SL2-S focus and ISO capability compared to SL2 and SL3

[Avatar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently got an SL2 to use for a project..Didn't expect to like it so much but was excited to get an SL3 for the improved ISO and focus.

Got the SL3 last night and it's as expected but, it's a bit thicker and while less weight, I don't love the feel in the hand compared to the SL2

I never had a chance to use an SL2-S and am curious how much better the focus is as well as ISO compared to the SL2 and SL3.

I read non stop how much better the focus and ISO are for the SL2-s but wonder how it compares also to the SL3.

Anyone gone this path?

Thank you for reading!

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoworks]

reddotforum youtube adresses this.

SL3 is better at controlling noise than any of the SL cameras, you see it mostly when lifting shadows at multiple stops. If you shoot in a manner that does not require much shadow opening the images from SL2 and SL3 are very similar from 100-6400 iso.

For example: Shoot in the studio with controlled lighting the SL2 images are very similar to SL3. There is no need to upgrade.

SL3 had better AF but still could use firmware improvements. It is unclear when PDAF is active on the SL3, it is a mystery since Leica doesn't say anything about it.

in single mode using the Face Body detection, the AF has the best performance for people! It looks like it is still contrast-based and performs well on SL2 and SL3 and about the same.

[Almizilero]

I got the SL2 and SL2-S, no experience with SL3. The SL2-S has the best low lights performance of any camera I've ever used (Which is basically every Sony Alpha up until about a year ago and the occasional Canon). The SL2 can't really hold up. That said, Lightroom with the new AI Denoise goes a long way, unless you overexposed and already ruined the shadows. But for my taste, I get better results using Super Resolution on SL2-S files than Denoise on SL2 files.

I actually never heared that the SL2-S has better AF than the SL2 and from my experience with the two, I never noticed much of a difference in real life either. You should get a bit jump in tracking AF with the SL3.

[Simone_DF]

I swapped a SL2 for a SL2-S and never looked back. The SL2 has an horrendous noise pattern, to me it just looks ugly af.

I don't have a SL3, but I tried a Q3 (same sensor) and to me the SL2-S files retain color better when lifting shadows or shooting at high iso.

[SrMi]

15 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I swapped a SL2 for a SL2-S and never looked back. The SL2 has an horrendous noise pattern, to me it just looks ugly af.

I don't have a SL3, but I tried a Q3 (same sensor) and to me the SL2-S files retain color better when lifting shadows or shooting at high iso.

Q3 files are different from SL3 files. For example, per P2P analysis, Q3 uses 13 bits, while SL3 uses 14 bits. The difference may not affect the quality, but that is enough difference that I would not extrapolate the Q3 experience to SL3.

[Avatar]

5 hours ago, Photoworks said:

reddotforum youtube adresses this.

SL3 is better at controlling noise than any of the SL cameras, you see it mostly when lifting shadows at multiple stops. If you shoot in a manner that does not require much shadow opening the images from SL2 and SL3 are very similar from 100-6400 iso.

For example: Shoot in the studio with controlled lighting the SL2 images are very similar to SL3. There is no need to upgrade.

SL3 had better AF but still could use firmware improvements. It is unclear when PDAF is active on the SL3, it is a mystery since Leica doesn't say anything about it.

in single mode using the Face Body detection, the AF has the best performance for people! It looks like it is still contrast-based and performs well on SL2 and SL3 and about the same.

Thank you for the response.  My test last night confirms the files are very robust and more so than the SL2. That's no surprise as expected.

Need to go back tonight and test auto focus some more. First tests were disappointing but again, it's a dark environment and no setting in autofocus was outstanding..Better than the SL2 but lots of room for improvement..

 

4 hours ago, Almizilero said:

I got the SL2 and SL2-S, no experience with SL3. The SL2-S has the best low lights performance of any camera I've ever used (Which is basically every Sony Alpha up until about a year ago and the occasional Canon). The SL2 can't really hold up. That said, Lightroom with the new AI Denoise goes a long way, unless you overexposed and already ruined the shadows. But for my taste, I get better results using Super Resolution on SL2-S files than Denoise on SL2 files.

I actually never heared that the SL2-S has better AF than the SL2 and from my experience with the two, I never noticed much of a difference in real life either. You should get a bit jump in tracking AF with the SL3.

I hope to get an SL2-S this week to compare it to the SL3. I can use the low light performance improvement and prefer not to rely much on Topaz or Denoise.

It would be nice if the SL2-S does the trick..The SL3 is undoubtedly a very nice improvement and will only get better with firmware. The thickness in hand of the SL3 is generally a minor thing but i was hoping for a better feel in hand..I am more sensitive or tuned in to this for some reason but def not a decision maker over it.

If the camera I need was something I felt i would use as my mainstay, I'd get the SL3 and there's a good chance i keep it but my main thing is street photography and I make regular use out of the M11M, Q3 and recently picked up an M11...Very intrigued by the sl2-s..

Thank you for the response.

 

 

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

I swapped a SL2 for a SL2-S and never looked back. The SL2 has an horrendous noise pattern, to me it just looks ugly af.

I don't have a SL3, but I tried a Q3 (same sensor) and to me the SL2-S files retain color better when lifting shadows or shooting at high iso.

This is what I have heard again and again. I agree about the noise pattern of the SL2. Hopefully I get an SL2-S very soon and will report back.

 

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Q3 files are different from SL3 files. For example, per P2P analysis, Q3 uses 13 bits, while SL3 uses 14 bits. The difference may not affect the quality, but that is enough difference that I would not extrapolate the Q3 experience to SL3.

As posted, I have only used the SL3 last night for a short time. So far, the autofocus was not as great in low light as I had hoped.

I do have a Q3 and at first blush the low light performance is similar and excellent. Files are excellent with both.

 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What lenses are you using on the SL3? The SL3's focusing is extremely lens dependant.

Gordon

[Almizilero]

vor 49 Minuten schrieb Avatar:

 

I hope to get an SL2-S this week to compare it to the SL3. I can use the low light performance improvement and prefer not to rely much on Topaz or Denoise.

It would be nice if the SL2-S does the trick..The SL3 is undoubtedly a very nice improvement and will only get better with firmware. The thickness in hand of the SL3 is generally a minor thing but i was hoping for a better feel in hand..I am more sensitive or tuned in to this for some reason but def not a decision maker over it.

If the camera I need was something I felt i would use as my mainstay, I'd get the SL3 and there's a good chance i keep it but my main thing is street photography and I make regular use out of the M11M, Q3 and recently picked up an M11...Very intrigued by the sl2-s..

Thank you for the response.

Not to forget the you can get almost three used SL2-S for the price of a new SL3! OK, looking at your setup that doesn't neccessarily have to be the deciding factor. I'd be interested in reading what your comparison of SL3/2-S will result in!

[Avatar]

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

What lenses are you using on the SL3? The SL3's focusing is extremely lens dependant.

Gordon

I have a 24-70 Sigma en route and have only used a Lumix 50mm 1.8.. Just did an informal test of SL3 focus and it's ok but at least with this lense I'd  hope it to be faster.

[Avatar]

2 hours ago, Almizilero said:

Not to forget the you can get almost three used SL2-S for the price of a new SL3! OK, looking at your setup that doesn't neccessarily have to be the deciding factor. I'd be interested in reading what your comparison of SL3/2-S will result in!

Stay tuned, now I just have to close the deal and get my hands on an SL2-S asap!

Stay tuned

[Avatar]

10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

What lenses are you using on the SL3? The SL3's focusing is extremely lens dependant.

Gordon

So far only used the Lumix S 50mm 1.8..I have a Sigma 24-70 en route.

[Avatar]

I learned the focus of the SL2-S was much faster than the SL2 but after firmware updates some of the features and benefits of the SL2-S were brought over.

 

[jjesp]

The low light quality is insane on the SL2-S. Even at 12.500 iso the result is fantastic. Yes you can see a bit more noise than with 6400 iso, but somehow it looks more like film grain than digital noise. And it still renders fantastic sharp and with details. Love it!

 

I tried the SL3 in the local Leica store. I am sure it is a great camera. But as you mentioned, it is thicker, and feels different in the hand. And also reminded me a little more like a modern Canon with its rounded corners on the viewfinder and body. And the material/painting seemed a bit like "plastic", It still felt like a quality camera of course. But somehow I just didn't get this wauw feeling as I did with the SL2-S the first time I picked it up. And I prefer the shutter sound on the older SL models.... 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, Avatar said:

I have a 24-70 Sigma en route and have only used a Lumix 50mm 1.8.. Just did an informal test of SL3 focus and it's ok but at least with this lense I'd  hope it to be faster.

Interesting. You should have a good AF experience with those, if the firmware is up to date. My SL3 is noticeably better than my SL2.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

5 minutes ago, jjesp said:

The low light quality is insane on the SL2-S. Even at 12.500 iso the result is fantastic. Yes you can see a bit more noise than with 6400 iso, but somehow it looks more like film grain than digital noise. And it still renders fantastic sharp and with details. Love it!

 

I tried the SL3 in the local Leica store. I am sure it is a great camera. But as you mentioned, it is thicker, and feels different in the hand. And also reminded me a little more like a modern Canon with its rounded corners on the viewfinder and body. And the material/painting seemed a bit like "plastic", It still felt like a quality camera of course. But somehow I just didn't get this wauw feeling as I did with the SL2-S the first time I picked it up. And I prefer the shutter sound on the older SL models.... 

My SL3 doesn't feel like my R5 at all. It'd beat the Canon into a pulp. Actually although the new Leica odes feel different I wouldn't describe it as any less built than my SL2 or SL.

Gordon

[costa43]

I've compared the SL2s ISO performance with an M11 and the SL2s is cleaner at all ISO even when the 60mp is downsized. I'm assuming it will be the same result with the SL3. 

 

[Geoff C. Bassett]

The SL2s is significantly better in low light and dynamic range compared the the SL2. I like the rendering and video on the SL2 more so that is the one I went with. Have Panasonic cameras for low light event work when AF is needed.

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, Avatar said:

So far only used the Lumix S 50mm 1.8..I have a Sigma 24-70 en route.

the  50, 1.8 is quite a good and underrated lens.

This week the 24-70 Sigma II will be announced, which should be a touch better. it is Sigma's most sold lens and they just improved it optically and aperture ring.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Avatar]

14 hours ago, jjesp said:

The low light quality is insane on the SL2-S. Even at 12.500 iso the result is fantastic. Yes you can see a bit more noise than with 6400 iso, but somehow it looks more like film grain than digital noise. And it still renders fantastic sharp and with details. Love it!

 

I tried the SL3 in the local Leica store. I am sure it is a great camera. But as you mentioned, it is thicker, and feels different in the hand. And also reminded me a little more like a modern Canon with its rounded corners on the viewfinder and body. And the material/painting seemed a bit like "plastic", It still felt like a quality camera of course. But somehow I just didn't get this wauw feeling as I did with the SL2-S the first time I picked it up. And I prefer the shutter sound on the older SL models.... 

It was quite a day today, sold the SL3 and SL2 and ordered an SL2-S that is en route.

I agree that the way it felt in my hand, wasn't great and for this job I am shooting, it just doesn't make sense to spend $7K unless it checks all the boxes and would replace my M11 for the few times I even use it. Mostly I am about the M11M and Q3.

Can't knock the SL3 too much as the files it produces are really gorgeous and low light performance is as expected.

 

 

 

[Avatar]

14 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Interesting. You should have a good AF experience with those, if the firmware is up to date. My SL3 is noticeably better than my SL2.

Gordon

I don't disagree. Autofocus was decent and should get much better with firmware.. For now, an SL2-S is on route and don't expect better autofocus than the SL3 but for the money and with everything everyone has shared about it, it might be perfect for this place I will be using it primarily.

12 hours ago, Photoworks said:

the  50, 1.8 is quite a good and underrated lens.

This week the 24-70 Sigma II will be announced, which should be a touch better. it is Sigma's most sold lens and they just improved it optically and aperture ring.

Wow, my 24-70 Sigma is en route but I'd love an aperature ring on the lense and will look for this when it's available for sure!