Why I gave up on the Leica SL3

[geesbert]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ever since the first SL came out I loved the appearance of this system, but especially those huge lenses and way too large bodies put me off. I have small hands an I am a weakling, so the SL and the SL2 were not for me.

I am shooting M and Q and CL and Canon R, but staying within one ecosystem was very tempting, so when the SL3 cam out I bought it and a boatload of Sigma contemporary primes, which I absolutely love.

 

the first couple of days I had the usual fresh love syndrome, especially switching between Q3 and SL3 seemed seamless. So after a while I used it on some paid jobs and absolutely hated it.

AF is weak in any but the best light situation, especially face detection really misses most of the time when shooting fast. WB and exposure is mediocre.

If I compare that to my Canon r5 it means so much more work and sweat while shooting and in postprocessing. 

Another big problem is the lacking ergonomics, my hands are so much more tired after a few hours of shooting, it reminds me of shooting the Hasselblad H years ago, the worst camera I have used in that respect. When you sling the SL3 over the shoulder, there is always one of its corners biting into my back. 

I still think it is the most beautiful camera made at the moment, but for a working pro it doesn't deliver. 

So I sold it and preordered two R5 mk2. 

 

[JTLeica]

The AF is actually not weak at all. For some reason in Field focus mode it’s poor, but in pinpoint AF S it’s absolutely superb, never missed a beat and in extreme low light (talking two hours after sunset) it’s focussing on waves and rocks perfectly. Takes a while as it’s engaged it’s low light focus mode essentially, but the accuracy is incredible.

Only in pitch black conditions it failed to focus… understandably.

I bought the SL3 knowing that people here had moaned about the focussing. But it’s faster and as accurate than my Z7II and that was more than enough. Nikon was known for its amazing low light focussing and with the Leica pinpoint AF it’s absolutely as good 

[Jim B]

4 hours ago, geesbert said:

Ever since the first SL came out I loved the appearance of this system, but especially those huge lenses and way too large bodies put me off. I have small hands an I am a weakling, so the SL and the SL2 were not for me.

I am shooting M and Q and CL and Canon R, but staying within one ecosystem was very tempting, so when the SL3 cam out I bought it and a boatload of Sigma contemporary primes, which I absolutely love.

 

the first couple of days I had the usual fresh love syndrome, especially switching between Q3 and SL3 seemed seamless. So after a while I used it on some paid jobs and absolutely hated it.

AF is weak in any but the best light situation, especially face detection really misses most of the time when shooting fast. WB and exposure is mediocre.

If I compare that to my Canon r5 it means so much more work and sweat while shooting and in postprocessing. 

Another big problem is the lacking ergonomics, my hands are so much more tired after a few hours of shooting, it reminds me of shooting the Hasselblad H years ago, the worst camera I have used in that respect. When you sling the SL3 over the shoulder, there is always one of its corners biting into my back. 

I still think it is the most beautiful camera made at the moment, but for a working pro it doesn't deliver. 

So I sold it and preordered two R5 mk2. 

 

Mine works great, especially the eye detect in burst mode in action. Here’s two images to prove it. Even with the water splash in front of the model, the SL 3 had no problem locking onto the eye!

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!

[ERSY Photography]

Hi, I am a user of the Canon R6 Mark II and all the best RF lenses. I sold all my equipment and bought the Leica SL3 & Q3. I have already shot 3 weddings and am happy with this setup.

I was used to good autofocus and initially, it was unfamiliar, but I learned to understand the camera and found my ideal settings. Autofocus is quite sufficient for me.

I mainly use the central point and AF S. The accuracy of the autofocus is unquestionable, and the images produced by the cameras delight me.

[SrMi]

I owned R5 and a plethora of great Canon lenses. The system stayed in the cupboard while the SL system was used often. It is great that we have so many system options that fit individual needs. I wish you lots of fun with the R5 II.

[KenTanaka]

I completely understand your remarks and actions, Stefan.  Canon was my primary system since the mid-1970's.  It still holds a primary spot for me.  (I can make my R5 sit up and bark like a poodle if need be.)  That Canon (and Nikon) have far more technically advanced systems than Leica is not really disputable.  But, equally indisputable to many (and to me) is that images from Leica's digital cameras can have a certain....je ne sais quoi...which can often overshadow tech and ergo factors.  That's what keeps me in the Leica arena despite its minor deficiencies and inevitable weak firmware q/a on new models.

In the end what really counts is what you cited; how does the camera feel in your hands?  Can you easily walk around with it all day? Is it responsive and reliable?  Does it produce the results you need?  You made the right choice for your needs.  Personally, if I was shooting professional assignments I'd probably be doing them with my Canon or Sony gear. I agree that the SL3 is a rather chunky monkey, particularly in smaller hands like mine (and yours).

p.s..I very much like the work on your site.  Your architectural education (something we have in common) shows through in your eyes.

 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Each to their own. I do quite like the R5 for people shooting. It’s not the best at anything really but the 28-70 is glorious and it’s adequate and competent in most areas. If the R5II keeps the same IQ that should be a big improvement. But I’ll still dislike the joystick, fold out screen and some of the button placement. I do hope the AF on the new camera is more *sticky*. It’s quick but not as bitingly accurate as some other systems. I still don’t like the menus.

Personally I’m fine with the handling of either. Canon has the usual menu mess and I think it’s a bit plasticky but it’s fine in the hand and the buttons and dials (except the joystick) are excellent. It’d be nice if Canon would give their cameras a proper IP rating and I’m disappointed the 70-200’s don’t take a TC. Also the 100-500 is great optically. but too expensive and the TC implementation is just woeful.

I won’t be getting a mk2. The SL3 is a better file maker if you’re chasing IQ, and generally I prefer the Leica lenses. The Sigma 500 is epic and takes a TC on L mount. Really I got the SL3 for its file quality and access to the APO Summicrons. I’d love EFCS on the SL3 though as often you can’t get the best from those lenses. The SL3 firmware is basically beta, which disappoints. After the R5 (which I still have) I got the Sony A1. That’s my performance camera. Smaller, if you like that and just a great camera to use. I think the R5II will be the same but I was disappointed enough with the mkI and the woefully incompetent R7 that I won’t go back.

I shot hundreds of paying jobs on the SL601 and SL2. Even M’s and S007. Speed and focusing was never the issue. You learn the system and make it work for you, or move on. But I never got comments in 20 years of shooting Canon like I did for my Leica and Hasselblad files. When the clients say they see the difference, it’s worth any small extra effort to deliver.

Gordon

[Leica Freund]

Am 17.7.2024 um 11:57 schrieb geesbert:

Ever since the first SL came out I loved the appearance of this system, but especially those huge lenses and way too large bodies put me off. I have small hands an I am a weakling, so the SL and the SL2 were not for me.

I am shooting M and Q and CL and Canon R, but staying within one ecosystem was very tempting, so when the SL3 cam out I bought it and a boatload of Sigma contemporary primes, which I absolutely love.

 

the first couple of days I had the usual fresh love syndrome, especially switching between Q3 and SL3 seemed seamless. So after a while I used it on some paid jobs and absolutely hated it.

AF is weak in any but the best light situation, especially face detection really misses most of the time when shooting fast. WB and exposure is mediocre.

If I compare that to my Canon r5 it means so much more work and sweat while shooting and in postprocessing. 

Another big problem is the lacking ergonomics, my hands are so much more tired after a few hours of shooting, it reminds me of shooting the Hasselblad H years ago, the worst camera I have used in that respect. When you sling the SL3 over the shoulder, there is always one of its corners biting into my back. 

I still think it is the most beautiful camera made at the moment, but for a working pro it doesn't deliver. 

So I sold it and preordered two R5 mk2. 

 

So, three month later, how did it work out for you? Do you prefer the new R5 mk2 over the SL3?

[geesbert]

That is not an easy question to answer, though for paid work I much prefer any Canon over the SL3, as Canons are soul-less workhorses which deliver in 99,5% of situations I throw them at. I am shooting professional Canon bodies for about 20 years now, none of them failed, I never had to send them in. They deliver most of what they promise.  Once I had to send in a TSE lens, which was back after a fortnite. I was probably just lucky... not so with any Leica repair I had and I had many.

Canons are definitely not perfect, otherwise I wouldn't have them upgraded a dozen time, but they were alway about as up to date as cameras could be. 

In my opinion Leica overstretched their goals in keeping up with Canikonsonypana. They should understand, that that they should rather offer something other and special.

Meanwhile I also bought a Hasselblad 907x 100c and a X2d with a couple of lenses, those files blow me away and these cameras don't even try to compete on features with Canikonsonypana, but they offer something over my Canons which make me buy both. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Leicalook]

Never had a Hasselblad. Never used one.

I have put that on my bucket list right now 

[hansvons]

15 hours ago, geesbert said:

That is not an easy question to answer, though for paid work I much prefer any Canon over the SL3, as Canons are soul-less workhorses which deliver in 99,5% of situations I throw them at.

Absolutely. That's why 90% of professionals use Nikon and Canon. And if I were a photojournalist, I'd get a pair of R5s as well because Canon was a client of mine in the past, and I know how reliable they are.

However, as @FlashGordonPhotography pointed out, it depends on your line of work. I was never a professional photographer (now kind of am from time to time) but a cinematographer. In this domain, your camera depends on your work line and is mainly rented. Documentary films, ENG, TV advertising, and so on require different camera types—horses for courses.

However, Leica SLs are certainly professionally usable cameras. I'd argue that any SL looks better on skin than any other digital camera except Hasselblads. That's subjective, of course, and in journalism, pretty much the last thing one looks for, but for portraits, it's probably decisive. Similar things could be said about landscapes. I own the SL2-S; its files are as malleable as possible, with tons of juice in the shadows, excellent colour separation, and highly distinctive skin tones. AWB can sometimes be a bit wonky, but it is a non-issue for me as I work from the DNGs.

 

15 hours ago, geesbert said:

In my opinion Leica overstretched their goals in keeping up with Canikonsonypana. They should understand, that that they should rather offer something other and special.

Agreed. However, from a DSLR/mirrorless point of view, they are singular, quite Leica-esk mirrorless, with unique qualities and some flaws, such as the AF–not particularly suitable for journalism, not to mention the costs to get into the system (Leica is mostly about costly, distinctive lenses) and the service in case of emergency.

Edited October 29, 2024 by hansvons

[hansvons]

On 7/17/2024 at 4:59 PM, ERSY Photography said:

I was used to good autofocus and initially, it was unfamiliar, but I learned to understand the camera and found my ideal settings. Autofocus is quite sufficient for me.

I mainly use the central point and AF S. The accuracy of the autofocus is unquestionable, and the images produced by the cameras delight me.

Can very much relate to that. But if you were shooting sports and wildlife, you'd be fighting the equipment (I find the OM1 brilliant at that, a sleeper and totally underrated camera system).

[Kim Dahl]

Hi, But how do you avoid rolling shutter?

I must say I have only tried SL2 and briefly SL3.

But my Q3 and Q3 43 don't work well either.

As soon as I pan it doesn't look good.

I will use it for journalistic work (there isn't that much anymore), events and weddings.

Maybe my settings are completely wrong?

Would love to use the Q3 (43) for filming. Or an SL3. But like run and gun ... ?

I would say my strength lies in stillness and not like you film therefore the stupid questions.

[Leica Freund]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb hansvons:

Absolutely. That's why 90% of professionals use Nikon and Canon. And if I were a photojournalist, I'd get a pair of R5s as well because Canon was a client of mine in the past, and I know how reliable they are.

However, as @FlashGordonPhotography pointed out, it depends on your line of work. I was never a professional photographer (now kind of am from time to time) but a cinematographer. In this domain, your camera depends on your work line and is mainly rented. Documentary films, ENG, TV advertising, and so on require different camera types—horses for courses.

However, Leica SLs are certainly professionally usable cameras. I'd argue that any SL looks better on skin than any other digital camera except Hasselblads. That's subjective, of course, and in journalism, pretty much the last thing one looks for, but for portraits, it's probably decisive. Similar things could be said about landscapes. I own the SL2-S; its files are as malleable as possible, with tons of juice in the shadows, excellent colour separation, and highly distinctive skin tones. AWB can sometimes be a bit wonky, but it is a non-issue for me as I work from the DNGs.

 

Agreed. However, from a DSLR/mirrorless point of view, they are singular, quite Leica-esk mirrorless, with unique qualities and some flaws, such as the AF–not particularly suitable for journalism, not to mention the costs to get into the system (Leica is mostly about costly, distinctive lenses) and the service in case of emergency.

 

I hear you. I love my Q43 and the M-11P to pieces: the lenses are great, the rendering is fantastic and the colours rare radiant. So I would love to buy the SL3 with a 24-70mm lens, maybe even with the 24-90mm. But I just don't dare.

The new camera would be used to photograph our extremely lively and fast dog, our lively grandchild and various family celebrations and parties. And even though I'm not a professional photographer, I still have to deliver. After reading here and elsewhere about the autofocus quality of the SL3 and getting to know the autofocus of the Q3 and now the Q3 43mm, my doubts are great.  My demands are not outrageous, but when the dog is running towards me or the grandchild is romping around with others, the vast majority of pictures should be sharp in the right places. During the day and also at dusk.

The other day, a friend and I photographed our grandchildren together at a playground. I was using my Q 43 mm (person detection, AFc ) and he was using his brand new Canon R5 Mk.II (with  some kind of focus detection wizzardy). Afterwards we sorted our pictures: he took the ones that were the most expressive ones(they were all sharp) and I separated the sharp ones from the blurry ones...

I didn't liked that at all and now I'm on a waiting list for the R5 Mk.II, go figure. 

My impression is that Panasonic and hence Leica is simply not up to date with the big players when it comes autofocus and fast moving objects/ difficult light situations. And unfortunately the gap is getting bigger not smaller...

Edited October 29, 2024 by Leica Freund

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, Leica Freund said:

 

I hear you. I love my Q43 and the M-11P to pieces: the lenses are great, the rendering is fantastic and the colours rare radiant. So I would love to buy the SL3 with a 24-70mm lens, maybe even with the 24-90mm. But I just don't dare.

The new camera would be used to photograph our extremely lively and fast dog, our lively grandchild and various family celebrations and parties. And even though I'm not a professional photographer, I still have to deliver. After reading here and elsewhere about the autofocus quality of the SL3 and getting to know the autofocus of the Q3 and now the Q3 43mm, my doubts are great.  My demands are not outrageous, but when the dog is running towards me or the grandchild is romping around with others, the vast majority of pictures should be sharp in the right places. During the day and also at dusk.

The other day, a friend and I photographed our grandchildren together at a playground. I was using my Q 43 mm (person detection, AFc ) and he was using his brand new Canon R5 Mk.II (with  some kind of focus detection wizzardy). Afterwards we sorted our pictures: he took the ones that were the most expressive ones(they were all sharp) and I separated the sharp ones from the blurry ones...

I didn't liked that at all and now I'm on a waiting list for the R5 Mk.II, go figure. 

My impression is that Panasonic and hence Leica is simply not up to date with the big players when it comes autofocus and fast moving objects/ difficult light situations. And unfortunately the gap is getting bigger not smaller...

If you want to work this way then you’re doing the right thing. Personally, while I shot Canon professionally for 25 years and I do own a R5 (classic), Sony A1 plus A7R5 and an OM-1, amount others, I would never use them to photograph like that. Not a criticism. Just each persons personal approach. These cameras are for specific things like wildlife for me. And it’s been months since I used any of them. Currently I’m trying to see if I can ditch my Sony A1 for a GFX100II for wildlife. Yes I’m stark raving mad…..

Almost all my favourite photos of my kids were taken on an M camera. That’s what I used mostly during the years that screens didn’t dominate. I didn’t need to choose from a set of sharp photos. I wanted ONE shot I liked. ONE reminder of a day or week or event. While my kids were doing the life threatening things kids do I was challenging my skill set to make a photo of them. That was my fun while they had theirs. When a kid is on a skateboard and you have an R5II you point and push a button. When you have an M9 you get creative.

Now I also have thousands of frames taken with the various cameras I’ve owned. Kids are a great test subject for new gear. They’re mostly grown now (20 and 23) and I’m currently compiling 24 years of pictures into a book. What I’m finding is the vast majority of the time 2 things. 1. I don’t need perfect focus etc for a great photo and 2. the best photos are the ones where I did more work than the camera. I’d guess I have less that 5% of photos selected where I used continuous AF. For me, easy photo means lazy photo. I’m at my best when I am problem solving.

I get the temptation to want more sharp images. More *keepers*. But is it still photography when you’re pulling a frame from basically a video (30 fps shooting)? Why not shoot 8K and grab a 41MP frame? Is letting the camera shoot as fast as an R5II can going to satisfy you as a photographer? If so. awesome. It wouldn’t, for me. My thought process would be how to get a single shot as good, with less. I have always valued the process as much as the results. And besides. The parents are mostly shooting stuff on their phones that AI makes basically indistinguishable from your Canon on social media. You’ll need something more than just a bunch of sharp photos to beat a modern smartphone.

The other approach is to, frankly, get better. Better you than better gear. Pre-focus. Panning. More DoF and better backgrounds. Get closer. Change up your angles. Zone focusing. Get creative. I’m not saying you can’t be creative with a Canon. But it’s easier with your M. Because you have to be. Grab your M and a 28mm. Set a challenge. Today I get one photo I like of the GK’s.

It’s up to you as to whether you see it as a frustration or a challenge when getting a shot needs more brainpower than processor speed. I see what you’re seeing. But from my experience, for me, I’ve never actually got the same satisfaction from shooting that way, when I’ve given into it. Working the problem. Finding a solution. Executing a plan. Getting a single frame that pushed me as a photographer. That was the fun bit. Why should the kids be the only ones having a good time.

But each to their own. This is not a criticism. Just another thought process.

Gordon

[Fgcm]

In my honest opinion, ALL professional cameras issued in the last couple of years, including the SL3, are more capable than any professional or amateur may desire. Tech differences are subtle and the hype about the autofocus is, frankly, something I really cannot understand, but I was born in the manual focus era, when shooting kids, cars and sport was more a matter of ability than AI wizards.

The main differences are: (1) ergonomics and (2) the range of available lenses.

Personally, I like the ergonomics of the SL2 and love having the APO primes as well as the small, light and actually very good DG DN contemporary Sigma lenses.

I need no more autofocus or other automation features.

This is the point: the camera market is mature as it was 25 years ago, before the digital revolution.

Today, saying that a camera is way better than another one is just gossip.

Sorry for being so blunt.

[Jean-Michel]

I never figured out why anyone would use a motor drive on a 35 mm camera — how soon would you need to re-load?!

Running with a camera to photograph running kids, well that is a recipe for not getting anything of use, unless you just use the latest iPhone or such, or the gazillion frames per second auto-everything. And that is OK. 

The auto-focus capacities of my SL2 are just fine with me. I do pick my spots and moments first of course and do not press the shutter button that often.

And, yes, I used to walk up the hill to school in foul weather and walk back home up the hill in worse weather too. And I did photograph weddings with a 4 by 5 Speed Graphic (with an inoperable focal plane shutter, so, really a Crown Graphic). Not much auto focusing there. 

So how is this for photographing Olympic events: https://petapixel.com/2013/02/08/david-burnetts-speed-graphic-photos-of-the-london-2012-olympics/

Edited October 29, 2024 by Jean-Michel
typo

[Dazzajl]

8 minutes ago, Fgcm said:

In my honest opinion, ALL professional cameras issued in the last couple of years, including the SL3, are more capable than any professional or amateur may desire

This is pretty much the long and short of it. With a few specialised exceptions, pick the format that suits you best and then the camera that feels the best in the hand.

[Simone_DF]

Do you folks also hop on a horse to go buy groceries, or do you take a car? Because even though it's possible to go buy groceries on a cart, I bet most people use a car because in 2024 it's the most convenient way to do it. The same concept applies to cameras.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

Do you folks also hop on a horse to go buy groceries, or do you take a car? Because even though it's possible to go buy groceries on a cart, I bet most people use a car because in 2024 it's the most convenient way to do it. The same concept applies to cameras.

I'm not sure about the metaphor. It's more like different breeds of horses, or different types of cars. Do you buy a serious offroader even though you hardly ever go off road, and never on difficult trails? Would you be better-off buying something that outperforms an offroader on the roads that you travel?

If you are a professional sports photographer, use a Canon R1 or R3 (or equivalent Nikon). For the rest of us who might sometimes take pictures at their kids' soccer/football game, any L-mount camera is good enough.