SL3 Rumors

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, JohnathanLovm said:

Meanwhile I hoping is the Sigma’s Vario-Summicron-SL 28-70 f/2.0. It’s been a while since we saw the patent.

Thete was a rumour floating around about a rebadge of the new Sigma 70-200mm F2.8

[intermediatic]

I don’t mean to derail this thread futher, but I did buy the Hasselblad 907x and 100c. I cancelled my reservation with my dealer for an SL-3. The 100c is fantastic. No IBIS? True! Just like my M11 and M11M! But this camera is, like those, a dream. You have no idea how small it is until you have it in your hand. Anyway, I know there is concern about L glass, but I traded a bit of it in to my dealer in return for a 500C and 80mm Planar to which I can attach the 100C or shoot with film. There is a future for the SL-3, I think, but I do wish Leica hadn’t waited.

[Parolibre]

2 hours ago, intermediatic said:

I don’t mean to derail this thread futher, but I did buy the Hasselblad 907x and 100c. I cancelled my reservation with my dealer for an SL-3. The 100c is fantastic. No IBIS? True! Just like my M11 and M11M! But this camera is, like those, a dream. You have no idea how small it is until you have it in your hand. Anyway, I know there is concern about L glass, but I traded a bit of it in to my dealer in return for a 500C and 80mm Planar to which I can attach the 100C or shoot with film. There is a future for the SL-3, I think, but I do wish Leica hadn’t waited.

Congratulations on your purchase. I had (and sold) the 907x 50c, it was a wonderful machine, but the QC wasn’t great (the paint on my buttons starting wearing off 2 WEEKS OF USE). I have brought my SL2 to rainy places where it was completely wet on the Swiss Alps with no problem at all. So I think the SL system still has its unique advantage. However, I would be lying if I say I don’t have high hopes on the SL3 and I agree they shouldn’t wait so long for its release…

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, helged said:

With S3 lurking around the corner and S1Rii not too far away (apparently), both sharing key components but with the latter having a price tag half (?) of the former, I wonder how many will aim for the Panasonic body.

Catching-up late on this...

Leica and Panasonic would love to have this problem. The real competition comes from three incompatible full-frame systems (and arguably two mirrorless medium format systems). Splitting a pie between Leica and Panasonic is a non-issue. We all know that some photographers will choose one brand over the other, and some will get some pieces from both brands (plus Sigma).

[Jon Warwick]

13 hours ago, John Smith said:

The 35mm Apo-Summicron-M comes close. It is telling that it is Peter Karie’s favorite lens at the moment. 

Yes, the M 35 APO is a remarkable lens that I recently got to try out. The SL primes get a natural benefit of being better refined vs M lenses like the 35mm FLE etc, in part because the latter are c 15 years old now. The apple-to-apple is versus the latest generation of M lenses, and the MTF of the very small and light M 35 APO is exceptional, even against the already exceptional SL 35 APO. Still, the downside of the best of the best M lenses is their quite different price to SL primes.

Edited January 29, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[helged]

Regarding tracking... Here is an example with four consecutive images of what SL2-S typically is up to, with the most difficult (?) of the SL-lenses, the SL50-Lux @ f1.4...

Settings are fixed shutter speed 1/2000 s; Auto ISO; Continuous - Medium Speed; electronic shutter; iAF; Eye/Face/Body Detection; Runner (Depth Sensitivity +1, Field Movement -1, Shift in Direction 0). Clearly, other settings are possible.

A positive remark: SL50-Lux is able to follow the dog running towards me. So this indicate that the SL-lenses should be up to the task (to the extent that a running dog is a good measure) with improved af.

Then to the current state of affairs: For eye focus, the focus is generally inaccurate; typically lagging 20 cm behind the eyes, see the last two images in the sequence. With an improved af algorithm/technology, the focus could be pretty much on, which provide some hope for the new generation of L-mount bodies (of which S5ii is the first one using phase detect af).

Another note is that Continuous - Medium Speed (= 5 fps) - the highest speed with af activated on SL2-S - is too low to 'properly' sample movements. 10 fps (or higher) would be a valuable improvement.

For comparison, the last image is taken with Canon R5 and Canon EF 400mm f4 DO ii at f4.5 and 1/1600 s. Here sequences can be taken with eye focus in 95-100 percent of the images.

Please ignore the colouring; these are quick jpg's only.

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 January 29, 2024 by helged

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, helged said:

Regarding tracking... Here is an example with four consecutive images of what SL2-S typically is up to, with the most difficult (?) of the SL-lenses, the SL50-Lux @ f1.4...

Settings are fixed shutter speed 1/2000 s; Auto ISO; Continuous - Medium Speed; electronic shutter; iAF; Eye/Face/Body Detection; Runner (Depth Sensitivity +1, Field Movement -1, Shift in Direction 0). Clearly, other settings are possible.

A positive remark: SL50-Lux is able to follow the dog running towards me. So this indicate that the SL-lenses should be up to the task (to the extent that a running dog is a good measure) with improved af.

Then to the current state of affairs: For eye focus, the focus is generally inaccurate; typically lagging 20 cm behind the eyes, see the last two images in the sequence. With an improved af algorithm/technology, the focus could be pretty much on, which provide some hope for the new generation of L-mount bodies (of which S5ii is the first one using phase detect af).

Another note is that Continuous - Medium Speed (= 5 fps) - the highest speed with af activated on SL2-S - is too low to 'properly' sample movements. 10 fps (or higher) would be a valuable improvement.

For comparison, the last image is taken with Canon R5 and Canon EF 400mm f4 DO ii at f4.5 and 1/1600 s. Here sequences can be taken with eye focus in 95-100 percent of the images.

Please ignore the colouring; these are quick jpg's only.

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!

If the SL3 has the PDAF subject recognition used on the S5II(X), then don't expect miracles there either unless you're stopped down a bit. It will track faster, but animal recognition is NOT eye-based and only puts a focus frame around the entire animal's body. So good luck getting the eye in focus versus another part of the animal if your aperture is wide open.

Edited January 29, 2024 by hdmesa

[tomasis7]

The camera will need AI at some point.. maybe in SL4 or SL5. 

[Olaf_ZG]

7 hours ago, helged said:

Regarding tracking... Here is an example with four consecutive images of what SL2-S typically is up to, with the most difficult (?) of the SL-lenses, the SL50-Lux @ f1.4...

Settings are fixed shutter speed 1/2000 s; Auto ISO; Continuous - Medium Speed; electronic shutter; iAF; Eye/Face/Body Detection; Runner (Depth Sensitivity +1, Field Movement -1, Shift in Direction 0). Clearly, other settings are possible.

A positive remark: SL50-Lux is able to follow the dog running towards me. So this indicate that the SL-lenses should be up to the task (to the extent that a running dog is a good measure) with improved af.

Then to the current state of affairs: For eye focus, the focus is generally inaccurate; typically lagging 20 cm behind the eyes, see the last two images in the sequence. With an improved af algorithm/technology, the focus could be pretty much on, which provide some hope for the new generation of L-mount bodies (of which S5ii is the first one using phase detect af).

Another note is that Continuous - Medium Speed (= 5 fps) - the highest speed with af activated on SL2-S - is too low to 'properly' sample movements. 10 fps (or higher) would be a valuable improvement.

For comparison, the last image is taken with Canon R5 and Canon EF 400mm f4 DO ii at f4.5 and 1/1600 s. Here sequences can be taken with eye focus in 95-100 percent of the images.

Please ignore the colouring; these are quick jpg's only.

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!

What a difference in color between canon and leica.

great photos though 

[helged]

1 hour ago, hdmesa said:

If the SL3 has the PDAF subject recognition used on the S5II(X), then don't expect miracles there either unless you're stopped down a bit. It will track faster, but animal recognition is NOT eye-based and only puts a focus frame around the entire animal's body. So good luck getting the eye in focus versus another part of the animal if your aperture is wide open.

Actually, S5ii (apparently) has eye recognition on birds/animals, although this is not highlighted in the EVF. SL2-S, clearly not. 

[hdmesa]

3 minutes ago, helged said:

Actually, S5ii (apparently) has eye recognition on birds/animals, although this is not highlighted in the EVF. SL2-S, clearly not. 

The only reason they wouldn't highlight the eye-AF for animals in the EVF is because it would be visually apparent how hard of a time it's having achieving focus on the eye. Whatever the case, it's not anywhere near as reliable as the animal eye-AF in the Canon R5/6 that I used to own. Perhaps this will be refined in future S5II(X) firmware releases.

[helged]

10 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The only reason they wouldn't highlight the eye-AF for animals in the EVF is because it would be visually apparent how hard of a time it's having achieving focus on the eye. Whatever the case, it's not anywhere near as reliable as the animal eye-AF in the Canon R5/6 that I used to own. Perhaps this will be refined in future S5II(X) firmware releases.

I played with S5ii some weeks ago. The af was greatly improved compared to eg SL2/SL2-S. But, as you say, not at the level of Canon R5. I am satisfied if af tracking keep up with a running dog, Time will tell when that becomes consistently feasible with the L-mount system... 

[John Smith]

9 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

Yes, the M 35 APO is a remarkable lens that I recently got to try out. The SL primes get a natural benefit of being better refined vs M lenses like the 35mm FLE etc, in part because the latter are c 15 years old now. The apple-to-apple is versus the latest generation of M lenses, and the MTF of the very small and light M 35 APO is exceptional, even against the already exceptional SL 35 APO. Still, the downside of the best of the best M lenses is their quite different price to SL primes.

I have most of the SL primes and a couple of SL2s. @Stuart Richardson is right that no one has matched the primes. But you do have to wonder what's next for SL lenses given the fact that the new 50mm and 35mm summicrons are pretty much off-the-shelf quality. I could be wrong, but I don't think they even have serial numbers. The system is becoming indistinguishable from other brands. Personally, I think the SL system and primes are brilliant, but I decided to move back to the M system given that Leica's next move appears to be creating SL-prime-like quality in M lenses. If it came out with an 50mm APO along the lines with the SL50Cron with close focus, I think I'd be done with any new lens purchases (although it would probably a bunch of SL gear to finance it).  

[gotium]

On 1/28/2024 at 3:32 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I was without an M for a long time since I sold my M10 not that long after I got the SL2. More recently I found a good deal on an M10M that I wanted to use for travel work and as a lightweight kit for hikes. I have a number of M lenses still. I was kind of curious so I took some photos using the EVF to focus with the 50mm 1.4 ASPH and 35mm Summilux FLE. I then took some with the SL2 and 35mm and 50mm APO Summicrons which have been my main work kit since 2020. To be honest, it was a mistake. The APO Summicrons and SL2 are so much better that I find it kind of shocking. Obviously "better" is subjective. I am talking about sharpness, micro contrast, freedom from aberration and edge to edge uniformity. For some people better is going to mean uncorrected spherical aberration that gives a beautiful glow. I like those lenses too, but not for my general purpose work.

I have been using the APO Summicrons so I know they are absurdly good, but using these M lenses again, it makes me really appreciate just how fantastic the SL2 and these lenses are. The 35mm and 50mm are both sharper across the frame at f2 than either the 50mm or 35mm M lenses are at any aperture. And they achieve that with a half press of the shutter to snap into focus, where I could only achieve the peak sharpness on the M lenses with using the EVF to gently rock it back and forth until it was just right. And that had to be done at every aperture, as there is enough focus shift that peak sharpness migrates slightly at each aperture (at least with the 35mm FLE and 90mm APO, both of which I tried). Anyway, I know this is not as significant in most real world use, and that some people do not care in the slightest. I just found it an interesting exercise and reminder. I also tried my 45mm S lens from when I was still using the S series, and to be honest it was also outclassed by the 50mm APO, which was again, sharper at f2 than the 45mm was at any aperture. They are just supernatural lenses, and the gap between them and most more normal lenses is only going to grow as the bodies get higher in resolution.

This doesn’t surprise me. The argument for the M system these days is for the experience of using it and/or for the “character” of some specific lenses.

When I started with M stuff if was for the size, but that’s no longer so strong an argument with competing systems with small (think Sigma contemporary or Sony G) lenses.  For fidelity of optics I doubt many M lenses can match the best of other modern systems - of the ones I’ve tried the M-mount 35/2 APO comes closest, but to my eye even that can’t keep up with, for example, Sony’s 35 G-master (very different lenses in terms of size, AF and price, but I think remarkably similar in rendering, with any small differences in contrast, resolution and bokeh all favoring the G-master).

But here I am feeling excited that there might actually be an M11-D in the works. Imagining putting a 35 steel rim on it 😕 

Edited January 30, 2024 by gotium

[la1402]

On 1/28/2024 at 6:42 PM, Boojay said:

Whatever L mount body comes next, I just hope it takes another couple of steps forward with autofocus.  For me, an SL3 with same PDAF performance as the S5II won't be a temptation at all.  I can forgive the S5II given its price point, but a red dot won't suffice, because like now, I will keep comparing it to my Canon bodies performance.  

 

 

I think you can safely assume the SL3 to be very, very close to the S5II on terms of core capabilities. Which would be disappointing at a price of 8k. 

[Stuart Richardson]

31 minutes ago, la1402 said:

I think you can safely assume the SL3 to be very, very close to the S5II on terms of core capabilities. Which would be disappointing at a price of 8k. 

While I understand the impetus, I think that is a somewhat reductive way to think about it. Assuming it uses the 60mp sensor, it will have 36 extra megapixels of resolution. If that is not important to you, then indeed, perhaps it is not the right camera. But that resolution does more than just fine detail...it also minimizes aberrations like moiré and aliasing and provides 36 million extra data samples, which means smoother color transitions, more accurate color and detail and improved compositional flexibility (cropping, for example). I think it is also safe to assume that the SL3 will continue to maintain Leica's house design, ergonomics, build quality and interface. It will still be much better than either of the Panasonic cameras with M lenses, and it will continue to be the only L mount offering that can adapt S lenses with autofocus. If these things are unimportant to you, then it begs the question for me at least of why did you get an SL body to begin with? The S1 and S1R are largely equivalent to the SL2S and SL2 in the way you were describing...

[Stuart Richardson]

13 hours ago, John Smith said:

I have most of the SL primes and a couple of SL2s. @Stuart Richardson is right that no one has matched the primes. But you do have to wonder what's next for SL lenses given the fact that the new 50mm and 35mm summicrons are pretty much off-the-shelf quality. I could be wrong, but I don't think they even have serial numbers. The system is becoming indistinguishable from other brands. Personally, I think the SL system and primes are brilliant, but I decided to move back to the M system given that Leica's next move appears to be creating SL-prime-like quality in M lenses. If it came out with an 50mm APO along the lines with the SL50Cron with close focus, I think I'd be done with any new lens purchases (although it would probably a bunch of SL gear to finance it).  

That is an interesting way to think about it. I kind of go the opposite direction. The lesson I took from my quick comparison is that the M is unlikely to be able to keep up with the advances in lens technology, as the rangefinder itself is not accurate enough to focus the best lenses to critical sharpness with regularity. Doing so means live view or EVF. I am also not saying that it is an eyesight problem...it is literally that if you move the lens barrel even the tiniest fraction, it will no longer be critical sharp at the intended spot. I know this does not matter for small to medium sized prints. It just means that the M as it is now kind of has a glass ceiling of performance. You can keep making better and better lenses for it, but it is a bit tricky because the intended focusing mechanism of the system is maxed out or near maxed out. Even with perfect vision, the eye can only discriminate so much with a fairly short baselength rangefinder and a .72 magnification finder. Additionally, the tolerances become ever more challenging to maintain...the whole chain from the machining of the cam track on the lenses, the mount, the helical of the lens, the rangefinder mechanism and so on. Harder to make, harder to keep accurate. Personally I think it would be better for the system if they put it at a ceiling for 40-50mp and focused on making more functional lenses -- capable of using all that 50mp, but in a compact, easy to handle package, rather than making lenses like the 90mm Summilux or 75mm Noctilux which are ill-suited to the system (in that they are large, expensive and very very challenging to use at their intended use case (wide open at closer distances). But Leica is out to sell cameras and lenses and I think the route they are going down is probably more profitable.

The SL line on the other hand has almost none of the problems described above -- the EVF and contrast detect focus means that it is trivial to achieve perfect focus, at least other than for quickly moving subjects, while the autofocus system can build in whatever degree of precision is required of the focusing assembly for any given lens. So as resolution goes up, the sky is really the limit, as opposed to the hard mechanical and human perceptive limits imposed by the rangefinder/ovf system. As for the SL becoming more like the other companies, that is not something I have perceived. I have not seen any company that is on par with Leica's whole package of lens quality, build quality, design quality and top to bottom synergy. But for a lot of people that is just not something they value enough to pay the price for the gear or take the hit in areas where Leica is not as advanced, like tracking AF and AFc, for example.

 

P.S. The SL lenses have serial numbers right on the lens, just like the rest of the Leica lenses.

Edited January 30, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[tomasis7]

21 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

That is an interesting way to think about it. I kind of go the opposite direction. The lesson I took from my quick comparison is that the M is unlikely to be able to keep up with the advances in lens technology, as the rangefinder itself is not accurate enough to focus the best lenses to critical sharpness with regularity. Doing so means live view or EVF. I am also not saying that it is an eyesight problem...it is literally that if you move the lens barrel even the tiniest fraction, it will no longer be critical sharp at the intended spot. I know this does not matter for small to medium sized prints. It just means that the M as it is now kind of has a glass ceiling of performance. You can keep making better and better lenses for it, but it is a bit tricky because the intended focusing mechanism of the system is maxed out or near maxed out. Even with perfect vision, the eye can only discriminate so much with a fairly short baselength rangefinder and a .72 magnification finder. Additionally, the tolerances become ever more challenging to maintain...the whole chain from the machining of the cam track on the lenses, the mount, the helical of the lens, the rangefinder mechanism and so on. Harder to make, harder to keep accurate. Personally I think it would be better for the system if they put it at a ceiling for 40-50mp and focused on making more functional lenses -- capable of using all that 50mp, but in a compact, easy to handle package, rather than making lenses like the 90mm Summilux or 75mm Noctilux which are ill-suited to the system (in that they are large, expensive and very very challenging to use at their intended use case (wide open at closer distances). But Leica is out to sell cameras and lenses and I think the route they are going down is probably more profitable.

The SL line on the other hand has almost none of the problems described above -- the EVF and contrast detect focus means that it is trivial to achieve perfect focus, at least other than for quickly moving subjects, while the autofocus system can build in whatever degree of precision is required of the focusing assembly for any given lens. So as resolution goes up, the sky is really the limit, as opposed to the hard mechanical and human perceptive limits imposed by the rangefinder/ovf system. As for the SL becoming more like the other companies, that is not something I have perceived. I have not seen any company that is on par with Leica's whole package of lens quality, build quality, design quality and top to bottom synergy. But for a lot of people that is just not something they value enough to pay the price for the gear or take the hit in areas where Leica is not as advanced, like tracking AF and AFc, for example.

 

P.S. The SL lenses have serial numbers right on the lens, just like the rest of the Leica lenses.

100% I agree

M lenses should focus on the performance/weight ratio. I looked at optical drawings from the Leica website. SL non-Apo and Apo primes are vastly different compared to M equivalents. Sl primes would have like 10-12 glass elements meanwhile M lenses - only half of them or less. M Apo floating lenses are half of the total glass elements Easier to deal with aberrations according to Karbe. 

Someone said M Apo lenses could be improved because SL primes are improved. It doesn't make sense. We talk about two different design concepts.

About the higher megapixel sensor, I give a good example. We are using desktop monitors. Size keeps increasing and someone said that the pain limit is 42" screen. I think the outcome,  whatever we print out billboard size or A4 or web images, is more relevant. At the moment, I don't imagine wanting more than 24mpx for SL2S because I like grainy images in high iso. 

[jaapv]

16 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

100% I agree

M lenses should focus on the performance/weight ratio. I looked at optical drawings from the Leica website. SL non-Apo and Apo primes are vastly different compared to M equivalents. Sl primes would have like 10-12 glass elements meanwhile M lenses - only half of them or less. M Apo floating lenses are half of the total glass elements Easier to deal with aberrations according to Karbe. 

Someone said M Apo lenses could be improved because SL primes are improved. It doesn't make sense. We talk about two different design concepts.

About the higher megapixel sensor, I give a good example. We are using desktop monitors. Size keeps increasing and someone said that the pain limit is 42" screen. I think the outcome,  whatever we print out billboard size or A4 or web images, is more relevant. At the moment, I don't imagine wanting more than 24mpx for SL2S because I like grainy images in high iso. 

The problem is not the accuracy of the rangefinder, but the size restriction because  of viewfinder intrusion. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[John Smith]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

That is an interesting way to think about it. I kind of go the opposite direction. The lesson I took from my quick comparison is that the M is unlikely to be able to keep up with the advances in lens technology, as the rangefinder itself is not accurate enough to focus the best lenses to critical sharpness with regularity. Doing so means live view or EVF. I am also not saying that it is an eyesight problem...it is literally that if you move the lens barrel even the tiniest fraction, it will no longer be critical sharp at the intended spot. I know this does not matter for small to medium sized prints. It just means that the M as it is now kind of has a glass ceiling of performance. You can keep making better and better lenses for it, but it is a bit tricky because the intended focusing mechanism of the system is maxed out or near maxed out. Even with perfect vision, the eye can only discriminate so much with a fairly short baselength rangefinder and a .72 magnification finder. Additionally, the tolerances become ever more challenging to maintain...the whole chain from the machining of the cam track on the lenses, the mount, the helical of the lens, the rangefinder mechanism and so on. Harder to make, harder to keep accurate. Personally I think it would be better for the system if they put it at a ceiling for 40-50mp and focused on making more functional lenses -- capable of using all that 50mp, but in a compact, easy to handle package, rather than making lenses like the 90mm Summilux or 75mm Noctilux which are ill-suited to the system (in that they are large, expensive and very very challenging to use at their intended use case (wide open at closer distances). But Leica is out to sell cameras and lenses and I think the route they are going down is probably more profitable.

The SL line on the other hand has almost none of the problems described above -- the EVF and contrast detect focus means that it is trivial to achieve perfect focus, at least other than for quickly moving subjects, while the autofocus system can build in whatever degree of precision is required of the focusing assembly for any given lens. So as resolution goes up, the sky is really the limit, as opposed to the hard mechanical and human perceptive limits imposed by the rangefinder/ovf system. As for the SL becoming more like the other companies, that is not something I have perceived. I have not seen any company that is on par with Leica's whole package of lens quality, build quality, design quality and top to bottom synergy. But for a lot of people that is just not something they value enough to pay the price for the gear or take the hit in areas where Leica is not as advanced, like tracking AF and AFc, for example.

 

P.S. The SL lenses have serial numbers right on the lens, just like the rest of the Leica lenses.

I think you are right about the M’s “glass ceiling of performance” with the rangefinder. But with the 35APO it appears that Leica has begun to focus on “functional” lenses that can take advantage of the higher MP count. There is a rumor that a new M lens will be introduced in March. I suspect that all of Leica’s new M lenses will come close to the SL primes in terms of performance. These will be a big profit generator for Leica because it can charge pretty much whatever it wants for M lenses.

Regarding the SL, like you, I haven’t seen any brand that is on par with Leica’s whole package of lens quality, build quality, design quality and top to bottom synergy. But, as you say, for a lot of people, that is just not something they value enough. I think that presents a quandary for the SL going forward from here, at least in terms of lenses. Does Leica put its R&D into, say, a 35SL Lux when other brands have already jumped ahead and the market doesn’t value Leica’s build quality like it used to? I have all the primes except the 21mm. I think it’s telling that it has taken so long to see the 21mm and there are no rumors of any other SL lenses in the pipeline.