Model shoot on the Leica SL3 (Initial images)

[fotonutzz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Some sample shots of the SL3 taken at the SL3 launch.

Please pardon the lack of sharpness here as the shoot was conducted in relatively low light.  They only had one floor lamp and I had to set my ISO to 1600, F2.0 and 1/30s.

Although most of us would not shoot portraits at ISO 1600, I guess this is still within acceptable norms.  White balance and skin tones look relatively OK.  

Will need to conduct a proper studio lighting to test out the colour accuracy later.

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 12, 2024 by fotonutzz

[Advertisement]

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

[david strachan]

Nice images even tho' the lighting is rather flat

 I prefer more modelling light for models and portraiture.  But you have to take what your given.

As I say very nice.

...

[Sohail]

It's difficult to comment on colour accuracy of skin tones, which looked touched up. Is this a 75? 

[Olaf_ZG]

13 hours ago, fotonutzz said:

Please pardon the lack of sharpness here as the shoot was conducted in relatively low light.  They only had one floor lamp and I had to set my ISO to 1600, F2.0 and 1/30s.

 

In other words, the 2s remains the best option for low light…

[SrMi]

12 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

In other words, the 2s remains the best option for low light…

Why?

[Olaf_ZG]

Not sharp due to lowlight. The 2s could have easily been set to iso6400, two more stops of stability or more dof.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

49 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Not sharp due to lowlight. The 2s could have easily been set to iso6400, two more stops of stability or more dof.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I checked SL2-S vs SL3 on my bookshelf, zero NR or sharpening in LrC, downsized SL3's image to 6000x4000, and shot at the same exposures using ISO 1600 (f/4, 1/320) and ISO 6400 (f/4, 1/1250).

As expected, SL3's ISO 1600 shows more detail and less noise than SL2-S ISO 6400.

As expected, SL3's ISO 1600 and ISO 6400 show as much detail and noise as SL2-S's ISO 1600 and ISO 6400.

Edited March 12, 2024 by SrMi

[Olaf_ZG]

27 minutes ago, SrMi said:

How do you come to that conclusion?

I checked SL2-S vs SL3 on my bookshelf, zero NR or sharpening in LrC, downsized SL3's image to 6000x4000, and shot at the same exposures using ISO 1600 (f/4, 1/320) and ISO 6400 (f/4, 1/1250).

As expected, SL3's ISO 1600 shows more detail and less noise than SL2-S ISO 6400.

As expected, SL3's ISO 1600 and ISO 6400 show as much detail and noise as SL2-S's ISO 1600 and ISO 6400.

I conclude based on OP’s findings. Apologizing for sharpness due to low light.

Having the 2s for low light I am considering the 2 for portraits with strobes and tripod work. On-top. Or, instead the 3 to replace both. 
 

Low light is important to me, not because I photograph in the dark, but I need 1/1000 due to movement in lower light. The 2s does this.

[Photoworks]

18 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I conclude based on OP’s findings. Apologizing for sharpness due to low light.

Having the 2s for low light I am considering the 2 for portraits with strobes and tripod work. On-top. Or, instead the 3 to replace both. 
 

Low light is important to me, not because I photograph in the dark, but I need 1/1000 due to movement in lower light. The 2s does this.

sorry, that does not make any sense! SL2s had only a stop over SL2, and SL3 has a stop over SL2.
Shooting at 6400 is fine and you won't get the oversharpen edges from trying to sharpen.

[Spodrasky]

I have found that my SL3 files look better at 6400 than the SL2S files do. They are cleaner and the noise is less noticeable. I have shot the SL3 in playing around up to 50,000 and the noise is much more film grain and finer. I would not shoot this high for model work, however on the image page I posted a shot at the 50,000ISO and to see what DeNoise could do ran it through it. I also made 24"x36" prints and the results from a normal viewing distance are quite amazing. This was the first time I have tried the DeNoise and while not as sharp or clear as a file at base ISO, the look was better than I expected. I was able to capture an Image that otherwise would not have been possible even a few years ago. For fine art work it opens the doors to new possibilities. I would not do this commercially with Models, however.

[frame-it]

On 3/13/2024 at 3:11 AM, Olaf_ZG said:

Not sharp due to lowlight. The 2s could have easily been set to iso6400, two more stops of stability or more dof.

well, the OP's shutter speed is too low, no flash, really bad flat lighting [which he mentioned]

in a real world "paid" fotoshoot at a studio those issues wont exist.

most of those images above are not really sharp, some seem to have a halo around the lady, like she was airbrushed + brightened up a lot, and generally smudgy with some sort of clarity or sharpening applied to an already soft image.

 

so in a studio with proper lighting and all the extras the SL3 would be perfectly fine

Edited March 16, 2024 by frame-it

[Olaf_ZG]

1 hour ago, frame-it said:

well, the OP's shutter speed is too low, no flash, really bad flat lighting [which he mentioned]

in a real world "paid" fotoshoot at a studio those issues wont exist.

most of those images above are not really sharp, some seem to have a halo around the lady, like she was airbrushed + brightened up a lot, and generally smudgy with some sort of clarity or sharpening applied to an already soft image.

 

so in a studio with proper lighting and all the extras the SL3 would be perfectly fine

Ofcourse the SL is fine in a studio. I was commenting on the low light part.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I've shot my SL3  at 6400 around the neighborhood in early evening.  There is no visible grain when I inspect images at 100% on a 24" screen. so I would consider that to be a safe maximum ISO.

[FocusDot]

On 3/12/2024 at 7:11 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

Not sharp due to lowlight. The 2s could have easily been set to iso6400, two more stops of stability or more dof.

Not my experience with my SL2, should even less be the case with SL3.
I have no issues with sharpness (or anything else) shooting portraits @IS0 1600-3200 on my SL2, sometimes I even add some
noise to the final image. SL3 is even better so if you don't want to buy SL3 being afraid of shooting in low light - well...don't (be afraid)

I agree - bad light/flat light could easily give problems, but that is true both for SL2, SL3 and SL2-s (and all other cameras in the world)

At the end - a portrait shot with SL3 at ISO 4000. You can like it or not, but does it miss sharpness? Hell, no!

 

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!

[GFW2-SCUSA]

I don't find the lack of tack sharpness at all unpleasant for this type of portrait. I do wonder about the apparent dust spot on her right hand on image #3 which is not on any others. Was it removed in post? Was it a phantom spot? 

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!

[Guest]

Thanks for introducing this subject (model/fashion photography with the SL3). When I attend fashion shows, I don't usually see other Leicas besides mine. I am interested in the capabilities of the new SL3, so this discussion is helpful. I also agree about lighting, that can be totally random, depending on the venue, etc. And there's no reason to NOT up the ISO value a tad, there are plenty of tools to deal with noise in post if it is deemed intrusive. The lens deployed is always the deciding factor in this type of scenario anyway, overruling all other considerations.