Why I gave up on the Leica SL3

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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 walk to the market. in Manhattan, it is hard to park a car, and don't get me started on the horse.

For the last few years i have been using the SL2 for work, often 12h with little stops, I have added SL3, and Sony canon kits stay in the office untouched.

SL2 is still great, SL3 is greater for the new options.

[Advertisement]

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

[Simone_DF]

38 minutes ago, BernardC said:

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?

Given the amount of SUVs I see on the roads, I'd say people do buy off-roads even though they use it to go buy a loaf of bread.

The point is, the statement "at my times I did X" is ridiculous. Time goes on, what was good in 1800 or whenever some of the posters lived, it's not perceived as good anymore in 2024.

[jaapv]

Not so ridiculous - in summer I prefer to use my 1963 Triumph TR4 over my up-to-the-minute PHEV

[Jean-Michel]

Let's not forget donkeys. Donkeys are unsung heroes!

My point was that there is no use in complaining about the lack of this or that capability of some or other piece of equipment. I am sure that the SL3 outperforms the SL2 and the Sl3's successor will outperform that one; and that many other cameras already outperform any and all SLs.

It seems that many forum members own more that one brand of 35 mm type cameras. I don't, never had in my working days — different brands for different formats, yes, but why would I have had both Hasselblads and Bronicas, or Pentaxes and Nikons? I just don't get how those members recover the cost of all that stuff in a reasonable amount of time.  

[BernardC]

51 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Given the amount of SUVs I see on the roads, I'd say people do buy off-roads even though they use it to go buy a loaf of bread.

That's the cliche, but most SUVs are just raised hatchbacks. For the full off-road SUVs, it's very similar to the "uncle" at almost every wedding who brings a full Canon kit with all-white lenses. Maybe that person shoots sports regularly, and that's their only kit, but it's more likely that they just enjoy looking like someone who does that.

...which isn't to say that there aren't people who buy specialized kit for a reason. I hear that Range Rovers are very popular among British farmers. My cousin who runs a farm here in Canada has a huge pickup truck, but the uses it for farm tasks. He uses his other car to go to town and buy groceries, in case you are interested (it applies to your metaphor).

I still don't see the relevance of horses in this conversation. That is more similar to large-format and alternative processes in the photography world.

[JTLeica]

3 hours 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.

There might be the odd category of photography like Sport, and maybe Pro wildlife photographers that would be better suited with a Canon or Nikon or Sony at the moment. But that is a tiny portion of people, and for everyone else an SL3 is as good is not better when taking the APO lenses into account. Nothing better on the market. The SL3 build quality, usability, residual value and enjoyment and sheer image quality surpasses almost all competition for me.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours 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.

As someone who’s gear obsessed I do get your point. Why make it hard?

My point is that to get better photos, it’s rarely the gear. If you want it easier to get sharp photos, buy a R5II. If you want it easier to get better photos, be a better photographer.

The poster has been seduced by the speed and ease of the new Canon. Cool. I’m drooling for the A1II next month. However I am questioning whether he thinks the images will improve of he‘’ll just have more to sharp frames wade through. Does he think different gear will make the images he wants or is there something else he should consider first.

As always, the most important tool is the one holding the camera.

And it may be 2024, but some prefer a stick to an automatic. A mechanical watch to an Apple watch. Hand tools to power tools. The more the camera does. The less you do. If someone values the *process* they aren’t seeing automation as a benefit. Rather a hinderance. Neither approach is wrong. There’s room for both types of photographers.

Gordon

[Jeff S]

7 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

As always, the most important tool is the one holding the camera.

 

 

Yes, Gordon, but calling someone a tool (in the US at least) could be taken a different way. 😳

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 minute ago, Jeff S said:

Yes, Gordon, but calling someone a tool (in the US at least) could be taken a different way. 😳

Jeff

Same in Oz. Pun was intended.

Gordon

[Jeff S]

13 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Same in Oz. Pun was intended.

Gordon

A tool and his money are soon parted… especially in forum world.

Jeff

[geesbert]

My problem with this camera is that it tries hard to be something it doesn't achieve. 

All other Leica series are special, because they search and fill their niche, which no other manufacturer seems to do really right. There is just no real alternative to an M or a Q. But the SL line is not weird or special or excellent enough to be worth the hassle, weight or cost. 

And a major problem of all current Leicas (I still own a M11 and  a Q3) is that their operation is not consistent enough to make my work  as a professional easy. Somehow the startup time seems to be different every time I start the camera, WB is sometimes way off, AF is hit and miss, iAF is pathetic, the exposure often all over the place.  It feels like sloppy programming or a weak processor.  But those cameras are so special that I can live with that.  The SL3 is not. The Hasselblad X2d on the other hand is very slow and does very little, but what it does it does very consistently and the results are breath-taking. I can work with that. 

BTW: I talked to a couple of pros (real talks, face to face, not in a forum, people I know personally) who tried the SL3 and really wanted this camera to like and all of them share my experience, though they don't use any Leica at all

 

 

[LocalHero1953]

10 minutes ago, geesbert said:

BTW: I talked to a couple of pros (real talks, face to face, not in a forum, people I know personally) who tried the SL3 and really wanted this camera to like and all of them share my experience, though they don't use any Leica at all

 

I'm curious why they wanted to like the SL3, not why they didn't like it (aspects that are well documented in this thread and elsewhere). Was it just the brand? Or are there elements of the SL3 that they really wanted and wouldn't get elsewhere? As pros, they obviously didn't need those elements, but they might make a difference for others.

[geesbert]

Probably the Leica allure is real, then it is a really beautiful camera which I myself really wanted to own, but then reality kicks in. And economics.

[Jean-Michel]

4 hours ago, geesbert said:

Probably the Leica allure is real, then it is a really beautiful camera which I myself really wanted to own, but then reality kicks in. And economics.

If you rely on the camera(s) for a living, then economics are quite important! The SL system does cost more than other brands and it does not do anything that any other camera system does as well or better, so why bother?

I gather that Leica has less than 2% of the world camera and lens market. So, at best, only 2% of professional (never liked that description in spite of being that) photographers would use Leica. Those who do presumably have a god reason to use the Leica stuff.

In my working life, I used M cameras mostly of my art work, and only occasionally for commercial work. For my work, depending on the jobs and the decade, it was everything from large format to medium format — 35mm was considered too small for the required outputs, mostly art catalogues and book illustrations.  

When I went 'digital' I first used a hybrid methodÚ film and scan, but that was for a short time only, and drum scans were really expensive. So I purchased some Canon equipment (5d, then 5d2) and that was quite sufficient, if needed I rented a Hasselblad digital back. Leica did not have anything useful for my paid work.

When the M9 became available, I purchased one and that pretty much put my film M bodies on a shelf until I let them and most of my other cameras go. An M-P(240) followed suit and both cameras are a pleasure to use. I purchased my SL2 mainly because a very good deal for it and a M-L adapter was offered to me by my dealer; a 24-70 followed and I have since added a Sigma 50 f/2 and Sigma 85 f/1.4. The weather resistance of the SL2 is a major plus for me, as is the ability of using my M lenses on it, putting my 135 M-Elmarit with it goggles makes for a fetching look!.

I now only have a few long term clients who still want me to do some work for them and the SL2 (and even M-P) are perfectly adequate.

Looking at your work on your website, I think that the SL2 and now SL3 would be just fine, so would an M. But if you find that the equipment — Leica or any other — does not make your job easier, then definitely get something else. Pretty much impossible to buy anything that won't work these days. And hail to the next iPhone or such.

Standing on my high horse: make sure to print your image, or it will not exist.

[Jeff S]

An under-appreciated aspect of Leica cameras is their viewing systems. How one sees the subject is critically important for me.  It’s a core foundation of the M system.  The S system was notable for its glorious viewfinder.  And when the SL system finally arose, the EVF was arguably superior to all the competitors. The SL2 was the first EVF that I could tolerate, and ultimately prompted me to buy it for that and its other attributes.  It still serves well as a complement to my M bodies, leaving no desire whatsoever for the SL3. It does its job, reliably, for my purposes (including prints,as always, Jean-Michel).

Jeff

[lightsourcekauai]

This thread is interesting to me as I, too, was recently on the ledge. After photographing in Alaska and Hokkaido for 6 weeks, testing the Leica SL3 and Sigma 500 F/5.6 for wildlife photography, I returned home and immediately logged on to MPB and requested a quote for all of my Leica gear, save the Q2 Reporter. However, after reviewing the files I came off the ledge with the belief that while the SL3 and SL2 are certainly not wildlife capable cameras, they are excellent for landscapes and seascapes, which are my most important use cases. Despite the extremely poor beta version Animal Tracking and suspect Auto Focus (spot and field when photographing animals) I was still able to get more than a few very pleasing images of bears, dall sheep, moose, foxes and owls. Ultimately, I decided to keep my Leica kit and sold the Sigma lens as I see it primarily as a wildlife lens and I can never see the Leica as a wildlife camera. Which begs the question why not? Well, it comes down to fun and confidence. The two have a direct correlation, and I am surprised that no one has mentioned the word fun in any of the comments above. If I have missed it, I apologize.

Why do we take pictures if not for fun? Of course professional photographers support themselves and their families through their photography, but surely if it were not fun we would choose another line of work, no? I mean if photography wasn't fun we could all just play golf or cook or baby sit kids or pets or travel for food or study or diving or a myriad of different reasons. But when we combine photography with those things that we love, then the fun factor is amplified.

So why ruin the fun with a camera that doesn't inspire confidence? No matter what that camera be.

For example, in my case. I love travel. I love seeing wild animals. I love photographing wild animals. I own a gallery and sell my images through my gallery. This is how I make a living. Most of the time I do not have a client waiting on a photo of a bear, or a wolf or cheetah. Or even a sunset. Likewise, it is rare that someone has commissioned me for a particular image or hired me for an article or advertisement.  So while it is not essential to come home with an image, I would still like to.

However, when photographing wildlife with the Leica SL3 I was having much less fun than when using my previous Canons. Why? Well, the aforementioned Auto Focus, and the EVF blur, the slow wake from sleep, the clunky sound of the shutter at 4 frames a second, the feel in the hand, and etc,... These dislikes-- and eventual comparisons to past experiences with other camera systems-- led me to doubt  the Leica SL3 and its capabilities in regard to wildlife photography. My lack of confidence in the SL3 began to affect the fun I was having when photographing the wildlife. And in turn I began to question the entire endeavor. Sure, it was great to see the animals, but as photographers we want to photograph them in a way that pleases us and others. And if the camera we are using at any given time is not giving us enjoyment, then why use it?

I agree that, as others have written, cameras are tools for various use cases. For this reason I have decided to keep the Leicas and use them for what I think they are good at, and for the purpose with which I need them to excel: landscape and seascape. I chose Leica over Hasselblad because I need a telephoto zoom for wave photography. And because I believe the Leica to have more robust weather sealing. But also because I hoped (thought) I could use the SL3 for wildlife and I knew that the Hassy could not.

This is where the statement above that the Leica SL3 tries to be more than what it is rings true to me. For example, CF Express B card slot screams Wildlife, Sports, Fast Action. But it is not this type of camera. Having L mount lenses in the 500mm range and L mount zooms up to 600 makes the statement that Leicas are indeed capable wildlife cameras. When in fact, from my experience, they are not. Would I have still purchased the Leica SL3 fully knowing its limitations beforehand? Probably. But I certainly would not have sold all of my Canon wildlife lenses and R5 and R3 body. Sold a few maybe, but not all. 

When we first started photographing, I don't think any of us ever said, "I will take a picture of that, and sell it." I think we started because it was fun. It was interesting. It was a way for us to engage with friends and or our environment in a way that was meaningful and enjoyable to us.

It is my wish that we still remember how much fun photography is and I encourage everyone to use the camera and lenses that bring about the most fun, both during and after the photographic trip, assignment, safari, wedding, sunrise, sunset, walk in the park, event, and, etc,... The fun we experience reinforces the confidence that we have in the camera system and encourages us to go out and photograph. Likewise, as our skill increases so too our confidence and fun. Photography is hard. It's a craft that deserves our attention and effort, not just our dollars.

And to continue the transportation metaphor, I ride a motorcycle because it is fun. But when I need to carry a lot of groceries my wife's car is better, and perhaps, too, more enjoyable as the eggs won't break.

Have a great weekend.

Aloha,

Lee

Edited November 1, 2024 by lightsourcekauai
Typo

[jaapv]

I find it amazing that Michali and a number of other wildlife specialists manage to post consistently excellent images. I think mine are not too bad as well. And we use SL cameras…. It sounds more like a case of blaming the tools. 
Wildlife photography is far more about knowledge of animal behavior and bushcraft than about specific camera gear. Disclosure: This year I used a S5ii which has very good animal/eye recognition but most of the time I switched it off as I found that the (technically perfect) camera choices were not mine. Simple spot 
AFand manual correction fit my creative intentions far better   

[Jan1985]

Easy job. Sell all your Leica equipment and buy into Sony or Canon or whatever. So you don‘t need to risk high blood pressure and an awful experience with your SL anymore. I love my M. Every brand has its downsides. But I enjoy the simplicity of the L.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, geesbert said:

My problem with this camera is that it tries hard to be something it doesn't achieve. 

All other Leica series are special, because they search and fill their niche, which no other manufacturer seems to do really right. There is just no real alternative to an M or a Q. But the SL line is not weird or special or excellent enough to be worth the hassle, weight or cost. 

And a major problem of all current Leicas (I still own a M11 and  a Q3) is that their operation is not consistent enough to make my work  as a professional easy. Somehow the startup time seems to be different every time I start the camera, WB is sometimes way off, AF is hit and miss, iAF is pathetic, the exposure often all over the place.  It feels like sloppy programming or a weak processor.  But those cameras are so special that I can live with that.  The SL3 is not. The Hasselblad X2d on the other hand is very slow and does very little, but what it does it does very consistently and the results are breath-taking. I can work with that. 

BTW: I talked to a couple of pros (real talks, face to face, not in a forum, people I know personally) who tried the SL3 and really wanted this camera to like and all of them share my experience, though they don't use any Leica at all

 

 

Each to their own. I almost never choose my A7R5 over my SL3. The former is far major capable but I don’t enjoy it, really. OTOH what I shoot is exactly in the centre of the SL3’s goldilocks zone. I have a Sigma 500 and the 60-600 so if a Kangaroo skips across my path I’ll have a crack. But it’s not my main intent. My main intent is to fill the holes left by my X2D’s. When my intent is action I pull out my A1. I’m having a bit of a drool over the A1mk2 apparent specs at the moment.

K, on the other hand, loves my Leica files. She shoots a Q3 and Q2M. She wanted to try the SL3 but as soon as she picked it up she knew it wasn’t right. So she’s sticking with her Canons. For her the SL3 is exactly the wrong camera because it doesn’t fit right. Mind you she’s currently evaluating the X2D. This could be expensive.

Leica were quite clear when the SL3 was released. IQ, UI and build quality above all else. While I agree the SL3’s AFC is sad, (and the lack of EFCS is infuriating) I kind of knew what I was getting going in because I read up and I had experience with the system. There are a few long lenses now but none longer than 400 by Leica so I’m not sure Leica is making aspirations of wildlife shooting. I think people want the SL system to be something it’s not. I use the SL3 for travel and fine art work. For those things it’s spectacular. I also shot a few hundred weddings using the SL system and the M system for a few hundred before that. I had a pretty good idea if it would work for me. If I were still shooting weddings I’d have a 50 SL Summilux on a SL3 for sure.

Now I’m not saying they choosing something else is wrong. Or that the SL system is equal to the majors. You mentioned the word niche. I think the SL system is niche. Like the M or Q there is a small subset of photographers that will value how it is different to the other systems available. I am one of the few. If you look at this forum you’ll see that it’s a polarising camera. Some really really like it and the rest really really wish it were something else. 

Both opinions are valid. I get that people compare it to a Sony or a Nikon. They want it to compete. And they’re upset, angry or disappointed it doesn’t. And that’s the problem. Leica isn’t even trying to go that way. So please don’t dismiss the people who see the Sl system differently. You don’t have to like it. We do. There is nothing like the SL3 and a set of APO Summicrons. I almost wish they hadn’t bothered with AFC. Just like the Hasselblad. At least then its intent would be clear.

Maybe by some miracle they’ll get the AF improved. Unlikely though.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

58 minutes ago, lightsourcekauai said:

This thread is interesting to me as I, too, was recently on the ledge. After photographing in Alaska and Hokkaido for 6 weeks, testing the Leica SL3 and Sigma 500 F/5.6 for wildlife photography, I returned home and immediately logged on to MPB and requested a quote for all of my Leica gear, save the Q2 Reporter. However, after reviewing the files I came off the ledge with the belief that while the SL3 and SL2 are certainly not wildlife capable cameras, they are excellent for landscapes and seascapes, which are my most important use cases. Despite the extremely poor beta version Animal Tracking and suspect Auto Focus (spot and field when photographing animals) I was still able to get more than a few very pleasing images of bears, dall sheep, moose, foxes and owls. Ultimately, I decided to keep my Leica kit and sold the Sigma lens as I see it primarily as a wildlife lens and I can never see the Leica as a wildlife camera. Which begs the question why not? Well, it comes down to fun and confidence. The two have a direct correlation, and I am surprised that no one has mentioned the word fun in any of the comments above. If I have missed it, I apologize.

Why do we take pictures if not for fun? Of course professional photographers support themselves and their families through their photography, but surely if it were not fun we would choose another line of work, no? I mean if photography wasn't fun we could all just play golf or cook or baby sit kids or pets or travel for food or study or diving or a myriad of different reasons. But when we combine photography with those things that we love, then the fun factor is amplified.

So why ruin the fun with a camera that doesn't inspire confidence? No matter what that camera be.

For example, in my case. I love travel. I love seeing wild animals. I love photographing wild animals. I own a gallery and sell my images through my gallery. This is how I make a living. Most of the time I do not have a client waiting on a photo of a bear, or a wolf or cheetah. Or even a sunset. Likewise, it is rare that someone has commissioned me for a particular image or hired me for an article or advertisement.  So while it is not essential to come home with an image, I would still like to.

However, when photographing wildlife with the Leica SL3 I was having much less fun than when using my previous Canons. Why? Well, the aforementioned Auto Focus, and the EVF blur, the slow wake from sleep, the clunky sound of the shutter at 4 frames a second, the feel in the hand, and etc,... These dislikes-- and eventual comparisons to past experiences with other camera systems-- led me to doubt  the Leica SL3 and its capabilities in regard to wildlife photography. My lack of confidence in the SL3 began to affect the fun I was having when photographing the wildlife. And in turn I began to question the entire endeavor. Sure, it was great to see the animals, but as photographers we want to photograph them in a way that pleases us and others. And if the camera we are using at any given time is not giving us enjoyment, then why use it?

I agree that, as others have written, cameras are tools for various use cases. For this reason I have decided to keep the Leicas and use them for what I think they are good at, and for the purpose with which I need them to excel: landscape and seascape. I chose Leica over Hasselblad because I need a telephoto zoom for wave photography. And because I believe the Leica to have more robust weather sealing. But also because I hoped (thought) I could use the SL3 for wildlife and I knew that the Hassy could not.

This is where the statement above that the Leica SL3 tries to be more than what it is rings true to me. For example, dual CF Express B card slots screams Wildlife, Sports, Fast Action. But it is not this type of camera. Having L mount lenses in the 500mm range and L mount zooms up to 600 makes the statement that Leicas are indeed capable wildlife cameras. When in fact, from my experience, they are not. Would I have still purchased the Leica SL3 fully knowing its limitations beforehand? Probably. But I certainly would not have sold all of my Canon wildlife lenses and R5 and R3 body. Sold a few maybe, but not all. 

When we first started photographing, I don't think any of us ever said, "I will take a picture of that, and sell it." I think we started because it was fun. It was interesting. It was a way for us to engage with friends and or our environment in a way that was meaningful and enjoyable to us.

It is my wish that we still remember how much fun photography is and I encourage everyone to use the camera and lenses that bring about the most fun, both during and after the photographic trip, assignment, safari, wedding, sunrise, sunset, walk in the park, event, and, etc,... The fun we experience reinforces the confidence that we have in the camera system and encourages us to go out and photograph. Likewise, as our skill increases so too our confidence and fun. Photography is hard. It's a craft that deserves our attention and effort, not just our dollars.

And to continue the transportation metaphor, I ride a motorcycle because it is fun. But when I need to carry a lot of groceries my wife's car is better, and perhaps, too, more enjoyable as the eggs won't break.

Have a great weekend.

Aloha,

Lee

Thanks Lee. A well written and balanced argument. 

Might have been fortuitous with the R5II just released, selling your original before the flood of used bodies. I have yet to play with one but it seems to be THE Canon to consider. Sony A1 mk2 is apparently coming in November as well. It’s a good time for you wildlife guys.

Gordon