SL3 Rumors

[tomasis7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

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

yeah but not only that. For instance, I have 90mm Summicron but I seldom use it. But it would be perfect for SL.  Nice balance using that combo. 

Pros who use Leica M usually have small lenses as well. It is awkward to hold M with a huge lens and then try to focus on it.  

Edited January 30, 2024 by tomasis7

[Planetwide]

2 hours 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.

Stuart, a very interesting observation. Replicates my own thoughts exactly. I feel that the limiting factor for the M system is the viewfinder focusing mechanism. I also understand that it is part of its charm for many. Even now, I no longer use M bodies with my lenses, instead, preferring the SL2 at this point. I wonder if an AI driven, subject recognition, high resolution EVF is the way forward for the M system. I know that this has been debated to death in other threads, so let's not go there.

It will be interesting to see if the SL3 has better manual focusing aids for M manual lenses.

Edited January 30, 2024 by Planetwide

[Planetwide]

48 minutes ago, John Smith said:

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. 

Leica faces a problem of its own making with the SL system. When it dramatically slowed, or stopped development of in house SL lenses, it lost its singular advantage over other competing systems.  Rebadging, while somewhat desirable, actually places the line at a disadvantage vs Canon or Nikon, as it allocates development resources to inferior lenses.

My Canon 24-105mm F2.8 is better than my Leica 24-90mm, and is currently, the best 24-90/105mm zoom out there.

Consequently. the 16-35mm and 24-90mm now offer no real advantage over competing systems. Let's remember that it has taken several years for the other brands to catch up. Both of these zoom now need a redesign as a V2 lens. A fully APO 24-90mm F2.8 would be amazing.

I think that an in house, SL APO 35mm 'lux, would signal a return to development and probably be a halo lens. 

Edited January 30, 2024 by Planetwide

[LBJ2]

33 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Leica faces a problem of its own making with the SL system. When it dramatically slowed, or stopped development of in house SL lenses, it lost its singular advantage over other competing systems.  Rebadging, while somewhat desirable, actually places the line at a disadvantage vs Canon or Nikon, as it allocates development resources to inferior lenses.

My Canon 24-105mm F2.8 is better than my Leica 24-90mm, and is currently, the best 24-90/105mm zoom out there.

Consequently. the 16-35mm and 24-90mm now offer no real advantage over competing systems. Let's remember that it has taken several years for the other brands to catch up. Both of these zoom now need a redesign as a V2 lens. A fully APO 24-90mm F2.8 would be amazing.

I think that an in house, SL APO 35mm 'lux, would signal a return to development and probably be a halo lens. 

Based upon the SL 50 Lux, I would love to see a SL 35 Lux. Somehow I think the design is there already, but was shelved with the loud reaction to the SL size and weight. But maybe thanks to that complaining we now have the SL APO primes!  Wondering who thought it was a good idea to give Leica users used to some of the smallest and lightest FF cameras on the planet the hefty SL + 24-90 kit in 2015 LOL. MEH.

For me it's not all about smallest and lightest weight all the time, every day, 24 hours a day. I buy and use photography gear for different priorities and purposes some small, some larger. Sure some enthusiasts want a tiny teacup kit, I get it. But there is more to life than tiny teacups IMO ( sorry UK mates). 

[BernardC]

40 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Leica faces a problem of its own making with the SL system. When it dramatically slowed, or stopped development of in house SL lenses, it lost its singular advantage over other competing systems.  Rebadging, while somewhat desirable, actually places the line at a disadvantage vs Canon or Nikon, as it allocates development resources to inferior lenses.

My Canon 24-105mm F2.8 is better than my Leica 24-90mm, and is currently, the best 24-90/105mm zoom out there.

I don't think that Leica has stopped developing SL lenses. They've stopped publicizing roadmaps, which is something different. These served a purpose when the L mount was new, but arguably they don't now that the mount has a huge selection of high-quality lenses. Surely there are still some gaps, but those gaps don't correspond to their target markets (for instance, pro sports lenses, which is a market that Canon and Nikon dominate).

The "re-badges" fill a market demand for lenses that aren't so large and expensive. As is typical, people will complain, no matter what Leica does! At least you have a choice, and this choice is reflected in selling price.

Interesting comment about the RF 25-105/2.8. Can you describe how it is better? Everything I've seen indicates that it's very good, as you would expect from the price, huge size/weight, and the fact that it comes from one of the great optical houses, but nothing substantive beyond that. I think it's a good thing if Canon has cracked the mid-range zoom problem. Their previous efforts were sub-par optically, even though they delivered on the build-quality front. Is it as good as their primes?

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, tomasis7 said:

yeah but not only that. For instance, I have 90mm Summicron but I seldom use it. But it would be perfect for SL.  Nice balance using that combo. 

Pros who use Leica M usually have small lenses as well. It is awkward to hold M with a huge lens and then try to focus on it.  

Why? I have used up to 270 mm on a rangefinder (admittedly not easy nor fast, but doable, about 70% in focus, but I do prefer an EVF 😅). ). 90mm is a doddle.

[Eclectic Man]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

M lens 'glass ceiling' performance is partly due to the requirement for M lenses to have very good rectilinear correction as they can be used on analogue M's as well as digital ones.  With SL lenses there can be some automatic correction of lens distortions as they will never be used to produce an image directly on silver halide film.

Whatever modern lenses you get, they are in general a great deal better in terms of imaging quality than the equivalents of 20 years ago.

[tomasis7]

37 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Why? I have used up to 270 mm on a rangefinder (admittedly not easy nor fast, but doable, about 70% in focus, but I do prefer an EVF 😅). ). 90mm is a doddle.

if it wasn't for SL, I'd add thumb grip, side grip, and EVF. Suddenly it looks like an SL 🤣 For fast street, I prefer Elmarit or macro Elmar. 

I think owning both M and SL is a win-win situation for many as it covers all needs (thin dof photography, M-Nocti, M-Summilux, long primes, nailed focus, etc)
 

[helged]

Regarding the intended topic of this thread 😉, SL3:

If SL3 is built on the sensor in Q3 and M11, with some tweaks, and with phase detect embedded:

- Does this imply the same rolling shutter 'problem' (ie, slow sensor read out) as with Q3/M11?

- Similar high light clipping and shadow recovery/noise characteristics? 

- Similar longest shutter speed for low light/night photography? 

I guess yes to the above. Personally, I would like to see faster sensor read out (to make the electronic shutter even more useful), and to have a sensor at least as good in low light as SL2-S. The body I am waiting for is possibly SL3-S, not SL3... Actually, of the three SL-body incarnations, I like SL2-S most.

[LBJ2]

6 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

if it wasn't for SL, I'd add thumb grip, side grip, and EVF. Suddenly it looks like an SL 🤣 For fast street, I prefer Elmarit or macro Elmar. 

I think owning both M and SL is a win-win situation for many as it covers all needs (thin dof photography, M-Nocti, M-Summilux, long primes, nailed focus, etc)
 

"I think owning both M and SL is a win-win situation for many as it covers all needs (thin dof photography, M-Nocti, M-Summilux, long primes, nailed focus, etc)"

Two peas in a pod...

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!

[tomasis7]

34 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

"I think owning both M and SL is a win-win situation for many as it covers all needs (thin dof photography, M-Nocti, M-Summilux, long primes, nailed focus, etc)"

Two peas in a pod...

an amazing kit! Well done, log out and enjoy it 🤩

[Chaemono]

Am 27.1.2024 um 12:36 schrieb Sohail:

I've already come to that conclusion. SL2-S as a backup to an SL2 primarily for lowlight scenarios. 

…

There will never be another camera built like it. Leica won‘t bother with a 24 MP SL3-S because the SL3 will have a BSI sensor. Most easily fixable and best AWB of any FF camera for me even though it may not look like it with the way the SL2-S DNGs come out with a magenta cast when AWB is used. 

[John Smith]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

"I think owning both M and SL is a win-win situation for many as it covers all needs (thin dof photography, M-Nocti, M-Summilux, long primes, nailed focus, etc)"

Two peas in a pod...

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!

Gravitating back to the M, I'm still keeping the same SL2 kit.

[LBJ2]

33 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

an amazing kit! Well done, log out and enjoy it 🤩

Thankfully my gear sees plenty of action...literally. * Today I'm busy making room for the new SL3 that I said I wasn't going to buy 😜

E.g., SL2 + SL 50 APO, in action:

Jpeg of a screenshot, so maybe not as clear as forum presentation as I would like:

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!

 

[Simone_DF]

29 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

There will never be another camera built like it. Leica won‘t bother with a 24 MP SL3-S because the SL3 will have a BSI sensor. Most easily fixable and best AWB of any FF camera for me even though it may not look like it with the way the SL2-S DNGs come out with a magenta cast when AWB is used. 

I don't know, Leica has invested in pushing the video side of the SL2-S, and the 60mp sensor is, at best, just ok for video because of the rolling shutter.

I hope Leica will release a S variant with the 33mp sensor

[Stuart Richardson]

4 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

Based upon the SL 50 Lux, I would love to see a SL 35 Lux. Somehow I think the design is there already, but was shelved with the loud reaction to the SL size and weight. But maybe thanks to that complaining we now have the SL APO primes!  Wondering who thought it was a good idea to give Leica users used to some of the smallest and lightest FF cameras on the planet the hefty SL + 24-90 kit in 2015 LOL. MEH.

For me it's not all about smallest and lightest weight all the time, every day, 24 hours a day. I buy and use photography gear for different priorities and purposes some small, some larger. Sure some enthusiasts want a tiny teacup kit, I get it. But there is more to life than tiny teacups IMO ( sorry UK mates). 

I think the SL was based on the S, which was even larger and had even bigger lenses. The R8 and R9 were also larger and pretty chunky. Most R lenses were a bit smaller than the SL lenses, but not the zooms, especially if you add in the extra size required for AF and the extra image quality required for high MP digital. I came from the S and one of the most appealing things to me was that I could get such great image quality with a smaller camera and lenses. It's all relative, lol.

[LBJ2]

Just now, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the SL was based on the S, which was even larger and had even bigger lenses. The R8 and R9 were also larger and pretty chunky. Most R lenses were a bit smaller than the SL lenses, but not the zooms, especially if you add in the extra size required for AF and the extra image quality required for high MP digital. I came from the S and one of the most appealing things to me was that I could get such great image quality with a smaller camera and lenses. It's all relative, lol.

I agree. It is all relative and your comment about "compared to the Leica S system" might be why Leica was comfortable to launch a brand new mirrorless system with the ginormous 24-90..F4 which IMO may have resulted in scarring the hell out of the forums and the SL system branded as big and heavy... forever. Even though like you, when I shoot the SL2 APO primes in some very active situations for long periods of time, I wonder why all the forum hoopla. 

Personally, I also do a lot of BIF/Birding on some very popular nature trails. I am accustomed to seeing many gray-beards lugging around very large Nikon DSLRs + Super Teles and large heavy duty sticks plus their packs. These trails go on and on and on--not for the light hearted.. I haven't seen any one drop yet 🤞🏼Seems nobody told these guys their kits are too big and heavy. 

BTW, I have some questions about the S lens MTFs I've been studying lately. If you don't mind I might send a message or two for your input. 

[tom0511]

I don't see M and SL competitive. The M is about optical rangefinder, simplicity, small lenses, maybe with a little more vignetting.

The SL is about near to optically perfect primes, AF, EVF and IBIS. 

 

[tomasis7]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

Thankfully my gear sees plenty of action...literally. * Today I'm busy making room for the new SL3 that I said I wasn't going to buy 😜

E.g., SL2 + SL 50 APO, in action:

Jpeg of a screenshot, so maybe not as clear as forum presentation as I would like:

Crazy contrast there! (in a good way) 

I want to ask how Apo performs in low light. I remember Karbe talking about Apo in low light. Higher contrast is useful to capture details in low light. I haven't thought of it earlier. Even if you had the best sensor, it would turn to a dull image if you had a low-contrast lens. 

Edited January 30, 2024 by tomasis7

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LBJ2]

8 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

Crazy contrast there! (in a good way) 

I want to ask how Apo performs in low light. I remember Karbe talking about Apo in low light. Higher contrast is useful to capture details in low light. I haven't thought of it earlier. Even if you had the best sensor, it would turn to a dull image if you had a low-contrast lens. 

Leica APO ( not all APO is created equal) both SL and M can be stunning on the higher MP FF cameras. It really sets the bar IMO even compared to Medium Frame glass. If the SL3 does come with 60MP FF BSI sensor, I think the SL APO glass will eat the extra resolution for lunch. 

Low light is a great stress test for both resolution and DR IMO. All it takes is to try one of these Leica L/M APO FF lenses and high resolution FF sensor and you will see the magic. APO correction the way Leica applies it brings out heaps of detail ( not necessarily the sharpest) even in stressful lighting situations.