SL3 Rumors

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, WvE said:

I tried the SL2-S in the Leica store and I found the look and feel to be second to none. However, what keeps me from buying it is the price and the tech, which is not the newest on the block. So, I'm also considering the new Nikon ZF which seems to be more value for money. The prices for second-hand SL2-S' are still pretty steep. What would you do, or wait what the SL3 brings? 

It really depends what you want from a camera. The ZF is the "newest" right now, because it was just announced. The Panasonic S5ii is just as advanced, even though it's been available for a few months. Both of these cameras have slightly faster AF than the SL2s, but most photographers wouldn't notice the difference if they aren't shooting sports or other action scenarios. Other than that, the tech is broadly similar.

Value is subjective. The best value is the one you'll keep the longest and use the most.

[Advertisement]

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

[Hans-Dieter Gülicher]

Am 28.7.2023 um 10:42 schrieb 1Haufen:

I don't know if this has already been a topic here: has there been any consideration of what a new SL3 or SL3-s might cost?

In Germany the price is € 18600. I bought it 3 years ago together with the Vario 30-90 mm = complete € 28500. It`s my big mashine, an excellent one. But in the meantime I prefer my M 10-R plus APO-Summicrin 35 mm.

[Simone_DF]

@WvE buy the camera that inspire you the most. Both cameras have pros and cons. The SL2-S would give you continuity with menus and user interface. The Nikon ZF is also a solid choice with an excellent lens lineup. The good news is that you cannot go wrong with either. 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, LeicaR10 said:

 Interesting, people who can afford and buy a Porsche, Ferrari, etc., don't whing about price.  Those cars depreciate as soon as they are driven off the lot.  

Well, I bought a new 911 Cabriolet in 1986 for $36k, and sold it in 1994 for $38k.  Unfortunately, I didn’t instead buy a low mileage 1968 Ferrari 330 GTC that I simultaneously considered in 1986, for $27k; it appreciated to over $1M.

Camera/car analogies are typically problematic.

Jeff

Edited September 27, 2023 by Jeff S

[padam]

2 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

Leica is a niche camera manufacturer that makes handmade, highest quality lenses and cameras. 

No camera company today makes the same level of high quality handmade lenses and cameras, vs mass produced prosumer cameras and lenses. 

I agree that they are differently manufactured. But let's not treat them as some elusive superior being.
Their quality control is definitely not superior - I would rather say inferior to other manufacturers. You can search "quality control" on this forum or other places, like: https://www.martinzimelka.com/Blog/Entries/2022/12/leica-apo-summicron-50mm-asph-disappointment.html

This "buy Leica because you don't loose money on it" is mostly an illusion (as long as the gear is actually being used).

As long as you buy lenses used (and get lucky with a copy which you may not even be aware of) you might be able to keep the value.
But bodies deprecate nevertheless.
Not only that, they do go wrong as they age. And when you Do need to service them, bills can be quite frightening, too.
Buying an other current mirrorless system lens used can keep the value just as well.

There are a few exceptions, for instance the previous version of the M 50/1.4 ASPH that at point got a massive price hike because of production changes, enabling people to gain some value. Does not happen with other non-limited products, they just keep their value relatively still until the next version comes out. (again that same M 50/1.4 ASPH is now going down)
They may get valuable over time if they are discontinued, but there just is no way of knowing that for sure.

[hansvons]

16 minutes ago, padam said:

This "buy Leica because you don't loose money on it" is mostly an illusion (as long as the gear is actually being used).

Yes. Absolutely.

But here's the thing: new Leica gear typically will be longer kept, say five years or more. The typical hobbyist buyer of Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji, however, tends to follow the faster product cycles of these brands and buy their latest and greatest with a higher beat rate, which creates the feeling that Leica gear is more of a long-term investment. I'd say that quite a few Leicarsisti invest more in their passion than the regular GAS-infected by a large margin. Leica stuff, as a rule of thumb, is only an "investment" if you have time and buy their manual gear, keep it for decades and work with it.

Pros, on the other hand, can't care less. They buy cost-consciously what they need for the job and wear out their equipment until it is useless.

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I always find it interesting on forums that people tend to give great weight to technical improvements, but not really give much weight (at least in discussions) to implementation of that tech, interface and design, and synergy throughout a whole system. I think pros in general are a lot more attuned to this, because they spend so much time with the camera, but especially these days a lot of the tech is kind of a ploy by the manufacturers to get you to buy a new camera. In the last ten years or so, the fundamental quality of still cameras has not expanded by leaps and bounds in most areas. The D800 came out in early 2012, and the A7R and A7S in 2013. Those were the cameras that I would argue really pushed the envelope for 35mm, raising the resolution to 37mp with excellent quality and implementing extreme high ISO and professional video features into 35mm cameras. Since then we have had many excellent, but fundamentally gradual improvements. Stabilization, cleaner ISOs, a resolution bump, better AF etc. But fundamentally you are not going to be able to tell the difference in a good photo taken with a D800 and one taken with a Z9.

I think Leica has always been a more iterative and careful adopter of technology. They take a long time to get around to it, typically, but by the time they put it in, it is very well sorted. For example, when the SL2 came out it had the best EVF, the best stabilization, the best implementation of multishot, the best color and the best lenses in mirrorless. The camera's life cycle is ending, so it is a bit unfair to dock it for not being "the most advanced" when a new version is probably already out in the world being tested under NDAs.

At least to my mind, it still has the best lenses, the best color, the best multishot and the overall best design and synergy. For me, the AF problems (which I do not experience at all in my work) pale in comparison to having a brilliantly designed camera that outputs incredible imagery with a very diverse stable of lenses from cheap and great to expensive and insanely great.

The resale and economics are incidental to my mind. Certainly the initial cost is not, but if I am going to be using a camera for four or five years, I am not thinking too much whether it cost 6000 or 3000 dollars over that time. Perhaps that is the professional part...I have to use it so often that I would rather pay more for a better camera every day than have a cheap one that does a similar job but is frustrating the whole time across a few years.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[helged]

3 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

...from cheap and great to expensive and insanely great.

That's an elegant - and precise - way to put it! 

[padam]

7 hours ago, hansvons said:

But here's the thing: new Leica gear typically will be longer kept, say five years or more.

Not sure about statistical data on that, but I think most users are hobbyists, and there is a fair amount of Leica resell/upgrade going on it as well for whatever reasons, because Leica gear I tend to buy is almost always less than a year old, there are a handful of choices, just not so many good deals. With the right timing, it is possible to replace bodies at minimal to no cost, but I agree that it's not necessary.

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think Leica has always been a more iterative and careful adopter of technology. They take a long time to get around to it, typically, but by the time they put it in, it is very well sorted.

The resale and economics are incidental to my mind. Certainly the initial cost is not, but if I am going to be using a camera for four or five years, I am not thinking too much whether it cost 6000 or 3000 dollars over that time. Perhaps that is the professional part...I have to use it so often that I would rather pay more for a better camera every day than have a cheap one that does a similar job but is frustrating the whole time across a few years.

Again, this I can only accept these points, if there are actual user comparisons between SL and other series of cameras.
A handful Leica users don't seem to care about such stuff. There is nothing wrong with that, until false assumptions start coming in about "where Leica actually sits" in comparison.
For instance, whether others are really "rushing technology" and because of that they don't work as well or if that they are just aren't as great to use.
While I don't consider M line to be easily comparable to others, but when talking about mirrorless, almost everyone is hopping on this train, and in essence, they all work the exactly the same way, they just do things a bit differently. Which again, kind of makes you think about how 'special' Leica really is - and no need worry, I won't skip that,

I nominate the Canon R5, I had both simultaneously for a similarly long period and it's hard for be to give a definite verdict on which camera is "better", considering I did end up using them in different ways. Admittedly, slightly younger model by 9 months, but it seems like both are getting replaced around the same time, so the product cycle is not that different.
And based on Q3->SL3 vs Canon rumours regarding stacked sensors, I fear that one upgrade will be much more significant than the other. But let's wait and see.
Most people will not care anyway, they just choose between Canon and Leica, not directly like this. I agree that there are more significant choice to be made as a whole system. But at least this might give some idea to others about what to expect as an all-round camera for enthusiasts, or why certain people move this way or that way.

I would also add that the SL2-S is a little more competitive in a few areas, which explains why used SL2 and SL2-S values are almost the same.
In comparison, Canon makes the lower R6 line cheaper (even lighter at least and with more depreciation), while Leica keeps the same build, EVF and screen quality.

Anyway, here are my impressions. I do have certain personal preferences, but I do not feel biased towards any brand, and I do appreciate passionate takes on anything, as long as they don't skimp on bad points, making them a lot more authentic, useful (just an example I recently came across with: initial take on the M11 at PebblePlace)

Let's see where I feel Canon is not as good.

+ Leica feels more expensive, more tank-like. (I do not think about the Canon as cheap though)
+ Great EVF, better colour and optics
+ Leica is a bit sharper without AA filter.
+ Colours are not the same (they are good for different reasons but yes. I prefer Leica)
+ M lenses work a lot better on Leica (for me, a deal killer with most other cameras)
+ Level indicator during video recording (stupid Canon limitation)
+ Full-size HDMI (again, same)
+ Better video codec options (still same)
+ Very specific, but multi-shot is not really there with Canon (in this generation).
+ Seemingly an important part of any digital Leica user experience (for certain people): being careful, dealing with foibles, makes it more involving and rewarding at the end.

Now let's look the other side.

- Canon form factor is simply better, considerably smaller and lighter
- Despite that, battery life is still notably better, also charges faster via USB-C (but kudos to Leica for USB-C charging).
- Better grip. SL2 did improve over the SL but still feels a bit odd (for me).
I am not the type to invest in a half-cases. But I lucked out that the one I got came with one, because it feels a lot better (especially good for an original SL)
And also, there will be a lot less paint peeling off. Funnily enough, I still kept that if I give it another go... Canon with more intense usage has no wear on it whatsoever.
- Controls are better, might not be as 'stylish', but they've made the best use of the available space and they don't get accidentally knocked out of place.
- The menu system so much quicker to navigate and organise favourites (I don't oppose simplicity, but it has to be quick to access as well)
- Photo/video modes are organized well, too. You can limit modes and a button to switch photo/video (Leica has the switch and User Profiles, but not as well implemented)
- Swivel screen. Not my preference (point to the future SL3), but still way better than fixed, it's not flimsy.
- Joystick is much more responsive and moves diagonally.
- Sensor is a lot less prone to dust with ultrasonic cleaning and shutter closing. Even if it (rarely) does, much easier to clean (fluorine coated).
- Video is a big differentiator. Having full-sensor 4k with faster readout, various options (you are not forced to shoot Log as you have other profiles, with Leica Log is the way to go) 4k120p far above average even today. 8k internal RAW not likely to be used, but if it is, does look amazing. Still one of the best hybrid cameras out there.
- AF is predictably by far the most significant difference. I consider the Leica to be most reliable in its single-shot single-point AF mode (not very useful for video), tracking seemed unpredictable no matter how I tried to set it up. Canon tracks really well even before tweaking settings, animal eye-AF etc. really useful stuff if it works well.
Here are a few specifics regarding the SL2 over SL2-S:
- EVF not great in low light, noise and flickering and I think the sensor live feed is a bit better on Canon
- Dynamic range and ISO (noise, colour retention) is inferior (maybe there is a bit of noise reduction baked in Canon files, but the difference is clear)
- No compressed RAW. Small thing, but 30 vs 80 MB was a big difference for me - I guess no problem for users spending this much, but here comes another point:
- Does not matter if you use the fastest cards, writing and playing back files is slow and unresponsive (ok, it was even worse on an SL...)
+ Video dynamic range and ISO might be better on the SL2-S over Canon

I would give IBIS itself a tie. I feel like Canon is a bit stronger, but the Leica heft makes it more consistent.
Canon still gets a nod for having many lenses with IS, but thanks to Panasonic, Leica will also expand on that.
Hard to rate manual focus aids, despite the better EVF I still wasn't confident enough to skip magnifying, fiddly on both cameras for different reasons.
Also difficult to rate the lack of EFCS in the Leica, probably causes a minor shutter shock at certain speeds, but it is also a setting that might need changing on the Canon since it has some effect on the blur at high shutter speeds. The Canon shutter is quiet, but the Leica shutter sounds nice.
I also give Leica a friendly pass on battery issues regarding video and burst rate, according to what's written here, this seems to be finally dealt with by firmware while also having a new battery. Regular firmware updates were great on both actually, while Canon had been demonised with overheating, they've significantly improved it, even before it had rarely been a problem.


The most interesting thing where I give the biggest nod to the Leica is an even more subjective thing, which is how people react to the camera.
This for me might be more significant than how I feel about them.

Canon just "presents itself" like any other mirrorless camera. While Leica is Leica, only mirrorless, if you get what I mean.
This is what converts me to be more like a 'Leicaphile' (not ultimate sharpness, etc.), and this is where I think the appreciation factor really comes in, as it may have a tangible effect on actual pictures of (certain) people, which at the end of the day is probably what might matter a lot many decades down the line.
But counterpoint comes in where you realise that mirrorless and technology are interlinked, and there is a tangible difference regarding capabilities which people might need to experience (preferably with little pre-bias) in order for them to judge whether they need that or not, and other issues which are occasionally raised on this forum.

Edited September 27, 2023 by padam

[helged]

8 hours ago, padam said:

Not sure about statistical data on that, but I think most users are hobbyists, and there is a fair amount of Leica resell/upgrade going on it as well for whatever reasons, because Leica gear I tend to buy is almost always less than a year old, there are a handful of choices, just not so many good deals. With the right timing, it is possible to replace bodies at minimal to no cost, but I agree that it's not necessary.

Again, this I can only accept these points, if there are actual user comparisons between SL and other series of cameras.
A handful Leica users don't seem to care about such stuff. There is nothing wrong with that, until false assumptions start coming in about "where Leica actually sits" in comparison.
For instance, whether others are really "rushing technology" and because of that they don't work as well or if that they are just aren't as great to use.
While I don't consider M line to be easily comparable to others, but when talking about mirrorless, almost everyone is hopping on this train, and in essence, they all work the exactly the same way, they just do things a bit differently. Which again, kind of makes you think about how 'special' Leica really is - and no need worry, I won't skip that,

I nominate the Canon R5, I had both simultaneously for a similarly long period and it's hard for be to give a definite verdict on which camera is "better", considering I did end up using them in different ways. Admittedly, slightly younger model by 9 months, but it seems like both are getting replaced around the same time, so the product cycle is not that different.
And based on Q3->SL3 vs Canon rumours regarding stacked sensors, I fear that one upgrade will be much more significant than the other. But let's wait and see.
Most people will not care anyway, they just choose between Canon and Leica, not directly like this. I agree that there are more significant choice to be made as a whole system. But at least this might give some idea to others about what to expect as an all-round camera for enthusiasts, or why certain people move this way or that way.

I would also add that the SL2-S is a little more competitive in a few areas, which explains why used SL2 and SL2-S values are almost the same.
In comparison, Canon makes the lower R6 line cheaper (even lighter at least and with more depreciation), while Leica keeps the same build, EVF and screen quality.

Anyway, here are my impressions. I do have certain personal preferences, but I do not feel biased towards any brand, and I do appreciate passionate takes on anything, as long as they don't skimp on bad points, making them a lot more authentic, useful (just an example I recently came across with: initial take on the M11 at PebblePlace)

Let's see where I feel Canon is not as good.

+ Leica feels more expensive, more tank-like. (I do not think about the Canon as cheap though)
+ Great EVF, better colour and optics
+ Leica is a bit sharper without AA filter.
+ Colours are not the same (they are good for different reasons but yes. I prefer Leica)
+ M lenses work a lot better on Leica (for me, a deal killer with most other cameras)
+ Level indicator during video recording (stupid Canon limitation)
+ Full-size HDMI (again, same)
+ Better video codec options (still same)
+ Very specific, but multi-shot is not really there with Canon (in this generation).
+ Seemingly an important part of any digital Leica user experience (for certain people): being careful, dealing with foibles, makes it more involving and rewarding at the end.

Now let's look the other side.

- Canon form factor is simply better, considerably smaller and lighter
- Despite that, battery life is still notably better, also charges faster via USB-C (but kudos to Leica for USB-C charging).
- Better grip. SL2 did improve over the SL but still feels a bit odd (for me).
I am not the type to invest in a half-cases. But I lucked out that the one I got came with one, because it feels a lot better (especially good for an original SL)
And also, there will be a lot less paint peeling off. Funnily enough, I still kept that if I give it another go... Canon with more intense usage has no wear on it whatsoever.
- Controls are better, might not be as 'stylish', but they've made the best use of the available space and they don't get accidentally knocked out of place.
- The menu system so much quicker to navigate and organise favourites (I don't oppose simplicity, but it has to be quick to access as well)
- Photo/video modes are organized well, too. You can limit modes and a button to switch photo/video (Leica has the switch and User Profiles, but not as well implemented)
- Swivel screen. Not my preference (point to the future SL3), but still way better than fixed, it's not flimsy.
- Joystick is much more responsive and moves diagonally.
- Sensor is a lot less prone to dust with ultrasonic cleaning and shutter closing. Even if it (rarely) does, much easier to clean (fluorine coated).
- Video is a big differentiator. Having full-sensor 4k with faster readout, various options (you are not forced to shoot Log as you have other profiles, with Leica Log is the way to go) 4k120p far above average even today. 8k internal RAW not likely to be used, but if it is, does look amazing. Still one of the best hybrid cameras out there.
- AF is predictably by far the most significant difference. I consider the Leica to be most reliable in its single-shot single-point AF mode (not very useful for video), tracking seemed unpredictable no matter how I tried to set it up. Canon tracks really well even before tweaking settings, animal eye-AF etc. really useful stuff if it works well.
Here are a few specifics regarding the SL2 over SL2-S:
- EVF not great in low light, noise and flickering and I think the sensor live feed is a bit better on Canon
- Dynamic range and ISO (noise, colour retention) is inferior (maybe there is a bit of noise reduction baked in Canon files, but the difference is clear)
- No compressed RAW. Small thing, but 30 vs 80 MB was a big difference for me - I guess no problem for users spending this much, but here comes another point:
- Does not matter if you use the fastest cards, writing and playing back files is slow and unresponsive (ok, it was even worse on an SL...)
+ Video dynamic range and ISO might be better on the SL2-S over Canon

I would give IBIS itself a tie. I feel like Canon is a bit stronger, but the Leica heft makes it more consistent.
Canon still gets a nod for having many lenses with IS, but thanks to Panasonic, Leica will also expand on that.
Hard to rate manual focus aids, despite the better EVF I still wasn't confident enough to skip magnifying, fiddly on both cameras for different reasons.
Also difficult to rate the lack of EFCS in the Leica, probably causes a minor shutter shock at certain speeds, but it is also a setting that might need changing on the Canon since it has some effect on the blur at high shutter speeds. The Canon shutter is quiet, but the Leica shutter sounds nice.
I also give Leica a friendly pass on battery issues regarding video and burst rate, according to what's written here, this seems to be finally dealt with by firmware while also having a new battery. Regular firmware updates were great on both actually, while Canon had been demonised with overheating, they've significantly improved it, even before it had rarely been a problem.


The most interesting thing where I give the biggest nod to the Leica is an even more subjective thing, which is how people react to the camera.
This for me might be more significant than how I feel about them.

Canon just "presents itself" like any other mirrorless camera. While Leica is Leica, only mirrorless, if you get what I mean.
This is what converts me to be more like a 'Leicaphile' (not ultimate sharpness, etc.), and this is where I think the appreciation factor really comes in, as it may have a tangible effect on actual pictures of (certain) people, which at the end of the day is probably what might matter a lot many decades down the line.
But counterpoint comes in where you realise that mirrorless and technology are interlinked, and there is a tangible difference regarding capabilities which people might need to experience (preferably with little pre-bias) in order for them to judge whether they need that or not, and other issues which are occasionally raised on this forum.

Quite an extender list and comparison there, and as an owner of Leica SLx and Canon R5, I agree on most points.

Clearly, if long primes are on your list, L-mount is (still) not the system to pick. The biggest difference between the two, and the reason I have R5, is continuous AF. Here R5 rules (in comparison to SLx). 

[padam]

My frustration is about adapted glass, my preferred way. Carried a 21/2.8 Elmarit E60, 35/1.4 FLE, 75/1.4 Lux and 135/3.5 LTM Canon to a trip, it was really nice, but I could have chosen other configurations. It's fun, these looked more than good enough for me (of course, the 135 is less good, costs under 100 bucks, still mighty fine for 47MP). Whenever there is a topic about this M lens for that focal length or that, people do all these debates,, and you can see why. It's just about one nice lens vs another vs value vs handling, etc, Hard to choose and not difficult to write nice reviews about almost any of them.

Yet they won't make a mirrorless body specifically for this (admittedly, this would not make users buy their other new products and they aren't frustrated enough about product segmentation - yet). Does not need to be any more 'modern' than an SL2-S (Nikon Zf still uses a similar sensor). And I am not sure about investing a lot in native lenses, I see the L-mount alliance as more disorganized than others. But the reward factor does come in, some find the slower method to be better, less wasteful. somewhere between an M and others with more technology, so might just be a happy medium for certain people. (not that you can't use others like that, but you probably won't)
Also, SL3 with lenses will be out of reach for me anyway, and apart from a tilt screen (impossible not to spoil a clean design), because of the previous usage point, I might not find updates to be that meaningful anyway (same question as whether a Q3 is worth it over Q2 and a handful of Leica users don't need to care anyway), while an R5 Mark II might push things more (about things I had already appreciated) and even from get go, I could get it via grey market.
Agree about "over-upgrading" - just harder to resist in this some cases, if they make one of the best hybrid cameras a lot better still. An important model, they want users in their system no matter the lack of 3rd party glass people will harp on about. But I can already see certain changes being a bit less appealing, if they were right before (M11).

Also owned others like Panasonic S1, S5, neither really impressed me, either too big (kudos to Leica for being better designed) or a bit cramped. This might have more to do with Canon. For the amount of stuff it is has, they've made fast, easy and reliable to operate with the right form factor.
But it's not like these wouldn't be good enough already for many things for peanuts, and that some people aren't right by choosing them and be mightily impressed. So there are valid points about growing lazy about things. But it's also nice to have some sort of sense about things that quick, non-comparative (biased...) reviews might not be able to convey. That is why topics like this exist in the first place.

Worst thing about unloading all this crap from my mind is that it solidifies both Canon's (or Nikon, Sony, etc.) and Leica's position.

They are not the same. Both would be nice to have around. But, simplifying is key.
Whether being more sensible or more emotional (more special, happier, yet more frustrating, which can be a choice of attitude, which can be observed by the bias how Leica users in general perceive other brands, or they might simply get a bit bored with them), there should be a choice made - somehow...

[memphismonroe]

I for one hope for a SL3-S with some video upgrades... Or maybe I should just get a cine camera

[padam]

Sony does not seem to be selling the 33MP A7 IV sensor to other manufacturers. And it's not a big improvement on the existing 24MP either.
Panasonic said they are not interested in 8K video, which can be interpreted as not getting hold of 8K sensors in the first place.
So, at least for now, I would still expect that 24MP sensor with the usual upgrades, improved processing, phase detect autofocus and a tilt-screen.
But it may only came in 2025 and in exchange, it may be better than that.

Edited September 28, 2023 by padam

[BernardC]

59 minutes ago, padam said:

Panasonic said they are not interested in 8K video, which can be interpreted as not getting hold of 8K sensors in the first place.

They said that there wasn't much demand for 8K in the consumer segment, or in the cinema segment to be fair. They offer an 8K camera in their studio professional line, but that's a completely different market.

8K had a lot of buzz in the lead-up to the Tokyo Olympics, with several Japanese suppliers offering 8K production equipment and consumer equipment. The response was underwhelming. That's not to say that 8K will never be a consumer format, of course.

As Canon has shown, any brand can offer 8K as a checklist item. Panasonic could as well with their current 47MP sensor. The problem is that it won't be a very good 8K (because of compression), or a very useful option in regards to overheating. There's a reason why Arri only recently went to 4K, in spite of being the cinema camera of choice for the past decade or more. Quality beats quantity in video.

2 hours ago, memphismonroe said:

I for one hope for a SL3-S with some video upgrades... Or maybe I should just get a cine camera

Have a look at the new Blackmagic Cinema Camera 6K. It's an L-mount camera with professional-level video features.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

Have a look at the new Blackmagic Cinema Camera 6K. It's an L-mount camera with professional-level video features.

I have one on (no commitment) order and I've been told it should arrive early next week. If it does what it says on the tin, and I don't find the size too much of an issue (larger and heavier than the SL2-S), I have several prospects for using it coming up, both on its own and with the SL2-S in tandem. I had in mind getting the SL3 to use in tandem with the SL2-S, but now? the SL3 would have to offer something more than better video.

[padam]

55 minutes ago, BernardC said:

As Canon has shown, any brand can offer 8K as a checklist item. Panasonic could as well with their current 47MP sensor. The problem is that it won't be a very good 8K (because of compression), or a very useful option in regards to overheating. There's a reason why Arri only recently went to 4K, in spite of being the cinema camera of choice for the past decade or more. Quality beats quantity in video.

Not true at all, sensor readout is much slower on the 47MP sensor. Unlikely to be 8K capable to an actual usable level.
The current 61MP sensor is capable with a crop and rolling shutter is still atrocious.
If that's the kind of 8K they are putting in the SL3, then that is actually a checklist item.  (line-skipped 4K won't be brilliant either.)

In comparison the (outgoing) Canon sensor can do it even at 60fps on the R5C without overheating and better codecs, there is not much wrong with it when rigged up.
The problem is editing the files without proxies or powerful PCs.
So there is simply a ton of added cost of shooting 8K and for the most part it is easier to use 4K since it still downscales nicely from 8K in-camera.
And whatever compression the R5 has with H.265 (which is optional, it has RAW as stated) works very well.
Of course dynamic range can't be as good but there are also a massive difference versus cinema cameras. Not directly comparable. Just one segment of a big market.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 9/28/2023 at 5:51 AM, padam said:

Not sure about statistical data on that, but I think most users are hobbyists, and there is a fair amount of Leica resell/upgrade going on it as well for whatever reasons, because Leica gear I tend to buy is almost always less than a year old, there are a handful of choices, just not so many good deals. With the right timing, it is possible to replace bodies at minimal to no cost, but I agree that it's not necessary.

Again, this I can only accept these points, if there are actual user comparisons between SL and other series of cameras.
A handful Leica users don't seem to care about such stuff. There is nothing wrong with that, until false assumptions start coming in about "where Leica actually sits" in comparison.
For instance, whether others are really "rushing technology" and because of that they don't work as well or if that they are just aren't as great to use.
While I don't consider M line to be easily comparable to others, but when talking about mirrorless, almost everyone is hopping on this train, and in essence, they all work the exactly the same way, they just do things a bit differently. Which again, kind of makes you think about how 'special' Leica really is - and no need worry, I won't skip that,

I nominate the Canon R5, I had both simultaneously for a similarly long period and it's hard for be to give a definite verdict on which camera is "better", considering I did end up using them in different ways. Admittedly, slightly younger model by 9 months, but it seems like both are getting replaced around the same time, so the product cycle is not that different.
And based on Q3->SL3 vs Canon rumours regarding stacked sensors, I fear that one upgrade will be much more significant than the other. But let's wait and see.
Most people will not care anyway, they just choose between Canon and Leica, not directly like this. I agree that there are more significant choice to be made as a whole system. But at least this might give some idea to others about what to expect as an all-round camera for enthusiasts, or why certain people move this way or that way.

I would also add that the SL2-S is a little more competitive in a few areas, which explains why used SL2 and SL2-S values are almost the same.
In comparison, Canon makes the lower R6 line cheaper (even lighter at least and with more depreciation), while Leica keeps the same build, EVF and screen quality.

Anyway, here are my impressions. I do have certain personal preferences, but I do not feel biased towards any brand, and I do appreciate passionate takes on anything, as long as they don't skimp on bad points, making them a lot more authentic, useful (just an example I recently came across with: initial take on the M11 at PebblePlace)

Let's see where I feel Canon is not as good.

+ Leica feels more expensive, more tank-like. (I do not think about the Canon as cheap though)
+ Great EVF, better colour and optics
+ Leica is a bit sharper without AA filter.
+ Colours are not the same (they are good for different reasons but yes. I prefer Leica)
+ M lenses work a lot better on Leica (for me, a deal killer with most other cameras)
+ Level indicator during video recording (stupid Canon limitation)
+ Full-size HDMI (again, same)
+ Better video codec options (still same)
+ Very specific, but multi-shot is not really there with Canon (in this generation).
+ Seemingly an important part of any digital Leica user experience (for certain people): being careful, dealing with foibles, makes it more involving and rewarding at the end.

Now let's look the other side.

- Canon form factor is simply better, considerably smaller and lighter
- Despite that, battery life is still notably better, also charges faster via USB-C (but kudos to Leica for USB-C charging).
- Better grip. SL2 did improve over the SL but still feels a bit odd (for me).
I am not the type to invest in a half-cases. But I lucked out that the one I got came with one, because it feels a lot better (especially good for an original SL)
And also, there will be a lot less paint peeling off. Funnily enough, I still kept that if I give it another go... Canon with more intense usage has no wear on it whatsoever.
- Controls are better, might not be as 'stylish', but they've made the best use of the available space and they don't get accidentally knocked out of place.
- The menu system so much quicker to navigate and organise favourites (I don't oppose simplicity, but it has to be quick to access as well)
- Photo/video modes are organized well, too. You can limit modes and a button to switch photo/video (Leica has the switch and User Profiles, but not as well implemented)
- Swivel screen. Not my preference (point to the future SL3), but still way better than fixed, it's not flimsy.
- Joystick is much more responsive and moves diagonally.
- Sensor is a lot less prone to dust with ultrasonic cleaning and shutter closing. Even if it (rarely) does, much easier to clean (fluorine coated).
- Video is a big differentiator. Having full-sensor 4k with faster readout, various options (you are not forced to shoot Log as you have other profiles, with Leica Log is the way to go) 4k120p far above average even today. 8k internal RAW not likely to be used, but if it is, does look amazing. Still one of the best hybrid cameras out there.
- AF is predictably by far the most significant difference. I consider the Leica to be most reliable in its single-shot single-point AF mode (not very useful for video), tracking seemed unpredictable no matter how I tried to set it up. Canon tracks really well even before tweaking settings, animal eye-AF etc. really useful stuff if it works well.
Here are a few specifics regarding the SL2 over SL2-S:
- EVF not great in low light, noise and flickering and I think the sensor live feed is a bit better on Canon
- Dynamic range and ISO (noise, colour retention) is inferior (maybe there is a bit of noise reduction baked in Canon files, but the difference is clear)
- No compressed RAW. Small thing, but 30 vs 80 MB was a big difference for me - I guess no problem for users spending this much, but here comes another point:
- Does not matter if you use the fastest cards, writing and playing back files is slow and unresponsive (ok, it was even worse on an SL...)
+ Video dynamic range and ISO might be better on the SL2-S over Canon

I would give IBIS itself a tie. I feel like Canon is a bit stronger, but the Leica heft makes it more consistent.
Canon still gets a nod for having many lenses with IS, but thanks to Panasonic, Leica will also expand on that.
Hard to rate manual focus aids, despite the better EVF I still wasn't confident enough to skip magnifying, fiddly on both cameras for different reasons.
Also difficult to rate the lack of EFCS in the Leica, probably causes a minor shutter shock at certain speeds, but it is also a setting that might need changing on the Canon since it has some effect on the blur at high shutter speeds. The Canon shutter is quiet, but the Leica shutter sounds nice.
I also give Leica a friendly pass on battery issues regarding video and burst rate, according to what's written here, this seems to be finally dealt with by firmware while also having a new battery. Regular firmware updates were great on both actually, while Canon had been demonised with overheating, they've significantly improved it, even before it had rarely been a problem.


The most interesting thing where I give the biggest nod to the Leica is an even more subjective thing, which is how people react to the camera.
This for me might be more significant than how I feel about them.

Canon just "presents itself" like any other mirrorless camera. While Leica is Leica, only mirrorless, if you get what I mean.
This is what converts me to be more like a 'Leicaphile' (not ultimate sharpness, etc.), and this is where I think the appreciation factor really comes in, as it may have a tangible effect on actual pictures of (certain) people, which at the end of the day is probably what might matter a lot many decades down the line.
But counterpoint comes in where you realise that mirrorless and technology are interlinked, and there is a tangible difference regarding capabilities which people might need to experience (preferably with little pre-bias) in order for them to judge whether they need that or not, and other issues which are occasionally raised on this forum.

I have the R5, which I have used extensively. 

- I vastly prefer the Leica joystick. It's better placed and better designed. Almost every brand has a *flat* joystick that's difficult to find and use, except the SL2.

- The Canon does have vastly better AFC and eye detect but it still gets lost with wildlife and birds compared to the Sony offerings. I found the animal detect more problematic than it was worth during a trip to Africa and mostly just had it turned off as it grabbed the background too often.

- The long lens options from Canon are vastly better and more varied. The only really good long lens for L ount so far is the 90-280. The 100-400, 150-600 and 60-600 are easily bested by the Canon 100-500, which is also smaller and lighter. The two 70-200 L Canons are also superb and veru very compact.

- Generally I prefer the L mount lenses over the Canons, especially the APO Summicrons. But the Canon 28-70 f2L is spectacular. The 50 1.2 L is optical brilliant but I don't like it's handling.

- I prefer the button placement and layout on the SL2, except the play button on the Canon, which is better, but not perfectly located.

- The custom modes are better on the Canon.

- The Canon menus are improved but encyclopaedic. The new Sony menus are as good. I much prefer the Leica menus. The quick menu is sensational and Leica beat most manufacturers to completely separating the photo video setting by years, which is easy on the quick menu.

- I don't do much video so there's some things that matter little to me here.

- I prefer the Leica EVF in every way.

- Since I value acutance highly the SL2's lack of an AA filter appeals to me. I see the difference, even if others can't.

- The SL2 is heavier but system weight is a wash.

- The Canon high res shot is all but useless. The Leica is much better.

- I don't think the Canon IBIS is as good. Certainly not through the viewfider where the Canon stlii has a wobble with the 100-500L. The Leica an 150-600 is rock steady.

During my last trip the R5 (andR7) frustrated me enough to have another look at Sony (which I've dismissed since my last time with the A7R3). The A1 and A7R5, to me, are much better long lens systems and the AF is another step up, especially for wildlife.

Each to their own but generally, where the R5 and Canon both work, I'd choose the SL2 every time. Outside that, I'd choose a Sony.

Gordon

[padam]

5 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The Canon does have vastly better AFC and eye detect but it still gets lost with wildlife and birds compared to the Sony offerings. I found the animal detect more problematic than it was worth during a trip to Africa and mostly just had it turned off as it grabbed the background too often.

During my last trip the R5 (andR7) frustrated me enough to have another look at Sony (which I've dismissed since my last time with the A7R3). The A1 and A7R5, to me, are much better long lens systems and the AF is another step up, especially for wildlife.

Each to their own but generally, where the R5 and Canon both work, I'd choose the SL2 every time. Outside that, I'd choose a Sony.

Gordon

You don't have to turn animal eye-AF on or off. It's just one of 3 AF modes you can use by setting up the rear top buttons, I find that layout to work much better than other cameras, but I did not know about it for several months.
Same with menus, I can set up to start from favourites and a page for stills and another for video. Can't set up the Leica the same way. Just personal preference, I guess.
But to summarise the thing that impresses me about the R5 in particular, is that it makes all its capabilities quickly accessible.
For instance the mode dial and switch on an R6 Mark II already not as good, can't go from stills mode 1 to video mode 4 with one action, and all the other stuff of the dial is useless.
Also, the R5 is very well set up to instantly start recording video from stills mode with a custom semi-automatic setting from stills mode. (And it does that consistently well, too.)
Seems like a small thing again, but this can be a lifesaver, there simply no faster way to instantly switch the mode of capture. As I said, Leica video profiles aren't great, has to be set up carefully (in L-Log), won't autofocus, the fixed screen, etc. just because it neatly switches between photo and video, it does not mean that it will operate quickly as well.
But when set up the usual Leica way, it looks really good as well despite the inferior capabilities, so professionals might look at this from a different angle.

About the two Sony cameras: an A7RV is much newer, A1 way more money, so I do not think that an R5 compares unfavourably against either (even before the highly anticipated Mark II)
Also very disappointing, that partially due to Sony's own product segmentation strategy, neither of them are able to shoot oversampled FF 4K video (no 4k120p in the A7RV either), that's a much bigger omission and it's why some people think of the R5 as a good hybrid all-round camera. Balances all the features. As I wrote, I personally try to look at this from that angle.
(Most people hardly have any complaints at all for sports or wildlife shooting either apart from not being a stacked sensor like a Z8, which has its own compromises.)

I can look at an M camera as a stills camera, but an SL2 has to do more for me.
If I predominantly wanted a stills-only camera for preserving those moments, I would probably just narrow down my rangefinder lens selection (which I should consider doing anyway) and just switch back to practically any M camera that is much more nimble and enjoyable to use (M240 is still fine by me, but the M6 TTL was the most sublime, maybe the simple rule is that older they get, the better so it's best to try an M9 and an M3 one day...).

In fact I might just do that in the end. But I certainly would not ditch Canon for Sony if they are so obsessed with various product lines that they are unable to deliver a model that is balanced on all aspects (besides other personal gripes).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[WvE]

On 9/27/2023 at 9:28 AM, WvE said:

I'm seriously contemplating to buy a SL-S (or SL2) to complement my M10-P. I would like to have an autofocus camera.

I tried the SL2-S in the Leica store and I found the look and feel to be second to none. However, what keeps me from buying it is the price and the tech, which is not the newest on the block. So, I'm also considering the new Nikon ZF which seems to be more value for money. The prices for second-hand SL2-S' are still pretty steep. What would you do, or wait what the SL3 brings?     

After some restless nights, I decided not to go for the SL2-S. Instead, I will look for a used SL (type 601) and see what the SL3 brings about.  

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, padam said:

In comparison the (outgoing) Canon sensor can do it even at 60fps on the R5C without overheating and better codecs, there is not much wrong with it when rigged up.
The problem is editing the files without proxies or powerful PCs.

The R5C is a demonstration of compromises required for usable 8K. Canon had to add an inch-thick cooler just to make it work reasonably well.

NLEs create proxies automatically in the background. I collaborated on a 12K project (a triptych of 3x 4K) where the editor used an entry-level M1 Macbook with no issues in Resolve.

11 hours ago, padam said:

But to summarise the thing that impresses me about the R5 in particular,

(...)

Also, the R5 is very well set up

(...)

so I do not think that an R5 compares unfavourably

(...)

some people think of the R5 as a good hybrid all-round camera.

No one is arguing against you, and no one will think less of you because of the camera you use. We all have our preferences, and if the R5 is yours, that's great. I shot Canon for many years, and then crossed the street the other way. I could list all of the reasons here (better UX, better files, etc.), but they aren't important to others.