specifics of the 47MP sensor, but TowerJazz features BSI on their page about still camera sensors. I searched high and low for an answer, but I couldn't find any authoritative source that said that the 47MP sensor wasn't BSI. Does it really matter in the end? It's the performance that counts, and the 47MP sensor was state-of-the-art when it came out.

You are correct that the 24MP sensor is newer, and lower-density. Both of these features provide an advantage in low light.

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

Don't assume that the 47MP sensor isn't BSI. People on the internet assume that only Sony's sensors use BSI, but Sony didn't invent the technology, and they weren't the first to implement it. I don't know the specifics of the 47MP sensor, but TowerJazz features BSI on their page about still camera sensors. I searched high and low for an answer, but I couldn't find any authoritative source that said that the 47MP sensor wasn't BSI. Does it really matter in the end? It's the performance that counts, and the 47MP sensor was state-of-the-art when it came out.

You are correct that the 24MP sensor is newer, and lower-density. Both of these features provide an advantage in low light.

The SL2 sensor is not BSI. 

[wdshuck]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

The SL2 sensor is not BSI. 

Agreed - on the B&H page they specifically describe the SL2S as having a “BSI sensor” but the SL2 does not mention this.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1609644-REG/leica_10880_sl2_s_mirrorless_digital_camera.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1514510-REG/leica_10854_sl2_mirrorless_digital_camera.html

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, wdshuck said:

Agreed - on the B&H page they specifically describe the SL2S as having a “BSI sensor” but the SL2 does not mention this.

That's not very convincing. Sony made "BSI" a core part of their marketing after the S1r and SL2 came out. I don't see why Leica and Panasonic would go back in time to re-word their original promotional material. All we really know is that TowerJazz makes BSI photographic sensors, and that the 47MP sensor used in the SL2 and S1r is made by TowerJazz. I'm not sure if there are any other still-camera sensors that are known to be made by them.

None of the sites that did full tear-downs on the S1r have expressed an opinion on the sensor fabrication process. Nobody can quote a source when they "know" what type of sensor it is.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

That's not very convincing. Sony made "BSI" a core part of their marketing after the S1r and SL2 came out. I don't see why Leica and Panasonic would go back in time to re-word their original promotional material. All we really know is that TowerJazz makes BSI photographic sensors, and that the 47MP sensor used in the SL2 and S1r is made by TowerJazz. I'm not sure if there are any other still-camera sensors that are known to be made by them.

None of the sites that did full tear-downs on the S1r have expressed an opinion on the sensor fabrication process. Nobody can quote a source when they "know" what type of sensor it is.

Bottom line is the SL2 high ISO performance is quite poor compared to known BSI sensors like the M11 and SL2-S.

Edited November 29, 2022 by hdmesa

[BernardC]

59 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

Bottom line is the SL2 high ISO performance is quite poor compared to known BSI sensors like the M11 and SL2-S.

Yes, but it's quite good compared to known BSI sensors from the same generation! It did better than the Z7 and a7r IV in contemporary reviews. The differences were usually within a fraction of an f-stop, and we don't know what methodology was used, but it's inaccurate to state that the S1r and SL2 were un-competitive at launch. Nobody thought so at the time.

As with all chips, the next generation is even better. That's why it's unfair to compare the 2018 SL2 sensor with the 2022 M11. It's not an industry that stands still (except for Arri who got 10 years of market domination out of their ALEV III sensor).

[Photoworks]

The Sony a7R5 just came out and it has not improved a bit in noise to previous version...

It is all relative anyway. I shooy the sl2 at 3200 -6400 ISO often and it is quite good.

Some people add to much processing that makes noise more visible.

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, Photoworks said:

The Sony a7R5 just came out and it has not improved a bit in noise to previous version...

I thought the r5 was just a mild refresh, with the same sensor as the r4?

You are right that these sensor comparisons don't amount to much. They are all very similar, so we end-up comparing 1/10th of a stop or "DR", based on a home-made graph found on the internet.

[hdmesa]

On 11/29/2022 at 11:29 AM, BernardC said:

Yes, but it's quite good compared to known BSI sensors from the same generation! It did better than the Z7 and a7r IV in contemporary reviews. The differences were usually within a fraction of an f-stop, and we don't know what methodology was used, but it's inaccurate to state that the S1r and SL2 were un-competitive at launch. Nobody thought so at the time.

As with all chips, the next generation is even better. That's why it's unfair to compare the 2018 SL2 sensor with the 2022 M11. It's not an industry that stands still (except for Arri who got 10 years of market domination out of their ALEV III sensor).

I don’t know who was saying the SL2 sensor compared well to the Z7, but having messed with Z7 RAWs compared to my Q2 RAWs, the Z7 is in an entirely different class — and rightly so because the SL2/Q2 sensor is not a BSI sensor regardless of how much you seem to want it to be one.

DR (via photostophotos)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  Edited December 1, 2022 by hdmesa

[malko]

No idea if and when the SL3 will drop - but as far as discounts go: Leica Switzerland has a rebate on the M11 as well - openly declared as a 5% exchange rate discount. 

[BernardC]

13 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I don’t know who was saying the SL2 sensor compared well to the Z7, but having messed with Z7 RAWs compared to my Q2 RAWs, the Z7 is in an entirely different class — and rightly so because the SL2/Q2 sensor is not a BSI sensor regardless of how much you seem to want it to be one.

PtP is user-generated data. Everybody who submits numbers is using a different (uncalibrated) process. The idea is that errors will eventually cancel-out, given a high number of submissions. That's not a safe assumption for low-volume cameras. On the other hand, DXO rates the S1r sensor highest among "full-frame" sensors. They at least have the benefit of testing all sensors under the same conditions.

I didn't say that the SL2 sensor was BSI, I only said that The source fab makes BSI sensors for full-frame cameras. Many people assume that "BSI=Sony", but that has never been the case.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Guest]

On 11/25/2022 at 10:22 AM, hansvons said:

Agree with all of that. And to add, the most significant difference between the S and the regular SL is the resolution trade-off for more juice in the shadows at higher ISO. At normal ISOs, say 200-800, both cameras show similar performance in colour rendition. But the S yields more juice (and less noise) in the shadows from ISO 1600-6400, which is about 2-3 stops. By juice, I don't mean more saturation but a visibly more extensive palette of colours that allows for better high-ISO performance. And you cannot substitute that by oversampling when reducing the image size from 47 MP to 24 MP. 

The fact that the S is cheaper is only marketing. Both cameras are equally well designed to Leica's high standard, serving different use cases. Ultimately, the use case should dictate which camera one should buy/use. Rob eloquently described that, and I can only confirm his opinion from many assignments. Telling from your description, I'd recommend the S.

--

We don't know when the SL3 will be available. But it will be associated in one way or another with Panasonic's new S series model. There's no rumour that either camera is to be released shortly. Moreover, the SL3 will be very likely the replacement of the SL2 and not the SL2-S. That means that the resolution-optimised sibling of the SL line will be released first. Because there's no free lunch, the next iteration with, say, 60+ MP won't perform significantly better in high ISO than the SL2. Even if one has the means, the upcoming SL3 won't be a replacement for the SL2-S. For that, we have to wait another year or so. 

Depends ... I tend to be overly sensitive to digital noise, e.g. you will more often than not find my M11 'stuck' at ISO 64 ... I tried and did not buy the original SL2 because of this (it didn't meet my bar). SL2-S sensor has a special quality (just due to 'bigger pixels'?) where you are getting almost more than what you would thought possible from a Bayer sensor. Best I have ever seen (Nikon Z6 II might be at parity).