SL3 Rumors

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Or perhaps Leica users live in a self made bubble and haven’t realized that modern autofocus is substantially more efficient than what the SL2 offers. 
That said, after the various firmware updates, I find the SL2-S autofocus ok, although not brilliant. 

[BernardC]

1 minute ago, Simone_DF said:

Or perhaps Leica users live in a self made bubble and haven’t realized that modern autofocus is substantially more efficient than what the SL2 offers. 

I doubt that's the case, given how often the AF bugbear is brought-up in any discussion of the SL2. It's practically the only thing people talk about, and anybody that says the AF works fine for them receives mild abuse (at the very least).

It's a well known issue, although quite exaggerated for most use cases. The SL3 should bring phase-detect AF, for better or worse.

[LocalHero1953]

18 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Or perhaps Leica users live in a self made bubble and haven’t realized that modern autofocus is substantially more efficient than what the SL2 offers. 
That said, after the various firmware updates, I find the SL2-S autofocus ok, although not brilliant. 

Or perhaps such comments (“self made bubble”) are arrogantly trying to tell me I have a problem I just don’t have? I might be the best person to judge that. All photography is a question of working out which limitations affect you and where your priorities lie. Mine lie elsewhere. 

Edited February 21, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[Simone_DF]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Or perhaps such comments (“self made bubble”) are arrogantly trying to tell me I have a problem I just don’t have? I might be the best person to judge that. All photography is a question of working out which limitations affect you and where your priorities lie. Mine lie elsewhere. 

The fact that it does work for you doesn't mean it works for everyone. BTW the SL2-S works for me too, but can't wait to upgrade it to a better (for me) performing body.

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, Simone_DF said:

The fact that it does work for you doesn't mean it works for everyone. BTW the SL2-S works for me too, but can't wait to upgrade it to a better (for me) performing body.

That statement is fine. Check my comments - I have been careful not to imply that those who can’t get on with the SL2S AF are wrong. It is you who implied that those who find otherwise live in a “self made bubble”. 

[Planetwide]

I think that the AF discussion is a use case scenario when it comes to the SL2 series. For most general use cases, it works just fine. Obviously, I think that we all understand that the continuous tracking modes are essentially useless for anything moving beyond human speeds. Occasionally, one will get a good shot, but overall, it is just not reliable enough for realistic use. I am thinking motorsports, aircraft, sports etc... The simple fact that Panasonic and Leica are moving to PDAF, recognizes these limitations, and the market is pushing them to incorporate better technology. I hope that they hit a home run, and in the next couple of weeks, we are all talking about the new "AF" for Leica...

Edited February 21, 2024 by Planetwide

[Leica Filmmatic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just need decent continuous AF something my X2D doesn’t offer.  

[LBJ2]

If we know anything about CDAF, Panasonic/Leica has to be commended for taking CDAF to IMO a new level of probably unmatched CDAF performance with their DFD technology. No, not to the level of sports/performance PDAF auto focus, but well capable for the many more typical scenarios and for some of us that took the time to learn and practice the SL2's AF capabilities and AF settings...Yes, we can get the shot to include fast moving subjects--but again, not at the well-known, consistent and even uncanny level of Sony, Canon and now Nikon's Hybrid PDAF capabilities. 

CDAF+DFD is now history as Panasonic/Leica embrace their new hybrid PDAF technology. But that too will take some time to mature. 

Edited February 21, 2024 by LBJ2

[Dr. G]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

If we know anything about CDAF, Panasonic/Leica has to be commended for taking CDAF to IMO a new level of probably unmatched CDAF performance with their DFD technology. No, not to the level of sports/performance PDAF auto focus, but well capable for the many more typical scenarios and for some of us that took the time to learn and practice the SL2's AF capabilities and AF settings...Yes, we can get the shot to include fast moving subjects--but again, not at the well-known, consistent and even uncanny level of Sony, Canon and now Nikon's Hybrid PDAF capabilities. 

CDAF+DFD is now history as Panasonic/Leica embrace their new hybrid PDAF technology. But that too will take some time to mature. 

It's been a while since I had the SL2 (have been using my SL2-S for pretty much everything).  I'm curious how the perceived sharpness of images taken with the SL3's new sensor and the PDAF overlay will compare to those taken with the SL2.  

[LBJ2]

28 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

It's been a while since I had the SL2 (have been using my SL2-S for pretty much everything).  I'm curious how the perceived sharpness of images taken with the SL3's new sensor and the PDAF overlay will compare to those taken with the SL2.  

I often write, I would love to try my Leica SL APO primes on my M11 sensor since I enjoy using my M lenses on the SL2 sensor. With the SL3, I'll get the chance. M11 + SL2 has been a great interchangeable kit for me but obviously only when it comes to M lenses. I'm looking forward to more of mix and match between L-mount and M-mount lenses with the SL3 and M11 ( *if you consider the SL3 as the same sensor as the M11) *The M11 is my favorite rangefinder to date of the ones I've owned, M10 and M10-R which I also liked very much. 

The Panansonic representative said something along the lines of PDAF technology has now reached the level of Panasonic's IQ expectations. So I'm guessing there have been some improvements to the degradation in IQ PDAF is sometimes known for e.g., the potential of banding/striping/pixel reflections etc, something CDAF does not suffer. Perhaps just marketing speak--I don't know. I'm also expecting ( but don't know if) the benefits of BSI and a few million more pixels might also contribute to slightly better IQ in some scenarios. 

What are your thoughts comparing Q2 and Q3 image quality ? 

Edited February 21, 2024 by LBJ2

[Dr. G]

I actually thought the Q3 was better with a caveat - I usually shoot in low light, underexposed by 1 - 1 1/3 stops to keep my shutter speed reasonable.  When I processed my files the Q3 files were cleaner.  Even in low light situations where I didn’t underexpose the Q3 had better performance.  I didn’t like using my Q2 at or above 3200 but with the Q3 6400 was relatively clean.  The detail in the Q3 images was amazing, but…

I also have some APO SL lenses (35, 50, 75) so I can only imagine how they’ll look.  Although I still tend to think that optically the 35 and 75 are slightly ahead of my 50 based on my images.  

[Olaf_ZG]

Regarding AF, I shoot portraits and horseriding, the latter is a bit more dynamic, but to me, AF is enough on the SL. Granted, didn’t try a sony, but I don’t feel I need more.

But then, I still have the camera on single click mode. May be I am missing out…

[proenca]

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

The problem here is that users tend to expect automated systems to think for them. It is as much -or even more- of a learning curve to be able to use AF to the limit of its capabilities compared to manual focus. 

Have to agree with you here. 

Old school shooter here, from the time that AF didn’t exist. 

Then AF started to show up and even working as a journalist with Canon 1D, Nikon D2h and D3s, every camera AF had its limits and I had to know them.

Then, as a non working photographer, had a myriad of cameras, from Medium Format ( Hasselblads, S006, GFX, etc ) to Mirrorless ( Sony’s A7R, R3, etc ) and again there is limits. 

Is the SL2 ( which I own ) AF system even a match for today Sony systems ,for example ? Even older ones ?No.

There is, how you elequantely put it - a learning curve ? Indeed. 

Even as a seasoned photographer, I have to say that only after 1 year, I trully mastered and found the limits of the SL2 AF - and know how to work around them in comfort. 

So there is a learning curve - and is a bit steeper than the latest tech from other brands, no doubt.

But its quite usable and doable for mild action, if you are aware of its limitations and know how to circumvent them. 

Point and shoot & forget it ain’t. 

[Jon Warwick]

5 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

I often write, I would love to try my Leica SL APO primes on my M11 sensor ….. ( *if you consider the SL3 as the same sensor as the M11) *The M11 is my favorite rangefinder to date of the ones I've owned,

Same here, I’ve been incredibly impressed by the M11 sensor, including against my GFX 100mp camera when comparing prints to 45” wide. I typically prefer the rendering that I get off the M11, and at that print size the resolution difference is a lot less than one would expect, but where there is sometimes an issue is when a 60mp sensor is “confused” and creates false color and moire (but the 100mp sensor doesn’t) <*>, and I’m hoping the SL3 will have a high resolution pixel shift mode, given it could negate those occasional circumstances when needed to avoid false color. If that’s the case, I’d move all back to Leica full frame.  

<*> for false color with the M11, I find it can occur when doing landscapes of (say) glaciers, and the very fine moraine / rock debris to the side of the ice is so small and detailed that it’s not as cleanly recorded (and gets infiltrated with colored “speckles”) with a 60mp sensor, whereas the 100mp is fine. I’m assuming pixel shift mode on a 60mp sensor would also be much better in such circumstances than its single-shot capture.

Edited February 21, 2024 by Jon Warwick

[Smogg]

10 hours ago, Dr. G said:

I actually thought the Q3 was better with a caveat - I usually shoot in low light, underexposed by 1 - 1 1/3 stops to keep my shutter speed reasonable.   

What's the point of underexposing the frame for the sake of acceptable shutter speed? Isn't it easier to raise the ISO? In any case, when processing images, you will raise the exposure in Lightroom or Capture One - in terms of the final amount of noise in the frame, these are absolutely equivalent actions.

Take a picture at ISO 6400, underexpose the picture by 1EV and raise the exposure by 1EV during processing, you will still get a noise result equivalent to a picture at 12800 ISO

Edited February 22, 2024 by Smogg

[Dr. G]

38 minutes ago, Smogg said:

What's the point of underexposing the frame for the sake of acceptable shutter speed? Isn't it easier to raise the ISO? In any case, when processing images, you will raise the exposure in Lightroom or Capture One - in terms of the final amount of noise in the frame, these are absolutely equivalent actions.

Take a picture at ISO 6400, underexpose the picture by 1EV and raise the exposure by 1EV during processing, you will still get a noise result equivalent to a picture at 12800 ISO

I actually did not know that.  But I do like the look of my images and colors underexposed by about 1/3 stop to 2/3 stop in good light.  So would I get the same result shooting at 0 EV and dropping the exposure by the same amount in post?  I'll have to compare the two images in that scenario.  

[Smogg]

36 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

I actually did not know that.  But I do like the look of my images and colors underexposed by about 1/3 stop to 2/3 stop in good light.  So would I get the same result shooting at 0 EV and dropping the exposure by the same amount in post?  I'll have to compare the two images in that scenario.  

No, if your goal is to get a slightly underexposed image, then it is better not to do this in post-processing, but directly when shooting. Increasing exposure always increases noise, but decreasing exposure in post-processing does not reduce noise.

[Smogg]

Shooting heavily underexposed makes sense when you want to get more DR (dynamic range) and/or keep bright areas of the frame from burning out. Then during post-processing you will not increase the exposure throughout the entire frame, but only in the dark areas

[FlashGordonPhotography]

19 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Or perhaps Leica users live in a self made bubble and haven’t realized that modern autofocus is substantially more efficient than what the SL2 offers. 
That said, after the various firmware updates, I find the SL2-S autofocus ok, although not brilliant. 

In 24x36 I have an A1, R5, R7, A7R5, A7CR, A7R3, Z7, S1R and S5II to compare it to directly. My bubble is large, and I don't make comments in isolation, if possible.

For fast moving subjects (birds, sports, wildlife) the A1 rules and the SL2, R7 and Z7 are last. The margin is noticeable. The R7 says it's locked on but often jumps off for a frame or two. Shite camera. The SL series EVF wobble is a PITA and ruins the user experience. My order would be A1, A7R5, R5, A7CR, S5II, S1R, Z7, SL2, R7 (because of the missed frames).

For normal moving subjects (studio, street, weddings) the SL2 has about the same hit rate as the others. The A7R5 is best but the margin is small. The z7 is ever so slightly behind. The R7 still manages to find the background far too often. The SL2 is very reliable but again the EVF wobble is not nice.

For stationary and near stationary they're all basically the same (single shot AF).

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hansvons]

10 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

<*> for false color with the M11, I find it can occur when doing landscapes of (say) glaciers, and the very fine moraine / rock debris to the side of the ice is so small and detailed that it’s not as cleanly recorded (and gets infiltrated with colored “speckles”) with a 60mp sensor, whereas the 100mp is fine.

Interesting. I saw similar things on old Red sensors in the shadows. That was resolved with modified debayering algorithms back then. I shoot digital only in 24MP (SL2-S) and have never experienced such a phenomenon. Did you test various debayering methods, like LR vs C1?