Leica SL3 AF

[Ken Abrahams]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Stevejack said:

Yeah it's amazing to me that any lens can move its glass fast enough keep up with even 5fps, let alone the 30+ fps available these days. It's an amazing time we're living in for photography. 

I've maxed out the capabilities of my existing setup with shots like this one; https://www.instagram.com/p/CQktdlVDiRw/  . Even 30 fps isn't quite fast enough to reliably capture these guys feeding, my hit rate is probably 5% or less. So many "almost" moments but the lenses and the AF algorithms are still only able to work so fast. Once the AF lands on the subject it's pretty good at sticking with it, but that initial acquisition is still far from reliable. I don't use any AF tracking / object detection features because the latency is too high for these kinds of shots. 
Not sure if a global shutter would perform any better either because I'm not really sure where the bottleneck is. There are a lot of things that all have to work together to give meaningful improvements. 

Yes, good points Steve, and Leica have the onerous tasks of adding or taking away technologies with image quality having the highest priority. Sometimes compromises are necessary but I bet they have points where there can be zero compromises and the camera can only be what it is, at the time. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Mikko Kankainen]

Just tried Canon EF lenses with SL3 using Sigma adapter. They work great with Lumis S52x. With SL3 totally useless as it is with SL2.Tried with Canon 135mm F2. Is it because of "hybrid" focus? And with all lenses I find focus to hesitate more than it does with Lumix.

With video new focusing works but with stills I dont see any difference. And a huge disapointment that EF glasses are not working as good as they are with S52.

Edited March 14, 2024 by Mikko Kankainen

[LBJ2]

On 3/13/2024 at 10:52 AM, SrMi said:

Yes, that is in the manual, but it is a typo. 6fps does not provide AF per the table below and the camera's information when choosing continuous shooting.

That's too bad about the SL3 manual typo. Perhaps also a bit of upgrade wishful thinking on my part. 

[Photoworks]

3 hours ago, Mikko Kankainen said:

Just tried Canon EF lenses with SL3 using Sigma adapter. They work great with Lumis S52x. With SL3 totally useless as it is with SL2.Tried with Canon 135mm F2. Is it because of "hybrid" focus? And with all lenses I find focus to hesitate more than it does with Lumix.

With video new focusing works but with stills I dont see any difference. And a huge disapointment that EF glasses are not working as good as they are with S52.

from looking at S5IIx reviews, the AF in the Panasonic camera looks better in tracking and AFc.

I did some tests yesterday with Leica and Panasonic lenses and the AF was disappointing in photos and video when following skaters.

[thelivingyears]

It doesn't surprise me that the Leica SL can't keep up with current Sony cameras when it comes to autofocus. I still take photos with the Sony A7III and still find the autofocus sufficient for my type of photography. Of course I wouldn't argue against better and I'm hoping for progress in this regard with the next Sony camera (without knowing whether I actually need it), but how does the SL3's AF-C compare to the Sony A7III? Maybe there is someone here who knows both cameras and would dare to judge for sure. Eye AF for people and animals is particularly important to me. The A7III doesn't pick up birds in flight or running dogs either (however, sometimes it does), so that would be okay, but it should be accurate with (faster) moving children. My A7III can do that quite well too. How does the new SL3 compare in this regard?

Edited March 15, 2024 by thelivingyears

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, thelivingyears said:

It doesn't surprise me that the Leica SL can't keep up with current Sony cameras when it comes to autofocus. I still take photos with the Sony A7III and still find the autofocus sufficient for my type of photography. Of course I wouldn't argue against better and I'm hoping for progress in this regard with the next Sony camera (without knowing whether I actually need it), but how does the SL3's AF-C compare to the Sony A7III? Maybe there is someone here who knows both cameras and would dare to judge for sure. Eye AF for people and animals is particularly important to me. The A7III doesn't pick up birds in flight or running dogs either (however, sometimes it does), so that would be okay, but it should be accurate with (faster) moving children. My A7III can do that quite well too. How does the new SL3 compare in this regard?

I think people complain that the SL3 doesn't compete with full-on pro-sports cameras from Canon/Nikon/Sony. From what you describe of the a7, the SL3 should be at-least as good, and maybe a bit better. You'll find sharply focused images of birds, dogs, and children in the photo threads.

That's the case with all of these brands. A Canon EOS R3 has AF performance that a mid-range Canon R5 can't match. Leica doesn't offer a high-end sports camera, but that's not their market. They don't offer $15,000 super-telephotos either, so they have nothing that would interest the 100 or so world-class sports shooters on this planet.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, BernardC said:

I think people complain that the SL3 doesn't compete with full-on pro-sports cameras from Canon/Nikon/Sony. From what you describe of the a7, the SL3 should be at-least as good, and maybe a bit better. You'll find sharply focused images of birds, dogs, and children in the photo threads.

That's the case with all of these brands. A Canon EOS R3 has AF performance that a mid-range Canon R5 can't match. Leica doesn't offer a high-end sports camera, but that's not their market. They don't offer $15,000 super-telephotos either, so they have nothing that would interest the 100 or so world-class sports shooters on this planet.

You forget that every Leica owner aspires to be one of those "100 or so world-class sports shooters on the planet". That's why there are so many grumbles about Leica's AF.

[thelivingyears]

vor 36 Minuten schrieb BernardC:

I think people complain that the SL3 doesn't compete with full-on pro-sports cameras from Canon/Nikon/Sony. From what you describe of the a7, the SL3 should be at-least as good, and maybe a bit better. You'll find sharply focused images of birds, dogs, and children in the photo threads.

That's the case with all of these brands. A Canon EOS R3 has AF performance that a mid-range Canon R5 can't match. Leica doesn't offer a high-end sports camera, but that's not their market. They don't offer $15,000 super-telephotos either, so they have nothing that would interest the 100 or so world-class sports shooters on this planet.

Thank you! Makes me more confident that it could work out for me.

[petereprice]

2 hours ago, thelivingyears said:

It doesn't surprise me that the Leica SL can't keep up with current Sony cameras when it comes to autofocus. I still take photos with the Sony A7III and still find the autofocus sufficient for my type of photography. Of course I wouldn't argue against better and I'm hoping for progress in this regard with the next Sony camera (without knowing whether I actually need it), but how does the SL3's AF-C compare to the Sony A7III? Maybe there is someone here who knows both cameras and would dare to judge for sure. Eye AF for people and animals is particularly important to me. The A7III doesn't pick up birds in flight or running dogs either (however, sometimes it does), so that would be okay, but it should be accurate with (faster) moving children. My A7III can do that quite well too. How does the new SL3 compare in this regard?

I still shoot Sony and I used to own the Sony A7 III and remember it's AF and shutter burst capabilities.  I also have currently and SL3 and can touch on the differences.

The Sony A7 III excels in shutter burst speeds at continuous AF.  If I remember correctly the Sony A7 III shot 10fps at continuous autofocus, where as the Leica SL3, can only shoot 5fps burst rate at continuous AF.  So I would still consider the Sony a faster camera.  However, it's worth noting that the A7 III is only a 24mp sensor, where as the SL3 is a 60mp sensor, so there's a lot more processing going, therefor it makes sense for the SL3 to be slower.

Where the SL3 excels above the Sony A7 III specifically is in its subject detection.  Although Sony in its last firmware had good eye AF, it didn't really have multiple subject detection like the newer Sony bodies or the SL3.  So I feel the SL3 excels in "smarter" AF.  

With that said, I still think there's room for improvement with the SL3 AI-based AF engine, when I compare it to my Sony A7rV.  The Sony has 10fps Mechanical and Electronic AF, with subject tracking in multiple subjects, and is very accurate.  Where as I still have trouble on my SL3 with some animal or vehicle based tracking, which I think will improve over time.

As BernardC mentioned, this camera is not made for sports or fast moving subjects like birds in flight and it would take not only the type of camera but also the glass to support that type of photography.  Not sure if Leica has that kind of glass yet.  Maybe some of the rebranded Sigma and Panasonic glass could support that, and we'll see improvements or perhaps even faster AF capabilities in a SL3-S, I presume.

For those looking to shoot portrait, street, or general photography needs, this camera to me is perfect and has all the right features.  Although I shoot Sony professionally, I would like to explore transitioning my SL3 to as many professional gigs as I can if possible.   The enjoyment factor of shooting on the SL3 far outweighs the fast features of my Sony gear, in my opinion.

Edited March 15, 2024 by petereprice

[Mikko Kankainen]

I am a working sports photographer. I use SL2-s also in sports. Canon is needed to do the work also. Canon DSLRs from 2015 beats all Leicas no news there if looking AF tracking and burst shooting. 

My only disappointment was that SL3=SL2 with AF-S and with EF glass. If you focus using AF-S SL3 makes the same few wibble wobble that SL2 makes. S5 II does not. My theory is that AF-S is still contrast based and that would explain that you cannot use EF lenses like you can with Lumix.

Few sports samples, SL2-s. 

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!

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

You forget that every Leica owner aspires to be one of those "100 or so world-class sports shooters on the planet". That's why there are so many grumbles about Leica's AF.

This topic is fresh in my mind because I just watched Kim Illman's annual "equipment update" yesterday. He's a Formula 1 photographer, one of a handful that attend every race.  He mentions part-way through that his R5 can't do what his R3s can do, but the R5 is smaller and has higher resolution so it's useful nevertheless. Most of his lenses have L-mount equivalents, except for the 600/4.0 ($13K at B&H today) and the 100-300/2.8 (cheap at $9.5K!). The R3 is a relative bargain, each pixel costs a few percent less than it would on an SL2-S, but the cost of the whole kit is up there. However, to put things in a bit of perspective, plumbers have more money invested in their truck and their tools.

It isn't Leica's market at all. I'm sure he would love to carry a relatively light SL3 instead, but carrying heavy gear is part of the job.

Here's the link, for those who are interested:

https://youtu.be/F9vbPzhfjjQ?si=jkc6qFu2CZ5wdlih

 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Mikko Kankainen said:

I am a working sports photographer. I use SL2-s also in sports. Canon is needed to do the work also. Canon DSLRs from 2015 beats all Leicas no news there if looking AF tracking and burst shooting. 

Nice shots! I tried hockey once, for fun, because I got NHL rink-side seats through a corporate connection. It's just insane to follow, the action could be 15cm away or 60m away, within a few seconds.

I admire anyone who does that for a living. You would definitely choose your gear based on AF responsiveness and burst rate, at the expense of every other criteria.

[Mikko Kankainen]

I really think that the issue is that AF-S seems to be using contrast based focusing. Focusing with EF-glass is also not working with Lumix if using AF-S.

With Lumix you have a switch that changes af-s to af-c, with Leica you have to use touchscreen and it's grayed out. So a possible firmware update could do the trick.

So maybe the focusing is the same but with Panasonic you can use tracking with ef-lenses and my mistake that I though that the overall focusing was worst. It was just that I had Pana set to AF-C and I'm not able to do that with SL-3. I already sent Leica an email about this, hope others will do the same that wants to use Canon glass with Leica.

 

Videos:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/b47j73om77u52vg7oc38r/h?rlkey=dzpan2g3gtz780oajm8ri6fqd&dl=0

Edited March 16, 2024 by Mikko Kankainen

[algrove]

On 3/10/2024 at 6:36 PM, mmradman said:

Providing you are satisfied with longest almost Leica L lenses being 280mm (90-280mm zoom allegedly Panasonic design), longer lenses are either repackaged Sigma or third party, which is, surprise surprise, Sigma. It may sound picky or snobbish but the idea of buying into Leica is about optics, works same for other vendors.

 

Do not forget Leica offers the 100-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter which I have used and it works well on the SL2S, but have not yet tried it on the SL3. I do not take BIF, but if that is your main subject use then I hear the Sony A1 is the camera of choice for birders.

[Planetwide]

On 3/15/2024 at 2:01 PM, BernardC said:

It isn't Leica's market at all. I'm sure he would love to carry a relatively light SL3 instead, but carrying heavy gear is part of the job

 

The R3 is amazingly lightweight.

R3 no battery - 822g, SL3 no battery - 770g. The Canon battery will last about the same (I get approx 1000shots) as 4 SL3 batteries... 80g x 4 = 320g. Canon battery = 185g

[Hanno]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:23 AM, Mikko Kankainen said:

I really think that the issue is that AF-S seems to be using contrast based focusing.

With all due respect I fail to imagine that Leica would develop a brand new hybrid system of AF combining 3 technologies (phase detection, object recognition, and contrast detection) and not applying it to AF-S which is probably what 90%+ users would select. It just doesn’t make sense.
 

Probably the “advanced” algorithms making the 3 technologies working together are not refined enough yet and hopefully that would change, but I bet AF-S is designed to work with all 3.

[Dr. G]

Does anyone know how the camera decides which face/eyes to focus on initially?  It would make sense to me that it would choose the one nearest to the camera, but it seems that this may not be the case.  

[mmradman]

9 hours ago, algrove said:

Do not forget Leica offers the 100-400 and a 1.4x teleconverter which I have used and it works well on the SL2S, but have not yet tried it on the SL3. I do not take BIF, but if that is your main subject use then I hear the Sony A1 is the camera of choice for birders.

Yes, that 100-400 is Sigma lens under the skin. Leica version cost more. It should work on all SL models.

It is not only Sony, other big two known jointly as CaNikon have high pixel fast tracking cameras also.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[algrove]

41 minutes ago, mmradman said:

Yes, that 100-400 is Sigma lens under the skin. Leica version cost more. It should work on all SL models.

It is not only Sony, other big two known jointly as CaNikon have high pixel fast tracking cameras also.

Perhaps, but it's metal skin, not plastic. The 1.4x is better than my Penny 1.4x on all my L mount long lenses.

[Mikko Kankainen]

8 hours ago, Hanno said:

With all due respect I fail to imagine that Leica would develop a brand new hybrid system of AF combining 3 technologies (phase detection, object recognition, and contrast detection) and not applying it to AF-S which is probably what 90%+ users would select. It just doesn’t make sense.
 

Probably the “advanced” algorithms making the 3 technologies working together are not refined enough yet and hopefully that would change, but I bet AF-S is designed to work with all 3.

Yes it seems really weird. I asked Leica about this, no answer yet. There is huge difference how af locks if using af-s or af-c. And with adapted lenses this difference really is shown as you can see in my videos. My first reaction when using SL3 was that the AF is just like it was with SL2/s. I was using af-s. And it really feels the same. 

I would love to use some Canon lenses that I still use with Canon like 135mm f2, 24mm 1.4, 300mm 2.8 etc with Leica but cannot. But lucky for me I have S5mk2x that I can even use these lenses with video and they work almost as native lenses just because there is possibility to switch af-c with Sigma mc-21. Just really missing ability to use 135mm with SL3 because I really love that lens.