SL3 Rumors

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Dr. G said:

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.

At this point, if the SL3 disappoints in performance at high ISO levels, I may end up getting an SL2-S body for low-light scenarios.

[Advertisement]

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

[trickness]

6 hours ago, Planetwide said:

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. 

Everybody complains about the SL 50 Lux 1.4 because it's heavy and slow, and they're a hard sell. My local dealer has three of them, perfect condition, used for sale. Was almost begging me to buy one. And people complain about the SL Crons being heavy and huge! Unless they can make SL Lux's in other focal lengths that are light and small and has that superlative image quality (which isn't possible), it will be a stiff, just like the 50 Lux SL. And it's not like Panasonic or Lumix are making super light and small bleeding edge 1.4 lenses either. I really doubt Leica is eager to make more fast, heavy lenses for the SL given all this. I have my M 50 Lux 1.4 when I want a light carry, but I will use SL glass when I want that look and I won't complain about the weight.

I don't look to Leica for innovation, it's about the shooting experience. Color can be tweaked in Lightroom. How the camera feels in the hand and in the heart cannot. I have zero complaints about the SL2 for what I use it for, and if I did, I'd get another tool to fit my needs. There's no one perfect tool for all jobs.

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by trickness

[Dr. G]

3 minutes ago, trickness said:

Everybody complains about the SL 50 Lux 1.4 because it's heavy and slow, and they're a hard sell. My local dealer has three of them, perfect condition, used for sale. Was almost begging me to buy one. And people complain about the SL Crons being heavy and huge! Unless they can make SL Lux's in other focal lengths that are light and small and has that superlative image quality (which isn't possible), it will be a stiff, just like the 50 Lux SL. And it's not like Panasonic or Lumix are making super light and small bleeding edge 1.4 lenses either. I really doubt Leica is eager to make more fast, heavy lenses for the SL given all this. I have my M 50 Lux 1.4 when I want a light carry, but I will use SL glass when I want that look and I won't complain about the weight.

I don't look to Leica for innovation, it's about the shooting experience. Color can be tweaked in Lightroom. How the camera feels in the hand and in the heart cannot. I have zero complaints about the SL2 for what I use it for, and if I did, I'd get another tool to fit my needs. There's no one perfect tool for all jobs.

 

If you've never shot the 50 Lux SL then you're missing out,  There is something about the 50 Lux SL rendering that is special.  I have both the 50 Lux SL and the 50 APO Summicron-SL and wouldn't part with either one of them.  For me it's worth the extra weight and size when I want the look it gives, but I realize that many aren't willing to carry it.

[robb]

55 minutes ago, trickness said:

Everybody complains about the SL 50 Lux 1.4 because it's heavy and slow, and they're a hard sell. My local dealer has three of them, perfect condition, used for sale. Was almost begging me to buy one. And people complain about the SL Crons being heavy and huge! Unless they can make SL Lux's in other focal lengths that are light and small and has that superlative image quality (which isn't possible), it will be a stiff, just like the 50 Lux SL. And it's not like Panasonic or Lumix are making super light and small bleeding edge 1.4 lenses either. I really doubt Leica is eager to make more fast, heavy lenses for the SL given all this. I have my M 50 Lux 1.4 when I want a light carry, but I will use SL glass when I want that look and I won't complain about the weight.

I don't look to Leica for innovation, it's about the shooting experience. Color can be tweaked in Lightroom. How the camera feels in the hand and in the heart cannot. I have zero complaints about the SL2 for what I use it for, and if I did, I'd get another tool to fit my needs. There's no one perfect tool for all jobs.

 

Which dealer, and what are the 50 1.4 SL priced at?  

Robb

[FlashGordonPhotography]

18 hours ago, SrMi said:

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.

I'd have to look up the 10 million colours bit. I have no real idea. I know I'm sensitive to this because I worked as a fine art printer for years (darkroom and digital). If I print a 256 greyscale at A1 I can see the jumps. That'd be 16 million colours there.

It's not the total number of discrete colours that matters, really though. It's how fast you throw them away when post processing that matters. Combined with how large your output size is and the subject matter of course. Increase exposure or shadows a bit. Throw away some information. Manipulate the colours in a skin tone. Throw away a bit more. Add a curve. More information gone. Clarity or sharpening? Lots of steps lost right there. Retouching skin? Throw away data. Eventually you'll break the file. If I take a file from a SL2, M11 or A7R5 it's far easier to break it than it is with a file from an X2D or GFX100II. Especially as the ISO climbs but even at base ISO I can get banding and colour degradation in files that require heavy manipulation. Then we resort to stacking files etc to get around this, which is fine if the subject is static. Simply put I have to resort to this way less often with a more robust file. So I generally choose a 16-bit file if I can to avoid HDR stacking wherever possible.

More noise does lead to detail and tonality loss. At the same time no noise can look sterile and artificial. In print I'm more likely to add noise than remove it. A noisless file can have more information but often a file with some noise can be more visually pleasing. In printing we'll actually introduce some noise to hide a loss of colour information for low bit files. I'm selling prints at A1 from an A7R2. (12 bit) Noise isn't stopping them selling. It is, however, much harder to make big prints where the colours don't fall apart, compared to newer 35mm cameras or the X1D (14 bit) or X2D (16 bit). The lower the bit depth the far more careful I need to be before the colours collapse or posterize.

Gordon

[trickness]

1 hour ago, Dr. G said:

If you've never shot the 50 Lux SL then you're missing out,  There is something about the 50 Lux SL rendering that is special.  I have both the 50 Lux SL and the 50 APO Summicron-SL and wouldn't part with either one of them.  For me it's worth the extra weight and size when I want the look it gives, but I realize that many aren't willing to carry it.

I know! I’m very tempted. Tried one and found it a much easier carry than the 75 Nocti which is far more front heavy 

[Geoff C. Bassett]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would also love a 16-bit option for portrait work, would consider that a major selling point for the camera.

[hdmesa]

8 hours ago, Sohail said:

At this point, if the SL3 disappoints in performance at high ISO levels, I may end up getting an SL2-S body for low-light scenarios.

Download and evaluate some DNG samples over at DPR from the M11 and Q3. If the SL3 uses that sensor, which most believe it will, then you can anticipate its potential performance to a degree. The M11 was much more usable for me above ISO 3200 than the SL2, so I have high hopes for the SL3. That said, the SL2-S has a special rendering, noise character, and color integrity at high ISO that for me exceeds the M11. Even with the SL3, you could be well served to have an SL2-S body alongside it. 

On the autofocus front, I'm sure the SL3 will follow Panasonic's jump from merely adequate contrast-detect AF to simply amazing phase-detect AF. The autofocus on my S5 IIX is really good, and it actually focuses on the iris of the subject's eye instead of the eyelash/eyebrow like Nikon and Fujifilm's latest bodies still do. Gerald Undone's S5 II review says its AF is now better than Canon and nearly equal to Sony. I expect (hope/pray) something similar for the SL3. 

[IkarusJohn]

5 hours ago, trickness said:

I know! I’m very tempted. Tried one and found it a much easier carry than the 75 Nocti which is far more front heavy 

Best 50 I've ever shot.

[LocalHero1953]

In Europe they appear to be available from credible dealers for £3000-£3500

[Planetwide]

17 hours ago, trickness said:

Everybody complains about the SL 50 Lux 1.4 because it's heavy and slow, and they're a hard sell. My local dealer has three of them, perfect condition, used for sale. Was almost begging me to buy one. And people complain about the SL Crons being heavy and huge! Unless they can make SL Lux's in other focal lengths that are light and small and has that superlative image quality (which isn't possible), it will be a stiff, just like the 50 Lux SL. And it's not like Panasonic or Lumix are making super light and small bleeding edge 1.4 lenses either. I really doubt Leica is eager to make more fast, heavy lenses for the SL given all this. I have my M 50 Lux 1.4 when I want a light carry, but I will use SL glass when I want that look and I won't complain about the weight.

I don't look to Leica for innovation, it's about the shooting experience. Color can be tweaked in Lightroom. How the camera feels in the hand and in the heart cannot. I have zero complaints about the SL2 for what I use it for, and if I did, I'd get another tool to fit my needs. There's no one perfect tool for all jobs.

 

Well I do own the 50'lux, and I lugged it all over Vietnam, It produced wonderful images like the one below. I would also lug a 35mm 'lux as well! A 35mm SL Lux with the 75mm APO Summicron would be a fantastic set up. Maybe even add the new 21mm to round out the mix of focal lengths. But let's talk about other manufacturers for a minute. They make fast glass, and lots of it, witness the F1.2 L's from Canon or Nikon's S series. Sony makes all kinds of fast glass, so there is definitely a market. 

The SL2 is a good camera, but very limited. The AF was acceptable at introduction, but it is now a limiting factor in the market place. The lack of a tilting screen, and weight are two big issues. Like most users, I work around these issue's, but new buyers don't have too, they just go to another brand. 

We know that weight is a problem in the market place, then Leica needs to innovate and address this. Canon sure has. There are ton's of Carbon composite's available today that are actually better than metal for a variety of reasons. These materials are used in high workload environments, and have shown high wear resistance and longevity. 

It is Leica that needs to improve its investment in the SL line. Their current strategy of new lens introductions is not working. I buy Leica, to get Leica designed and built lenses - not rebadged. The new 14-24mm F2.8 is a perfect example. The Sigma version is every bit as good, and lighter. What does the Leica version offer - other than more weight?. They should have made a Leica 12-24mm F2.8 , or a 10-18mm F2.8, both of which would have added to the system's desirability.

Lastly, the rate of lens and camera introductions has to increase, especially if they want the system to survive in the market place. The wait for the 21mm was simply  unacceptable. There are now, no new lenses on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, I want them to introduce more Leica designed and built lenses. I want to purchase them, and I want more zooms. We need to see a new road map.

While I was waiting for the 21mm, I bought an R3 to add to my R5 for AF tracking. A Canon 28-70mm F2.0, 70-200mm F2.8, 10-20mm F4, the new 24-105mm F2.8 and I am waiting for the 100-300mm - which is due any day now. These are being added to my existing RF lenses.

 

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 14, 2023 by Planetwide

[MediaFotografie]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb Planetwide:

It is Leica that needs to improve its investment in the SL line. Their current strategy of new lens introductions is not working. I buy Leica to get Leica designed and built lenses - not rebadged. the new 14-24mm F2.8 is a perfect example. The Sigma version is every bit as good, and lighter. What does the Leica version offer other than more weight. They should have made a Leica 12-24mm F2.8 , or a 10-18mm F2.8, both of which would have added to the system's desirability.

good points (and nice picture)! esp. Leica misses a new SL lens design since late 2018, when they showed us the new APO-SLs 21/24; I'm afraid they are working on a new series of mirrorless S lenses and we will only see rebranded Sigma/Panasonic lenses in the near future

[Planetwide]

53 minutes ago, MediaFotografie said:

good points (and nice picture)! esp. Leica misses a new SL lens design since late 2018, when they showed us the new APO-SLs 21/24; I'm afraid they are working on a new series of mirrorless S lenses and we will only see rebranded Sigma/Panasonic lenses in the near future

I forgot that the 24mm hasn't even been produced yet... 😲

[hdmesa]

While Leica rebadges some lenses, we know from the recent email survey some of us got that they're considering outsourcing assembly to Japan for some (perhaps all?) lenses. The survey had many questions that asked, "Would you prefer [insert lens description] at a lower price of [$X,XXX] that was made in Japan or the same lens at a higher price of [$X,XXX] but made in Germany." I think the implication is they would be assembled by Panasonic or Sigma, otherwise they would have said "made in Portugal" right? Anyway, if these made in Japan lenses were unique designs exclusive to Leica, I'd be all for it. Paying the high price for German made lenses is one thing with M lenses, but it's another thing to pay those prices for AF lenses (IMO).

[SrMi]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:25 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I'd have to look up the 10 million colours bit. I have no real idea. I know I'm sensitive to this because I worked as a fine art printer for years (darkroom and digital). If I print a 256 greyscale at A1 I can see the jumps. That'd be 16 million colours there.

It's not the total number of discrete colours that matters, really though. It's how fast you throw them away when post processing that matters. Combined with how large your output size is and the subject matter of course. Increase exposure or shadows a bit. Throw away some information. Manipulate the colours in a skin tone. Throw away a bit more. Add a curve. More information gone. Clarity or sharpening? Lots of steps lost right there. Retouching skin? Throw away data. Eventually you'll break the file. If I take a file from a SL2, M11 or A7R5 it's far easier to break it than it is with a file from an X2D or GFX100II. Especially as the ISO climbs but even at base ISO I can get banding and colour degradation in files that require heavy manipulation. Then we resort to stacking files etc to get around this, which is fine if the subject is static. Simply put I have to resort to this way less often with a more robust file. So I generally choose a 16-bit file if I can to avoid HDR stacking wherever possible.

More noise does lead to detail and tonality loss. At the same time no noise can look sterile and artificial. In print I'm more likely to add noise than remove it. A noisless file can have more information but often a file with some noise can be more visually pleasing. In printing we'll actually introduce some noise to hide a loss of colour information for low bit files. I'm selling prints at A1 from an A7R2. (12 bit) Noise isn't stopping them selling. It is, however, much harder to make big prints where the colours don't fall apart, compared to newer 35mm cameras or the X1D (14 bit) or X2D (16 bit). The lower the bit depth the far more careful I need to be before the colours collapse or posterize.

Gordon

The 60 MP FF Sony sensor has an EDR of about 13.5 stops. I.e., it needs 14 bits to represent all useful data. If you use 16 bits instead of 14, the lower two bits contain nothing but noise. They could as well be zeroed. 

The banding occurs in the post-processor. If you select 16-bit color space when loading an image in Photoshop (BTW, PS uses only 15-bits), then any banding will be caused by those 16-bits used for post-processing and not by 12, 14, or 16 bits of the input raw file. On the other hand, 16 bits of useful data give better-quality images. However, FF sensors cannot give us more than 14 bits of useful data.

Have you tried post-processing GFX in 14 and 16-bit modes, and did you see any difference?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

21 minutes ago, SrMi said:

The 60 MP FF Sony sensor has an EDR of about 13.5 stops. I.e., it needs 14 bits to represent all useful data. If you use 16 bits instead of 14, the lower two bits contain nothing but noise. They could as well be zeroed. 

The banding occurs in the post-processor. If you select 16-bit color space when loading an image in Photoshop (BTW, PS uses only 15-bits), then any banding will be caused by those 16-bits used for post-processing and not by 12, 14, or 16 bits of the input raw file. On the other hand, 16 bits of useful data give better-quality images. However, FF sensors cannot give us more than 14 bits of useful data.

Have you tried post-processing GFX in 14 and 16-bit modes, and did you see any difference?

Yes, and only occasionally. 98% of the time I don't think I'd have an issue with 14 bit files. 98% of the time I could shoot with my M11, etc or the older X1D.

But.......

I did a set of 5 minute exposures with base ISO and in VERY dark conditions and I could see a *slight* improvement when I pushed the 16 bit files REALLY hard. And again in colour retention when I shot at ISO 1600 and again pushed the files hard. Examples would be astro and pre dawn long exposure landscape shooting.

These are extreme situations and most would never go there. I do occasionally.

Gordon

[hansvons]

On 12/14/2023 at 3:30 PM, Planetwide said:

We know that weight is a problem in the market place, then Leica needs to innovate and address this. Canon sure has. There are ton's of Carbon composite's available today that are actually better than metal for a variety of reasons. These materials are used in high workload environments, and have shown high wear resistance and longevity. 

Good point. I would want something other than an M made of composite materials, regardless of how well they are made and off what rocket they come. But a well-designed, Leica-esk composite SL would be something I would like to see (and buy if it ticks my boxes).

[jrp]

Leica's problem is that while the SL lenses are generally spectacular, even the likes of Sony is able to produce lenses of comparable performance that are lighter and cheaper.  The Sony 50mm f1.4 GM is a fraction of the weight of the SL Summilux equivalent (and indeed the Panasonic version).  It is probably sharper and, of course, more compact and faster focusing.  It doesn't, however, produce as pleasing pictures, for some reason.  Is it bokeh or color?  Maybe

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

9 hours ago, jrp said:

Leica's problem is that while the SL lenses are generally spectacular, even the likes of Sony is able to produce lenses of comparable performance that are lighter and cheaper.  The Sony 50mm f1.4 GM is a fraction of the weight of the SL Summilux equivalent (and indeed the Panasonic version).  It is probably sharper and, of course, more compact and faster focusing.  It doesn't, however, produce as pleasing pictures, for some reason.  Is it bokeh or color?  Maybe

This comes down to unanswerable questions: what is the monetary value of optical performance? How many grams extra weight justify a qualitative increase in optical performance? (It doesn't stop plenty of people on this forum being absolutely, objectively certain of the answers!)

You call this 'Leica's problem'. Actually I think Leica knows the answers because they continue to be able to sell lenses at a high price and make a profit.

Edited December 16, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[hansvons]

10 hours ago, jrp said:

It doesn't, however, produce as pleasing pictures, for some reason.  Is it bokeh or color?  Maybe

That's why Leica is more successful than ever before, and that counts also for their used products. Other brands don't have the magic. It's not only marketing but an over generations built of look and feel. Leica’s main problem is not the optical perfection or brilliant ingenuity of the competition. It's how to convey this look and feel, the magic to future products. 

Could Sony or Canon reissue iconic lenses from the 60ies? That's a vital part of Leica’s game. Leica doesn't compete. They are singular. Similar things can be said about Hasselblad. But its brand is by far not as strong and history-filled.

And now the infamous car comparison: would a petrolhead compare a 911 to anything else? Yes, they do (as do Leicaristi) and will lose in specs, but in the end, they know their brand is singular (the 911 is by far the most successful and iconic sports car in history), and call it a day. Porsche nurtures their heritage like nothing else. It's way more important than ingenuity, which is world-class, of course, as that is part of their heritage, and so is Leica’s.

It’s a complex dance that can only be performed if everybody involved, management, staff, and customers, listens to the same music.