SL3 Rumors

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Smogg said:

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.

Yes. But only in the invariant part of the sensor. 

[Smogg]

15 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Yes. But only in the invariant part of the sensor. 

you are absolutely right

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

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?

hi, comparing Adobe vs C1, no - but that's a good idea that i should try out, it might be that C1 is better in these situations. In Adobe, I have used "Enhance" in Adobe Camera Raw (thanks to Stuart's recommendation in the past), and that did a better job for demosaicing the DNGs and cleaned out a fair amount of the color speckles that are embedded in the very fine details like small rocks. But the M11's 60mp generally had more false color artifacts than just using a 100mp sensor, the latter seemed immune to it. Separately, I wonder if it's possible that an SL with its telecentric lenses also gets less crosstalk and less color artifacts than an M (the latter with its more challenging need for microlenses to bend in the light rays at an acute angle), etc etc?

[hansvons]

48 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

Separately, I wonder if it's possible that an SL with its telecentric lenses also gets less crosstalk and less color artifacts than an M (the latter with its more challenging need for microlenses to bend in the light rays at an acute angle), etc etc?

I can't say for sure, but I'm under the impression that Leica's M lenses design changed considerably when the M system became digital. That means the design date could be more important than the logogram ASPH, for instance.

I learned that M lenses that were designed before 2008 perform visibly better on film than on digital sensors, including M sensors–although there's a vast difference in how M lenses, especially the wide-angle from 35mm downwards, behave on, say, Sony to Leica SL or M. I'm also not sure whether the M system is more constraint design-wise than Leica communicates, and agree with you that the SL APO lenses probably will perform better than their M APO siblings on their respective camera. There's a substantial difference between the two according to official MTF charts.

Long story short: The upcoming Leica SL3's 60 MP sensor will very likely perform better with the APO SL lenses than in the M11 with APO or lower M lenses. The only question left open is how Leica deals with the known PDAF constraints. 

Edited February 22, 2024 by hansvons

[LBJ2]

3 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

hi, comparing Adobe vs C1, no - but that's a good idea that i should try out, it might be that C1 is better in these situations. In Adobe, I have used "Enhance" in Adobe Camera Raw (thanks to Stuart's recommendation in the past), and that did a better job for demosaicing the DNGs and cleaned out a fair amount of the color speckles that are embedded in the very fine details like small rocks. But the M11's 60mp generally had more false color artifacts than just using a 100mp sensor, the latter seemed immune to it. Separately, I wonder if it's possible that an SL with its telecentric lenses also gets less crosstalk and less color artifacts than an M (the latter with its more challenging need for microlenses to bend in the light rays at an acute angle), etc etc?

I would first suspect the lens/lenses used, not the sensor itself as higher resolution sensors can magnify lens issues and of course more data means the ability to pixel peep even deeper. As already mentioned, many Leica M lenses are not designed for digital, those that were re-designed for digital, of them some have recently been once again redesigned for higher resolution digital sensors. 

Edited February 22, 2024 by LBJ2

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, hansvons said:

I can't say for sure, but I'm under the impression that Leica's M lenses design changed considerably when the M system became digital. That means the design date could be more important than the logogram ASPH, for instance.

I learned that M lenses that were designed before 2008 perform visibly better on film than on digital sensors, including M sensors–although there's a vast difference in how M lenses, especially the wide-angle from 35mm downwards, behave on, say, Sony to Leica SL or M. I'm also not sure whether the M system is more constraint design-wise than Leica communicates, and agree with you that the SL APO lenses probably will perform better than their M APO siblings on their respective camera. There's a substantial difference between the two according to official MTF charts.

Long story short: The upcoming Leica SL3's 60 MP sensor will very likely perform better with the APO SL lenses than in the M11 with APO or lower M lenses. The only question left open is how Leica deals with the known PDAF constraints. 

Has anyone observed any PDAF constraints with Q3? I assume SL3 wil implement a similar approach to PDAF as in Q3, but we do not know.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

I would first suspect the lens/lenses used, not the sensor itself as higher resolution sensors can magnify lens issues and of course more data means the ability to pixel peep even deeper. As already mentioned, many Leica M lenses are not designed for digital, those that were re-designed for digital, of them some have recently been once again redesigned for higher resolution digital sensors. 

Lens issue = character.

Higher resolution leads to more pronounced character.

😉

[LEGEND]

27 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Lens issue = character.

Higher resolution leads to more pronounced character.

😉

What is then character development? 😁

[FlashGordonPhotography]

36 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Has anyone observed any PDAF constraints with Q3? I assume SL3 wil implement a similar approach to PDAF as in Q3, but we do not know.

It's very very similar to the Panasonic S5II. The SL3 and Q3 will share a sensor so they should be very close indeed.

What's hard is that the wide lens on the Q3 means that the system really isn't taxed very hard for the subjects it's intended for and we can't get an idea of how it'll perform for rapidly moving subjects when the field of view is tighter. The S5II is pretty good but it's faster readout and lower resolution also make it not a direct comparison. I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing how the Sigma 500mm goes on the SL3. So far though the Q3 is a very good system at being fast and accurate. The latter being the most important to me.

I will say though that, I'm far less concerned with speed as I am with accuracy and consistency. I have some very fast AF systems that just don't like staying locked on for every frame. I'll trade frame rates and acquisition speed for consistency. 99% of subjects don't need Sony A1 focusing. They need better technique. There's nothing wrong with spectacular AF systems. I like my A7r5 and A1 a LOT but if I use some fieldcraft and learn the system and subject I don't see huge differences in hit rates. And my lively hood doesn't depend on it so I don't whimper every time a shot is slightly out. I just keep shooting. When my SL2 is locked on it's actually pretty good for focus accuracy. I HATE the fact I can't see that in the EVF though and after 4 years I still don't completely trust it because of the Panasonic/Leica wobble during AFC.

Also I'm primarily a stills shooter. It's obviously different for the video guys, although why they wouldn't just get a S5II, is beyond me.

I'm currently doing some testing between my Sl2 and Sony A7R5. We can assume the base silicon in the SL3 is similar to the Sony and I'm testing to see if it's a SL3 and SL2 backup or 2 x SL3's. Right now *for my use case* there's a smaller difference than anticipated. Most wildlife doesn't actually move that fast or erratically. I don't require or even want 30 fps. I found the biggest limitation so far for the SL2 is reach. I don't like the 150-600. But focus acquisition is fine. The exceptions have been birds in flight and subjects close to the camera. Mostly at normal shooting distances for wildlife, either system copes. That means to me that the SL3 will hopefully give me a small bump in AF acquisition speed and a better experience in the EVF than the SL3. It probably will be like the S5II (fine for me) which is still a bit behind the A7R5 but does have a good retention rate when it finds the subject.

If the SL3 has the Q3/M11 file quality I'm likely to get 2 x Sl3's. I also like the buttons to be in the same spot. Having the play button on the right of the screen like the Q3 would be enough reason to upgrade, right there.

Gordon 

[huwm]

5 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

If the SL3 has the Q3/M11 file quality I'm likely to get 2 x Sl3's. I also like the buttons to be in the same spot. Having the play button on the right of the screen like the Q3 would be enough reason to upgrade, right there

I wish 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

7 hours ago, hansvons said:

 

Long story short: The upcoming Leica SL3's 60 MP sensor will very likely perform better with the APO SL lenses than in the M11 with APO or lower M lenses. The only question left open is how Leica deals with the known PDAF constraints. 

Likely the biggest difference, like the SL2, is focus accuracy. I love my M50 APO for it's size and IQ but my SL 50 APO images are generally sharper and with more available resolution because the focus is spot on nearly every time. The M and SL 50 APO render differently too.

I would like to see Leica put some more effort into the experience with manual focus lenses on the SL bodies. The Nikon Zf shows what is possible. I think it would enhance the manual focus experience a lot. And if you don't want the tech turn it off.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 minutes ago, huwm said:

I wish 

That's what the leaked photos show....

Gordon

[hansvons]

24 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

although why they wouldn't just get a S5II, is beyond me.

It's the baked-in colour in the log files. You either like them or not.

[CCC]

If 60mpx should turn out to be correct for the SL3: Personally I would't want that as the increase in resolution between SL2- SL3 is not enough in my opinion in order to really benefit from it.

More resolution means for me talking about three digit figures, 100mpx and above AND medium format sensor. So, although I know it's almost impossible, but an SL3 with a 3x4 aspect ratio medium format sensor around 100mpx (Leica will never do that, they'll stay with their 2x3 Pro Format)  and an SL3-S with around 30mpx, both with the same L-mount would be my dream combo. 

The first would be heavily photo oriented and the latter a truly hybrid camera, with proper 6K internal ProResRaw recording possibilites without time limitations.

A lot of wishful thinking...

And as a side note, if the pics showed are true, the SL-3 will be ugly again...I never liked my SL design although I loved the 4button layout. The SL-2's design is for my eyes even worse. Why can't Leica at least get the design more pleasing like the S is or the R9/10 were? Both thus cameras were milestones of industrial design..

[jaapv]

On 2/21/2024 at 6:06 PM, LBJ2 said:

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 ? 

How would you use SL lenses on an M, given the difference in register distance?

[Dr. G]

22 minutes ago, CCC said:

If 60mpx should turn out to be correct for the SL3: Personally I would't want that as the increase in resolution between SL2- SL3 is not enough in my opinion in order to really benefit from it.

More resolution means for me talking about three digit figures, 100mpx and above AND medium format sensor. So, although I know it's almost impossible, but an SL3 with a 3x4 aspect ratio medium format sensor around 100mpx (Leica will never do that, they'll stay with their 2x3 Pro Format)  and an SL3-S with around 30mpx, both with the same L-mount would be my dream combo. 

The first would be heavily photo oriented and the latter a truly hybrid camera, with proper 6K internal ProResRaw recording possibilites without time limitations.

A lot of wishful thinking...

And as a side note, if the pics showed are true, the SL-3 will be ugly again...I never liked my SL design although I loved the 4button layout. The SL-2's design is for my eyes even worse. Why can't Leica at least get the design more pleasing like the S is or the R9/10 were? Both thus cameras were milestones of industrial design..

I am on a different upgrade path.  If I can get 60Mp resolution with similar low light performance to my SL2-S it’s an easy upgrade.  I don’t think that’s going to be the case, but we’ll have to see. 

[LBJ2]

33 minutes ago, jaapv said:

How would you use SL lenses on an M, given the difference in register distance?

Vicariously via the alleged M11 sensor in the SL3 camera. 

[jaapv]

The sensor will not be the same; it will certainly have different microlenses and filter stack, even if the basic silicon is the same. The microlenses and filters are the bit that give the sensor its character. 

[LBJ2]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The sensor will not be the same; it will certainly have different microlenses and filter stack, even if the basic silicon is the same. The microlenses and filters are the bit that give the sensor its character. 

As to be expected. 😉

Edited February 22, 2024 by LBJ2

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[la1402]

3 hours ago, CCC said:

If 60mpx should turn out to be correct for the SL3: Personally I would't want that as the increase in resolution between SL2- SL3 is not enough in my opinion in order to really benefit from it.

The sensor in the M11 and Q3 looks much nicer than the Q2/SL2. Especially high ISO noise I find very unpleasant in the Q2/SL2. That 60MP sensor is great. It's just not a very fast sensor, so together with Panasoncis history of comparatively sluggish AF speed I have my doubts how the total experience will be. But we'll see soon.