SL3 vs SL2...

[northernlights]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am a mainly manual lens shooter. Leica M-mount lenses and have a helicoid adapter I use for close ups with my M lenses.   

So, as I have no L mount lenses and AF doesn’t matter to me. The great thing about the SL3 is the user interface and the manual focus tracking like the one on the Nikon Zf. 

I just upgraded to the SL2 so I have IBIS and EXIF as the SL2 allows me to manually enter the M lens profiled closest to the lens if I used non-Leica lenses.

No upgrade to SL3 

[Advertisement]

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

[Chaemono]

vor 34 Minuten schrieb Photoworks:

what does it even mean? 

There are some 60 MP BSI pictures in there https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-tzdLng

[Photoworks]

7 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

There are some 60 MP BSI pictures in there https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-tzdLng

I have does camera but the nikon, I am not surprised by the results. I shoot the camera to the benefit of the sensor, the software does favor one or the other in post.

From my initial testing, the SL3 does not compare to this camera in high iso, much cleaner than high iso. Improve DR at 100 Iso.

I will do some more testing.

[chris_tribble]

One ot the results of the noise generated by the SL3 launch has been to make me take out an SL2 and give it some love (I've been using the M10R most of the winter).  A drear, grey March day in Cumbria, but I saw my first primroses and there were daffodils and catkins galore.  I also reminded myself what a stunning combination the 35 APO and the SL2 are - colour, detail, handling, everything!  I'm not jumping ship for the moment 😊.

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 March 10, 2024 by chris_tribble

[chris_tribble]

And as a further contribution to discussion, I've been looking at the miserably poor high iso output from the SL2 and wondering how I ever found it acceptable.  As someone who's never bothered with more than 6400 I suppose I should accept myself as stone-age, immediately through away my unworthy outdated kit, and buy the shiniest and last. 

Problem is, that when I look at real world images on screen and in large prints, I find it hard to find anything seriously wrong with the results the SL2 gives in VERY difficult light conditions, like theatre, jazz performances or classical concerts.  And actually the same applies to work I've done with earlier M digital cameras (M8 through to M10R).  Although the drive for ever "cleaner" high ISO output seems to be a marketing imperative, "obsolete" cameras like the SL2 don't do to badly!  No plan to get rid of mine for the moment 😊.

The image below was taken in dress rehearsal lighting (complex, mixed), with a monopod to support the SL 90-280 (it's a beast to work with unsupported during a 2 hour shoot!).  Client satisfied, photographer satisfied.  The images look VERY good on web, and individual A3+ prints were very very good too.  More work in complex and low light here: https://www.ctribble.co.uk/galleries/THEATRE/COG_La_Voix_Humaine/ (A splendidly innovative performance of Poulenc's La Voix Humaine).

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 March 13, 2024 by chris_tribble

[FocusDot]

On 3/8/2024 at 2:38 PM, northernlights said:

I am a mainly manual lens shooter. Leica M-mount lenses...

So, as I have no L mount lenses and AF doesn’t matter to me. The great thing about the SL3 is the user interface and the manual focus tracking like the one on the Nikon Zf. 

 

Uhmmm...what is this? Did I miss something? SL3 has manual focus tracking like Nikon Zf??
Would you pls. care to explain, thank you?
 

On 3/7/2024 at 1:22 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

 The body changes are not appealing to me, the AF is not an issue in my work, and the sensor seems to be better in some ways, but worse in others than the SL2.

What is worse?

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, FocusDot said:

Uhmmm...what is this? Did I miss something? SL3 has manual focus tracking like Nikon Zf??

You didn't miss anything. there is no MF tracking.

they are probably referring to the fact that if you mount M lens, and are in body - face focus mode, you still see the boxes moving around. but they don't do anything, they don't change color when is focus or anything like that

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, FocusDot said:

Uhmmm...what is this? Did I miss something? SL3 has manual focus tracking like Nikon Zf??
Would you pls. care to explain, thank you?
 

What is worse?

The biggest issue seems to be the slow readout, which impacts the ability to use the electronic shutter (more likely to cause distortions and aberrations), and impacts the responsiveness of the camera, particularly in video. Another significant consequence is that the viewfinder blackout is noticeably longer. There are ways to minimize this, but it is an area where the SL2 is still ahead of the SL3. Another would be the fact that multishot is not currently available on the SL3, and there has been no mention (that I have seen anyway) that it will be brought back. Apparently it is not in the manual either. So if pure resolution is your main aim, the SL2 is still a higher resolution body than the SL3 when it comes to studio work or landscape. Time will tell if that is brought to the SL3.

2 hours ago, chris_tribble said:

And as a further contribution to discussion, I've been looking at the miserably poor high iso output from the SL2 and wondering how I ever found it acceptable.  As someone who's never bothered with more than 6400 I suppose I should accept myself as stone-age, immediately through away my unworthy outdated kit, and buy the shiniest and last. 

Problem is, that when I look at real world images on screen and in large prints, I find it hard to find anything seriously wrong with the results the SL2 gives in VERY difficult light conditions, like theatre, jazz performances or classical concerts.  And actually the same applies to work I've done with earlier M digital cameras (M8 through to M10R).  Although the drive for ever "cleaner" high ISO output seems to be a marketing imperative, "obsolete" cameras like the SL2 don't do to badly!  No plan to get rid of mine for the moment 😊.

 

The dirty secret is really that barring dual gain cameras and some very specific instances, every digital camera ever made is best at base ISO and things just get worse from there. It is really just about how bad things get. With processing and proper technique there is generally not a lot of reason to need extreme ISOs. For most of the history of photography ISO 100 was "medium" speed film and color film did not get past 200 or so until the 70s I believe. I realize that people don't like this line of reasoning as high ISOs are so usable now, but the fact remains that they are still invariably worse, and if you have an option, it is generally better to stick to low ISOs and pull out a tripod etc. A lot of my clients learn this the hard way when they ask me to print for them the high ISO photos that looked fine for them on the screen, but look like crap next to their low ISO photos from the same camera. But again, it is all about degree and expectation. ISO 50,000 in decent light with the SL2 looks cleaner than pushed color negative to me...the S3 not so much. Apologies for the screenshot I have posted a bunch, but I like to pull it out at times when people fall over themselves to say how bad the ISO is in the SL2. It's like they don't remember 5 to 10 years ago it would be like manna from heaven.

 

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!

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Another would be the fact that multishot is not currently available on the SL3, and there has been no mention (that I have seen anyway) that it will be brought back.

In their recent video (Leica SL3 - A First Look), David and Josh said that they talked to Leica representatives, and there are strong hints that multishot will launch soon on SL3. Nothing is given until the firmware update is here.

Frankly, I stopped using multishot on SL2 a week or two after it was implemented.

[Stuart Richardson]

I hope they do, as it was extremely useful, particularly for artwork reproduction and camera based scanning. Also very helpful for highly detailed landscapes or if you want to crop in quite a lot on a landscape photo. I use it a lot, but obviously it is not important for people who do not need high resolution. It is very odd to me that they did not include it on launch. I would have thought that the experience of implementing it into the SL2 and SL2S would have been the hard work to begin with, and carrying it over to the next camera would have been less challenging. The SL3 certainly has been out in the hands of testers for months already.

[SrMi]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I hope they do, as it was extremely useful, particularly for artwork reproduction and camera based scanning. Also very helpful for highly detailed landscapes or if you want to crop in quite a lot on a landscape photo. I use it a lot, but obviously it is not important for people who do not need high resolution. It is very odd to me that they did not include it on launch. I would have thought that the experience of implementing it into the SL2 and SL2S would have been the hard work to begin with, and carrying it over to the next camera would have been less challenging. The SL3 certainly has been out in the hands of testers for months already.

My main problem is that it needs tripod. Even though I get the best IQ with a tripod, I practically stopped using it.

It takes time to reimplement multishot for the new camera, and Leica probably did not want to delay the launch.

[Chaemono]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb chris_tribble:

And as a further contribution to discussion, I've been looking at the miserably poor high iso output from the SL2 and wondering how I ever found it acceptable.  As someone who's never bothered with more than 6400 I suppose I should accept myself as stone-age, immediately through away my unworthy outdated kit, and buy the shiniest and last. 

Problem is, that when I look at real world images on screen and in large prints, I find it hard to find anything seriously wrong with the results the SL2 gives in VERY difficult light conditions, like theatre, jazz performances or classical concerts.  And actually the same applies to work I've done with earlier M digital cameras (M8 through to M10R).  Although the drive for ever "cleaner" high ISO output seems to be a marketing imperative, "obsolete" cameras like the SL2 don't do to badly!  No plan to get rid of mine for the moment 😊.

The image below was taken in dress rehearsal lighting (complex, mixed), with a monopod to support the SL 90-280 (it's a beast to work with unsupported during a 2 hour shoot!).  Client satisfied, photographer satisfied.  The images look VERY good on web, and individual A3+ prints were very very good too.  More work in complex and low light here: https://www.ctribble.co.uk/galleries/THEATRE/COG_La_Voix_Humaine/ (A splendidly innovative performance of Poulenc's La Voix Humaine).

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!

 

Thanks for posting these. No one is arguing that the SL2’s noise level at high ISO is worse than the SL3 but the SL2 at higher ISO has definitely less exposure latitude. This may not matter in practice, the client is satisfied as you state, but the music sheet is blown. You could have exposed to preserve the details on the music sheet but then you would have had to lift the shadows of this ISO 6400 SL2 DNG and that’s where the difference to the SL3 comes in. Lifting shadows of ISO 6400 SL2 files results in really ugly shadow noise whereas with the SL3 it’s a breeze. De facto, therefore, the SL3 at high ISO has more “dynamic range.”

[SrMi]

34 minutes ago, Chaemono said:

Thanks for posting these. No one is arguing that the SL2’s noise level at high ISO is worse than the SL3 but the SL2 at higher ISO has definitely less exposure latitude. This may not matter in practice, the client is satisfied as you state, but the music sheet is blown. You could have exposed to preserve the details on the music sheet but then you would have had to lift the shadows of this ISO 6400 SL2 DNG and that’s where the difference to the SL3 comes in. Lifting shadows of ISO 6400 SL2 files results in really ugly shadow noise whereas with the SL3 it’s a breeze. De facto, therefore, the SL3 at high ISO has more “dynamic range.”

In my book, clipping highlights and relying on post-processing to reconstruct clipped channel(s) should always be avoided. Once you clip highlights, you can only hope the software can help without losing much detail and color. I would avoid clipping both with SL3 and SL2. In that context, exposure latitude that relies on clipped channel reconstruction also varies with the scene and should not be relied upon.

[DrM]

I think if the SL3 was like the SL2, but with the new sensor and world class AF, I would have bought it.

[JohnSantaF4]

9 minutes ago, DrM said:

I think if the SL3 was like the SL2, but with the new sensor and world class AF, I would have bought it.

Some have said that the AF underperformance is the fault of the photographer, but I agree with you, it’s not world class.

[IkarusJohn]

Keeping my SL(601)

[Fgcm]

Today I tested the SL3. It works great, but the body is too thick for my hands. 
The SL2 is the right size for my hands. The SL3 isn’t. I cannot reach all buttons and wheels without moving the right hand on the camera. Very annoying. It simply doesn’t work for me. I’m very sorry. I dreamed of this new camera for a long time and I was thrilled to try it. What a disappointment. 

[John Smith]

4 hours ago, JohnSantaF4 said:

Some have said that the AF underperformance is the fault of the photographer, but I agree with you, it’s not world class.

It will likely get better with firmware updates. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tomasis7]

2 hours ago, Fgcm said:

Today I tested the SL3. It works great, but the body is too thick for my hands. 
The SL2 is the right size for my hands. The SL3 isn’t. I cannot reach all buttons and wheels without moving the right hand on the camera. Very annoying. It simply doesn’t work for me. I’m very sorry. I dreamed of this new camera for a long time and I was thrilled to try it. What a disappointment. 

you saved millions of Euros and stuck with it for the rest of your life. 

Edited March 13, 2024 by tomasis7

[Fgcm]

7 hours ago, tomasis7 said:

you saved millions of Euros and stuck with it for the rest of your life

Or switch to other brands.