SL3 Rumors

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 minutes ago, frame-it said:

no, one can upscale the container bit depth to e.g 32 and then work on the image.

 

I think that is what I wrote. The processing occurs in the same-sized container (determined by the post-processor), regardless of the raw file container bit size. 

[Advertisement]

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

[lencap]

There comes a time when a company faces a crossroads.  That pint often is one of transition that is uncomfortable for the company and those who use their products.  I feel that time is arriving with Leica.  The brand has immense value, and marketing it is what management does to grow and prosper.  Technical excellence is assumed on each new generation product, but at some point diminishing returns causes customers to question purchasing decisions.  If a company can’t navigate the balance point it may inadvertently create unintended consequences.

Leica can and will make 60MP sensors, and likely will continue to grow them to 100MP in the coming years. So are others, like the Japanese manufacturers.  But how many clients will decided not to follow?  What is the benefit to 60MP for me, a casual Leica owner who is very happy with the SL2-S and 24MP?  I have no need or desire for more, nor do I want to upgrade my computers to process and store these files.  The fact that Leica has 3 resolutions for their 60MP cameras suggests they realize this.  The biggest issue, to me, is the continually escalating cost of entry.  Peter Karbe makes it clear that APO lenses will resolve 100MP sensors very well, but the likely entry level for SL3 and.APO prime will be in the range $15K.  The M11 is $9K sans lens.  
 

And for what?  Killing the CL line suggests that Leica will continue to grow revenue even if some clients prefer a different user experience.  It’s not just Leica - most luxury/near-luxury brands are following the same path.  I wish them well, but doubt that they will all succeed.

[IkarusJohn]

3 minutes ago, lencap said:

There comes a time when a company faces a crossroads.  That pint often is one of transition that is uncomfortable for the company and those who use their products.  I feel that time is arriving with Leica.  The brand has immense value, and marketing it is what management does to grow and prosper.  Technical excellence is assumed on each new generation product, but at some point diminishing returns causes customers to question purchasing decisions.  If a company can’t navigate the balance point it may inadvertently create unintended consequences.

Leica can and will make 60MP sensors, and likely will continue to grow them to 100MP in the coming years. So are others, like the Japanese manufacturers.  But how many clients will decided not to follow?  What is the benefit to 60MP for me, a casual Leica owner who is very happy with the SL2-S and 24MP?  I have no need or desire for more, nor do I want to upgrade my computers to process and store these files.  The fact that Leica has 3 resolutions for their 60MP cameras suggests they realize this.  The biggest issue, to me, is the continually escalating cost of entry.  Peter Karbe makes it clear that APO lenses will resolve 100MP sensors very well, but the likely entry level for SL3 and.APO prime will be in the range $15K.  The M11 is $9K sans lens.  
 

And for what?  Killing the CL line suggests that Leica will continue to grow revenue even if some clients prefer a different user experience.  It’s not just Leica - most luxury/near-luxury brands are following the same path.  I wish them well, but doubt that they will all succeed.

So much of technological development over the early years of digital photography turned on the MP count as an end in itself.  I think we have reached a point where increased or reduced MP is simply a symptom of better performance - the priority being improved dynamic range etc, with MP being secondary.  My issue with the M11 (one among many) is that going with 60MP in the M body brought problems with little gain.

I agree, though, that Leica has a price and quality problem.  I had rather hoped that Leica could introduce an M version as a standard model with stable electronics, fewer MP (37 or even 24?) that was an evolutionary improvement on the M10 at an “affordable” price.  I couldn’t justify buying into the M system at the current prices - I could barely justify the prices I’ve already paid!

[Olaf_ZG]

I am afraid that, for the Leica users, the value Is in its lenses, m-mount that is. A digital M, the complete SL line will lose value as soon as you take it out of the store.

Not sure how long Leica can use the momentum of customers spending like crazy for luxury, the trend is stabilizing, and Leica should ask theirselves who they want to serve: the new rich ones, who don’t care, or those who have to think 2/3 times before buying, but then expect a product which works.

Reading this forum, I have the feeling Leica aims the first group. Which is a pity. I would really love to have a flipscreen on the SL, makes things easier when mounted on a tripod, but don’t want to be a beta tester like many m11/q3 users.

But, I guess Leica doesn’t care about us, here on this forum, except when you are quicker than the marketing department, then you’re banned.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Olaf_ZG
Grammar

[frankchn]

2 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

I agree, though, that Leica has a price and quality problem.  I had rather hoped that Leica could introduce an M version as a standard model with stable electronics, fewer MP (37 or even 24?) that was an evolutionary improvement on the M10 at an “affordable” price.  I couldn’t justify buying into the M system at the current prices - I could barely justify the prices I’ve already paid!

The problem is that there is no such thing as "stable" electronics.

I doubt Leica is big enough to have suppliers guarantee part availabilities (sensors, processors, timing chips, etc...) for more than 4 or 5 years or have any desire to put a big guaranteed order up front and stock up on parts (they might just be stuck with old stuff no one wants in 10 years as everyone else moves to global shutters for instance).

If you are going to re-engineer every 4 years because your selected sensor or processor goes EOL, then you might as well put in the latest stuff from your suppliers at that point.

If you really want a "stable" platform, the film Ms are the way to go.

[frankchn]

2 hours ago, lencap said:

But how many clients will decided not to follow?  What is the benefit to 60MP for me, a casual Leica owner who is very happy with the SL2-S and 24MP?  I have no need or desire for more, nor do I want to upgrade my computers to process and store these files.  The fact that Leica has 3 resolutions for their 60MP cameras suggests they realize this.  The biggest issue, to me, is the continually escalating cost of entry.

And I think that's fine. Not everyone has to upgrade immediately upon the release of every generation of cameras. Your SL2-S won't stop working the day the SL3 is released 😀

By the time you feel like 24 MP is limiting, there will be a robust used market for the SL3, and we can all let someone else take the depreciation hit.

Edited December 11, 2023 by frankchn

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, frankchn said:

Not everyone has to upgrade immediately upon the release of every generation of cameras.

I am fine with upgrading every second generation. That's roughly 8 years for Leica. 

Lenses last even longer. I regularly use some lenses that I bought in my teens, decades ago. Many were already old when I bought them. They all work great with the SL/SL2. 

I enjoy new stuff too. Flare control is outstanding these days. It depends on what look I want. 

[Guest]

On 12/7/2023 at 10:32 AM, SrMi said:

Do you have an example that illustrates it or a link to a thread on LUF that discusses it?

I do not think that a higher bit size will solve that issue.

Here is an example of why I would like 16-bit actual color resolution (or at least an honest attempt to get closer to it, like the Hasselblad).
Shot with my M (developed with Capture One, most recent version - not an Adobe Lightroom issue, for once ...), but the crop shows how an otherwise decent picture can suffer from banding that may have been avoided with a higher bit depth (recording and encoding, not just nominal 'let's call it 16bit'). Disclaimer: Ana Popovic did not (at the time) have a striped tattoo on her right arm.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited December 12, 2023 by mzbe

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, mzbe said:

Here is an example of why I would like 16-bit actual color resolution (or at least an honest attempt to get closer to it, like the Hasselblad).
Shot with my M (developed with Capture One, most recent version - not an Adobe Lightroom issue, for once ...), but the crop shows how an otherwise decent picture can suffer from banding that may have been avoided with a higher bit depth (recording and encoding, not just nominal 'let's call it 16bit'). Disclaimer: Ana Popovic did not (at the time) have a striped tattoo on her right arm.

<snip>

Higher bit-depth would not have helped with it. The two (or three) bits in a 16-bit raw file would have been noise at the FF sensor size. I do not know what post-processor you use, but the post-processor uses the same bit size (16 or 32 bits?) regardless of whether the raw file is 12, 14, or 16 bits. The bit depth in raw files is about noise, not about colors. See this article:

Raw bit depth is about dynamic range, not the number of colors you get to capture

 

 

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Higher bit-depth would not have helped with it. The two (or three) bits in a 16-bit raw file would have been noise at the FF sensor size. I do not know what post-processor you use, but the post-processor uses the same bit size (16 or 32 bits?) regardless of whether the raw file is 12, 14, or 16 bits. The bit depth in raw files is about noise, not about colors. See this article:

Raw bit depth is about dynamic range, not the number of colors you get to capture

 

 

If you lower the base gain of the sensor, it appears you can 'shift left' the logarithmic scale, resulting in higher bin density at lower EVs?

Hasselblad X2D has a sensor of the same generation as the M11 (and maybe SL3?) - 3.76 micron pixel pitch. Difference: Hasselbald is, as per the Sony datasheet, driving the sensor in native 16bit (X1D was just interpolated 14bit). This may just be marketing nonsense, but on the record here is their claim -

Quote

Choose 14-bit colour depth to keep outstanding colour while increasing the continuous shooting rate. Use 16-bit to increase the number of tonal nuances in colour for natural transitions.

I was hoping it would apply to my use case ... I am aware the Jim Kasson didn't find a big upside, but back to my initial statement - perhaps room for a creative dual gain architecture in conjunction with 16bit to squeeze out a bit more?

If you are right in your skepticism, it may mean we have to wait perhaps for that next-gen Foveon sensor technology (in the SL4?)

[SrMi]

5 minutes ago, mzbe said:

If you lower the base gain of the sensor, it appears you can 'shift left' the logarithmic scale, resulting in higher bin density at lower EVs?

Hasselblad X2D has a sensor of the same generation as the M11 (and maybe SL3?) - 3.76 micron pixel pitch. Difference: Hasselbald is, as per the Sony datasheet, driving the sensor in native 16bit (X1D was just interpolated 14bit). This may just be marketing nonsense, but on the record here is their claim -

I was hoping it would apply to my use case ... I am aware the Jim Kasson didn't find a big upside, but back to my initial statement - perhaps room for a creative dual gain architecture in conjunction with 16bit to squeeze out a bit more?

If you are right in your skepticism, it may mean we have to wait perhaps for that next-gen Foveon sensor technology (in the SL4?)

The smaller sensors (m43) operate in 12 bits while larger sensors (Phase One) operate in 16 bits because smaller sensors have too much noise for more than 12 bits, while larger sensors (53x40) can benefit from using 16-bits as they have less noise and therefore useful information in the lowest bits. 

X2D and GFX100 have the option to use 14 or 16 bits. There is practically no difference whether one shoots those cameras in 14 or 16 bits. Only with very heavy lifting can one perceive a tiny bit less noise in 16 bits. Hasselblad's claim of the benefit of 16-bit color depth has been debunked several times on DPR (bits are about noise, not color). Camera marketing lives in its own reality bubble. See the latest GFX100 II debacle.

I do not expect Foveon to make many strides in that direction, but a photon-counting sensor will probably move the bar significantly. On the other hand. the DR is pretty good now. We just need those 100Mp sensors ... just kidding. Carefully adding computational photography could also improve DR.

 

[Richardgb]

15 hours ago, BernardC said:

I am fine with upgrading every second generation. That's roughly 8 years for Leica. 

Lenses last even longer. I regularly use some lenses that I bought in my teens, decades ago. Many were already old when I bought them. They all work great with the SL/SL2. 

I enjoy new stuff too. Flare control is outstanding these days. It depends on what look I want. 

The question of whether or when there may be an SL3 is not just a matter of technology but also one of confidence that one's investment (I'm in the firing line for saying this and I can hear the guns being cocked and aimed...) in the system will not be going to waste. Most realists accept that the value of their purchase decreases once you leave the shop, but equally they don't want to feel that their purchase - especially when its thousands of £ / $ / € - won't devalue quickly as the line is being phased out. Few can afford this, including those with 'spare' cash of these amounts who (with few exceptions) probably worked hard to earn it.

Incidentally, I notice that Wex Photo Video in the UK is now offering the Lumix S1 for £1589, over £600 less than the 'list' price. Is this price drop an indication that a new model is on the way? If so, this might be a clue to the rumoured SL3 (a new S1R is no longer listed).

[Sohail]

The SL2 is a tough act to follow. As I've said before, it's all the camera you need:

Unless it offers dramatic low-light performance, there's not much else that interests me.

Edited December 12, 2023 by Sohail

[hdmesa]

6 hours ago, Sohail said:

The SL2 is a tough act to follow...

Maybe for Leica it is.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

20 hours ago, SrMi said:

The smaller sensors (m43) operate in 12 bits while larger sensors (Phase One) operate in 16 bits because smaller sensors have too much noise for more than 12 bits, while larger sensors (53x40) can benefit from using 16-bits as they have less noise and therefore useful information in the lowest bits. 

X2D and GFX100 have the option to use 14 or 16 bits. There is practically no difference whether one shoots those cameras in 14 or 16 bits. Only with very heavy lifting can one perceive a tiny bit less noise in 16 bits. Hasselblad's claim of the benefit of 16-bit color depth has been debunked several times on DPR (bits are about noise, not color). Camera marketing lives in its own reality bubble. See the latest GFX100 II debacle.

I do not expect Foveon to make many strides in that direction, but a photon-counting sensor will probably move the bar significantly. On the other hand. the DR is pretty good now. We just need those 100Mp sensors ... just kidding. Carefully adding computational photography could also improve DR.

 

Bit depth increases the number of discrete colours (tones actually) possible between lightest and darkest. So it is about colours, sort of. Colour banding in 8 bit and lower files is pretty obvious as the human eye easily sees more than 256 shades of any colour. The difference between 14 bit (billions of colours) and 16 bit (trillions of colours) is far more difficult to perceive. Most of us can't. But it's there, all the same. 

The main advantages of 16 bit files are in the latitude of error we can get away with compared to lower bit depth files. You want to have your exposure pretty much spot on at 8 bit but you can poke and prod higher bit depth files before you see the colour fall apart (and detectable noise levels.

Personally, I care little about noise. Most images aren't worse by having some and you can clean up the rest if you must. Colour depth matters to me greatly because I push some files hard and print them large. Most people look at images on an 8 bit monitor. Of course there's little difference to be seen there.

Gordon

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Bit depth increases the number of discrete colours (tones actually) possible between lightest and darkest. So it is about colours, sort of. Colour banding in 8 bit and lower files is pretty obvious as the human eye easily sees more than 256 shades of any colour. The difference between 14 bit (billions of colours) and 16 bit (trillions of colours) is far more difficult to perceive. Most of us can't. But it's there, all the same. 

The main advantages of 16 bit files are in the latitude of error we can get away with compared to lower bit depth files. You want to have your exposure pretty much spot on at 8 bit but you can poke and prod higher bit depth files before you see the colour fall apart (and detectable noise levels.

Personally, I care little about noise. Most images aren't worse by having some and you can clean up the rest if you must. Colour depth matters to me greatly because I push some files hard and print them large. Most people look at images on an 8 bit monitor. Of course there's little difference to be seen there.

Gordon

281 trillion colors are represented with the 16-bit color depth (link). Humans can differentiate only about 10 million colors.

More noise means you lose tonality and detail.

[LocalHero1953]

15 hours ago, Richardgb said:

The question of whether or when there may be an SL3 is not just a matter of technology but also one of confidence that one's investment (I'm in the firing line for saying this and I can hear the guns being cocked and aimed...) in the system will not be going to waste. Most realists accept that the value of their purchase decreases once you leave the shop, but equally they don't want to feel that their purchase - especially when its thousands of £ / $ / € - won't devalue quickly as the line is being phased out. Few can afford this, including those with 'spare' cash of these amounts who (with few exceptions) probably worked hard to earn it.

Incidentally, I notice that Wex Photo Video in the UK is now offering the Lumix S1 for £1589, over £600 less than the 'list' price. Is this price drop an indication that a new model is on the way? If so, this might be a clue to the rumoured SL3 (a new S1R is no longer listed).

No bullets coming in your direction from me, but regarding long term value and confidence........ my subjective impression is that the Leica CL is still selling for good prices (£1500-£2000 on MPB) even though discontinued a while back, and there have been comments here about the difficulty of finding bodies and lenses (esp. primes) for sale. I suspect SL bodies and lenses would retain a lot of their value even if the line ended.

As for investment value - in photographic terms, and with rare exceptions, that's a euphemism for not losing too much value.

[BernardC]

19 hours ago, Richardgb said:

Incidentally, I notice that Wex Photo Video in the UK is now offering the Lumix S1 for £1589, over £600 less than the 'list' price. Is this price drop an indication that a new model is on the way?

I think that the original S1 was really replaced by the S5. I'm surprised they have any left to sell.

To me the main indications that a new Panasonic L-mount body is coming are the many interviews where Panasonic execs tell us that a new L mount body is coming... The S5ii was announced early in the new year, so maybe we'll know more in a month.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Planetwide]

This is a topic that I have been thinking about lately. That is: the value proposition in Leica and its SL system. The M system is a different ball game, as I do not own an M body, however, I do own M lenses and use them on my SL2. The SL3 maybe a very good camera that will fix some of the significant shortcomings of the SL2 - no tilting screen for example. But will its AF track fast moving objects? I shoot aircraft once or twice a year and require very fast AF with tracking.

I find Leica has lost the innovation touch. They rehash existing focal lengths, and rebrand inferior optics at ridiculous prices. I am also concerned about reliability, witness the M11 debacle. At the price point, they should lead in at least one area. It used to be lenses, and granted the SL primes are without question the best, but there are lots of very good F2.0 lens today. The Sigma series is an example, and a much better value proposition. 

Tomorrow, I will pick up a new Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8, and test it against my SL 24-90mm. If it's as good, which I suspect it is, then I will have some thinking to do. Leica has been about the lenses, but the rate of lens introductions is seriously limiting - Where are the SL Summilux's??  Now, one can argue that the L mount has a ton of lens offerings, and that is true, but I want consistent colour and user experience. If I going to shoot Sigma, I might as well shoot Canon. Maintaining two systems is expensive, and also limiting for me.

I love the Leica look, but the Canon RF is very very close, albeit slightly different. My clients prefer Canon colour. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Planetwide

[Dr. G]

22 hours ago, Sohail said:

The SL2 is a tough act to follow. As I've said before, it's all the camera you need:

Unless it offers dramatic low-light performance, there's not much else that interests me.

I'm in the same boat.  I love everything about my SL2-S but sometimes wish it had higher resolution for cropping.  If it comes within a stop of the SL2-S and noise isn't an issue at higher ISOs I may make the move.  Although the my APO Summicron-SL lenses make images taken with the SL2-S look higher resolution than they really are, my high contrast black and white conversions with my SL2 were incredible with those lenses.  I'd love a body that gives me the best of both worlds.