SL3 - A case of what could have been(s)

[Dipal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey folks, I've been fortunate enough to receive the SL3 and fortunate enough to test it for a couple of days.

Here are a few observations:

1. The body feels extremely solid. It is a welcome change from using an SL2-S or a SL2 in terms of ergonomics. However when used with the Leica SL glass the weight differential is probably not going to be THAT apparent.  But if you, like me are using Sigma/Lumix glass then you can expect it to behave like any other mirrorless - only be extremely well balanced. 
2. AF - It is very iffy. It misses sometimes when it shouldn't and surprises you a few times too. Overall, quite unpredictable but if you're planning to use AF-S only, I think you don't need to think much as you can expect it to hit the target 99.5% of the time. Problem arises when you 'expect' this thing to be a A9 or Z9 or even a R3. The SL3 isn't going to beat those but I do understand people's expectation for it to at least come close given the price Leica is charging. Yes, 7000 USD isn't much of a change from SL2 price but it is A LOT. When you add SL lenses you are spending a fortune. 
3. Continous shooting - I need to try this but the c AF isn't sticky and I am not confident on this camera to be able to handle a burst mode shooting
4. White Balance - Still hit and miss. Most of the shots I took are quite blue and I do need to adjust the sliders in LR. I don't know what 
5. I don't know but the REDs aren't properly captured when I clicked few of my test shots. It was more like I was shooting pink. I've never seen this issue before with any Leicas. 
6. Power Button - It is what it is. You can't change it now that they've put the camera out so you either live with it or you don't. No point discussing this more. 
7. Video - I don't use video as much so can't comment on the video
8. Using M glass is as fantastic as ever. Although it cannot match the Nikon ZF for ease of focussing with manual focus lenses, I have always loved focusing M glass with the SLs. It is wonderful and the output is nice
9. The flippy screen is SOLID. The screen brightness is not that high though and it is quite a disappointment. The resolution also should be better. For all the UI advancements the camera offers and as fantastic as it is, the screen brightness feels REALLY LOW at max brightness. I don't know if I am the only one facing this issue. 
10. Internal storage would have been nice but alas, CFexpress will do
11. Yes, the shutter sound is loud
12. Battery life is terrible. Also the body heats up a lot - I am on firmware 1.1.0 so not sure what's going on but this needs to be looked into. 
13. Overall, the images do need some tweaking in Lightroom. The image quality and IQ is fantastic. The Dynamic range is MUCH improved from the SL2. 

These are the things at top of my mind when it comes to the SL3. I do intend to continue testing further and am happy to report back to you if any of you have any questions. 

I think Leica should be giving the consumers more than what they have with the SL3, with the time they've had to iterate on the SL system and with the price they are charging. It does show a serious concern when the best camera that you can put out can only do 4 FPS at 14 bit uncompressed RAW.

I also feel that the L-mount alliance is super capable with the kind of glass they are putting out. However, focus on L-mount bodies and development needs to speed up to give us consumers the confidence to invest in the system.

The Nikon ZF is less than 1/3 the price of this and arguably does many a things better than the SL3. It shouldn't be that consumers feel shortchanged. With the competition providing a LOT more than this, Leica needs to up their game in rolling out those firmware updates soon - or the bus might leave and there might be no catching up to do. 

I am sharing some pictures that I have taken in the last two days with this camera and will submit more as we go on. You can view more at the Flickr album (follow the image link). Happy shooting guys!

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 Dipal

[Advertisement]

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

[Dipal]

Update - 4FPS doesn't really feel like enough and honestly it isn't enough. Combined with that shutter sound, it is really awkward.

I wouldn't shoot AF-c moving subjects on this camera. 

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Dipal said:

Update - 4FPS doesn't really feel like enough and honestly it isn't enough. Combined with that shutter sound, it is really awkward.

I wouldn't shoot AF-c moving subjects on this camera. 

Why don't you shoot 5fps?

When I was shooting wildlife with my Nikon D3-s, I was rarely using more than 5fps.

[Smogg]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Why don't you shoot 5fps?

When I was shooting wildlife with my Nikon D3-s, I was rarely using more than 5fps.

Actually 4fps with AF between frames, Sony A7RV - 7fps. We can conclude that Sony's hardware and software is approximately 2 times more powerful

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Actually 4fps with AF between frames, Sony A7RV - 7fps. We can conclude that Sony's hardware and software is approximately 2 times more powerful

Per the SL3 manual, it is 5fps, 12-bit, and AF (12-bit does not negatively affect IQ if you shoot above approximately ISO 500). 

 

[Smogg]

13 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Per the SL3 manual, it is 5fps, 12-bit, and AF (12-bit does not negatively affect IQ if you shoot above approximately ISO 500). 

 

It is better not to use the 12-bit mode, if the file has to be seriously processed, artifacts will arise. In 12-bit mode Sony will give you 10 fps

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, Smogg said:

It is better not to use the 12-bit mode, if the file has to be seriously processed, artifacts will arise. In 12-bit mode Sony will give you 10 fps

14-bits gives you no post-processing advantage if the noise is too high anyway (at higher ISOs). Remember that bits are about noise. AFAIK, a7rV can go above 7fps only in lossy compressed mode. Lossy compressed mode can have negative effects when post-processing.

[Smogg]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

14-bits gives you no post-processing advantage if the noise is too high anyway (at higher ISOs). Remember that bits are about noise. AFAIK, a7rV can go above 7fps only in lossy compressed mode. Lossy compressed mode can have negative effects when post-processing.

Additional bits are primarily responsible for a smooth gradient, for restoring highlight and casts in the shadows. This is important for the sky and face. Sony claims that losses during lossy compression are also minimal. Therefore, if you are comparing cameras in terms of FPS, then it is more correct to compare them at the same bit rate.

[Smogg]

Those people who are interested in the difference between 12 bits and 14 bits can read an easy-to-understand article here
 

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

[SrMi]

28 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Additional bits are primarily responsible for a smooth gradient, for restoring highlight and casts in the shadows.

More bits help with everything if all bits carry meaningful information. At higher ISOs, the lowest two bits are only noise and carry no useful information. Therefore, 14 bits will not help when your image is so noisy that the lowest two bits carry no relevant information.

32 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Sony claims that losses during lossy compression are also minimal.

Yes, they were pushing that shtick for years and started offering lossless compressed only after many years and much pressure from owners. Before, Sony owners had only the option of lossy compressed and uncompressed. 

I would never shoot my Sonys in lossy compressed mode.

And yes, some users claim to see no difference ... most of the time.

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Those people who are interested in the difference between 12 bits and 14 bits can read an easy-to-understand article here
 

https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/

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

[Smogg]

3 minutes ago, SrMi said:

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

Just look at the green cast in one of the photos in the article I linked. 

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, Smogg said:

Just look at the green cast in one of the photos in the article I linked. 

Yes, if there is no noise, it helps.

Nikon users have been using 12 instead of 14 bits at higher ISOs, which is a general recommendation if you are bothering to save disk space.

[Smogg]

28 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Yes, if there is no noise, it helps.

Nikon users have been using 12 instead of 14 bits at higher ISOs, which is a general recommendation if you are bothering to save disk space.

They raise exposure by 6.5 stops, which is equivalent to shooting at at least 10,000ISO. At the same time, a 14-bit file looks much better than 12.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Smogg said:

They raise exposure by 6.5 stops, which is equivalent to shooting at at least 10,000ISO. At the same time, a 14-bit file looks much better than 12.

I did a test at ISO 100 and ISO 1250, 14 vs 12 bits, five stops underexposed and lifted in LrC by five stops.

I saw a significant difference at ISO 100 and no difference at ISO 1250.

I will post the test in a new thread.

[Photoworks]

you two are just too funny

if I can stoke the fire, should leica have 15 stops of DR at any ISO?

 

I remember the does 2 people who complained about compressed raw on Sony, something that 99.99% of people didn't care about. if I recall correctly it was for stro photography.

My motto is: this is what I have, what can I do with it? too late now to complain if it does 10-20 or 30 fps

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, Smogg said:

They raise exposure by 6.5 stops, which is equivalent to shooting at at least 10,000ISO. At the same time, a 14-bit file looks much better than 12.

Are you talking about my picture that I raised 6.5 stops?  well I have started at 200ISO. But anyone that wasn't a usable photo from 6.5 Stop Under or over is crazy!
In my case, the flash didn't fire. I was curious if I could get anything out of it, but I would never deliver that.

[SrMi]

33 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

you two are just too funny

if I can stoke the fire, should leica have 15 stops of DR at any ISO?

 

I remember the does 2 people who complained about compressed raw on Sony, something that 99.99% of people didn't care about. if I recall correctly it was for stro photography.

My motto is: this is what I have, what can I do with it? too late now to complain if it does 10-20 or 30 fps

I don’t want people to avoid 5fps mode because of 12 bits, because 14 or 12 bits doesn't matter when shooting at higher ISOs.

Lossy compressed matters. Like many who care about IQ, I was shooting Sony uncompressed until Sony implemented lossless compressed. There is a reason why almost nobody chooses lossy compressed even though it is being often offered as an option.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Stevejack]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I don’t want people to avoid 5fps mode because of 12 bits, because 14 or 12 bits doesn't matter when shooting at higher ISOs.

Lossy compressed matters. Like many who care about IQ, I was shooting Sony uncompressed until Sony implemented lossless compressed. There is a reason why almost nobody chooses lossy compressed even though it is being often offered as an option.

I'll chime in just to say I often shoot lossy compressed on my Sony, reason being it's the only way to get the full fps output from the camera. There is a minor difference in the push/pull ability of the files and this is exacerbated with small birds in flight because of the heavy cropping which is often needed, but the different is minor enough that I don't worry about it. 

I used to find it an issue when I was using Auto ISO as the exposure was often too far away from what I wanted so I was needing to make adjustments in highlights / shadows. These days I just shoot fully manual and make sure my exposure is how I want it before hitting the shutter and there's not been any issues since. 

[chicagophoto]

If your just shooting in JPG, it's recording in the SRGB color space and that's why the reds are crushed or look pink. For whatever reason they didn't give Abode RGB as an option, which means to get the full color gamut you have to shoot raw. 

Edited March 12, 2024 by chicagophoto