Why I gave up on the Leica SL3

[lightsourcekauai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Might have been fortuitous with the R5II just released,

Thank you, Gordon.
Yes. I think so, too. I  have the R1 on preorder and am considering the R5 II. The new EVF in the R1 and built in grip is a big draw for me. Definitely a lot of very good equipment out there now. 

[lightsourcekauai]

47 minutes ago, jaapv said:

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   

Well, I don't think that I am blaming the tool. I am simply stating my experience and what I consider to be the shortcomings of the Leica SL3. Considerations carefully weighed following my experience of using both Leica and Canon systems.  

I believe that in wildlife photography it is important to  give oneself the best chance of success that one possibly can. This includes camera body, lens, study of environment, behavior, breeding and feeding patterns, weather, climate, asking questions of others, listening and etc,... "Bushcraft" as you rightfully recognize.

I don't think it is a question of weather or not one can get quality photographs with the Leica SL3 or any other camera for that matter. It is more a question of consistency and enjoyment. For me, the Leica SL3 and the lenses that it currently accepts do not meet my requirements.  I, too, understand and employ various focusing strategies-- Auto Focus, manual, spot, field, Animal Tracking, back button. You name it. However, what is one to do to combat the blurred EVF that obstructs the photographer's view? Or the  slow wake up time preventing the photographer from photographing? Or the poor battery life? I don't think these qualms are mere opinion. They are facts about the SL3 as I experienced the camera in real life use. This does not mean that the photographer cannot take excellent images with said camera. They certainly can. And I, too, have done so. However, I cannot help but think that I accomplished this feat not because of the camera's wildlife capabilities, but in spite of the camera's limitations. Hence, I am happier using a camera that instills more confidence when in use in a wildlife setting. Will I take it to Tanzania next year when I lead my photo safari? Yes. However, I will use a Canon much more often than the Leica. And for clients who ask, "Which camera system do I recommend for wildlife photography?" I will recommend a Canon, Sony or Nikon.

Higuma in Shiretoko National Park, Hokkaido, Japan

Leica SL3 Sigma 500 F/5.6

 

 

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!

[lightsourcekauai]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I think people want the SL system to be something it’s not.

This is a sharp observation. I think I fell into this category when shopping and realize that it is not all that I wanted it to be. I have accepted this and look forward to using it tomorrow morning right after the Arsenal match. 😀

[JTLeica]

22 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

 

 

not all aimed as you just selected your post to reply to… But ‘real pros’ whatever that means, don’t make up the majority of the market my friend.

The special thing about the SL is the gorgeous build quality, the ergonomics, Leicas usability with setup menus clever custom button options. And The best Prime lenses in the world in the APO summicron set.

That is the special part.

Plus you then have the L lenses to use and chose.

Pinpoint af on the SL3 for me has been the most accurate focus system I have ever used. It’ll focus on a star in the middle of the night.

AF technology is the most over stated, over emphasised aspect of camera reviews. Who actually uses this ultra high speed AI style focussing and tracking? A few percent of customers? Those can chose something else then if they need that. I hope Leica doesn’t chase those customers and pros and makes perfect cameras for landscape photographers like me instead. 

[LocalHero1953]

Real pros are wedding photographers, sports photographers, war photographers, documentary photographers, landscape photographers, high street family photographers, wildlife photographers, event photographers, product photographers, editorial photographers, event photographers, corporate photographers, real estate photographers, medical photographers, SoC photographers.......

Which real pros did Leica intend the SL3 for?

Edited November 2, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[geesbert]

I never use the term 'real pros', as it would imply, that there are 'fake pros'. A pro for me is someone who makes their living with photography and therefor has to deal with things like ROI and client deadlines and ergonomics, as they do this every day of their working life. It usually has not much to do with their quality of photography, I've seen breathtaking work from amateurs and I've seen abysmal work from pros. 

After 20 very successful years in the business as a commercial food photographer dealing with the biggest accounts in my niche of the market I was totally burned out and got sick. I had lost my love for photography. Having 200 production days a year (not counting pre and post processing) takes a toll. It is rather stressfull if you have 10 people standing behind you waiting for you to get the image right when you fight with AF (I even tried to do that with a couple of M9, stupid me!) Quite often I envied those who do their photography only for their gratification:Amateurs doing it for the love of it.  Still it is a fantastic job if you manage to make a decent living of it. (many don't)

The on thing I am already missing is the SL3 menu interface. With the Canon it is a nightmare. You have hundred of options buried in a heap of settings. It takes for ever to get it right, but once you managed, I hardly ever go into the menu. Still, Leicas UI is way better, but still not as good as Hasselblads.

 

 

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Real pros are wedding photographers, sports photographers, war photographers, documentary photographers, landscape photographers, high street family photographers, wildlife photographers, event photographers, product photographers, editorial photographers, event photographers, corporate photographers, real estate photographers, medical photographers, SoC photographers.......

Which real pros did Leica intend the SL3 for?

Agreed. And how many of those would be better served by a different brand or camera? Maybe just wildlife and sport. Although you could do both with the SL3 it might not be the perfect choice.

Everything else like wedding, event, product, etc you can use any camera from the last 5 years and get very similar results

[JTLeica]

2 hours ago, geesbert said:

I never use the term 'real pros', as it would imply, that there are 'fake pros'. A pro for me is someone who makes their living with photography and therefor has to deal with things like ROI and client deadlines and ergonomics, as they do this every day of their working life. It usually has not much to do with their quality of photography, I've seen breathtaking work from amateurs and I've seen abysmal work from pros. 

After 20 very successful years in the business as a commercial food photographer dealing with the biggest accounts in my niche of the market I was totally burned out and got sick. I had lost my love for photography. Having 200 production days a year (not counting pre and post processing) takes a toll. It is rather stressfull if you have 10 people standing behind you waiting for you to get the image right when you fight with AF (I even tried to do that with a couple of M9, stupid me!) Quite often I envied those who do their photography only for their gratification:Amateurs doing it for the love of it.  Still it is a fantastic job if you manage to make a decent living of it. (many don't)

The on thing I am already missing is the SL3 menu interface. With the Canon it is a nightmare. You have hundred of options buried in a heap of settings. It takes for ever to get it right, but once you managed, I hardly ever go into the menu. Still, Leicas UI is way better, but still not as good as Hasselblads.

 

 

Nice to hear a level headed reply especially acknowledging that a lot of ‘Pro’ output is so poor that the ‘Pro’ word in an artistic or creative world rarely means anything in terms of quality, but the simple definition of ‘make their living from photography’ is as accurate as can be I think.

 

Edited November 2, 2024 by JTLeica

[BernardC]

On 11/1/2024 at 5:59 AM, 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.

The economics are a funny thing with professional work. All of the high-end cameras cost nearly the same. You can just as easily drop 20K on a Leica system or a Sony system.

I've worked with many of the high-end wedding shooters in my little corner of the world, and many chose Leica because it allowed them to create work that stood-out, which gave them an economic advantage. You get better bookings and higher rates through word of mouth, especially in the wedding world where most potential clients have seen a lot of their friends' wedding photos. The extra cost (if any) of an APO-Summicron is nothing if it lets you charge more and keeps you consistently booked for 100 jobs a year.

If anything, the economics that don't make sense are shooting with the same generic Canon/Sony as everyone else, with the same mid-range zoom. There's a lot more to a successful career than equipment, but it helps if your bride's friends say "your wedding photos are amazing, who shot them?"

[jaapv]

15 hours ago, lightsourcekauai said:

Thank you, Gordon.
Yes. I think so, too. I  have the R1 on preorder and am considering the R5 II. The new EVF in the R1 and built in grip is a big draw for me. Definitely a lot of very good equipment out there now. 

You'll find the AF on the S5ii well ahead of the S3.  Especially with the Sigma 70-200, which, whilst short for a wildlife lens, comes in pretty handy in many cases.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I think if you want to understand Leica you don’t look at how many working photographers (the term I prefer) use Leica for their work. Look at how many have one as a personal camera and why. That’s what Leica does best. They’re the anti-camera brand. Less is more and all that. For a small subset, we are able to make the system fit into our workflow in a paid environment as well. Fewer still find a way to use the red dot as a marketing strategy. I did. That’s not why I started using Leica. That was because the smartest cameras at that time were getting in my way and driving me spare, so I pivoted to a system that had less. There’s a longer version but it’s dull. But basically I wanted to enjoy my work. And that meant not fighting my gear. But I made sure the red dot seemed important to my customers.

I would guess that Leica gives absolutely no thought to how many working photographers use the cameras. Everybody’s money is the same. And being the system *pros* use doesn’t have the same pull it did in the last century. Just look at the two most desirable cameras on the market. The Q3 and X100VI. Today’s camera market is hype driven and once again becoming toys for the more wealthy as phones become the cameras for everyone else. We talk about Leica’s being jewellery but even Fujis are becoming this.

Something is also true. Eventually most pros get bored with cameras *the do the job*.. As time goes on things like absolute performance are replaced with gear they also get to enjoy using. There’s no point going through all the hassle of working for yourself if it can’t be satisfying and fun. That fun camera isn’t always a Leica or Hasselblad. It could just as well be a Lomo or a Fuji or a Zf. Many that don’t pivot like this eventually get out because if it isn’t fun you burn out. So they buy a Q3 as a personal camera or an M. The lucky ones are able than put that Q3/X100/Zf to work as well and they start enjoying working again. A few can’t. Poor bastards.  But many find the skill set they’ve built over the years allows then to use *lesser* gear and get better results.

I couldn’t still be working as a shooter after more than 30 years, if I wasn’t using gear that I enjoy. I also have made the decision to no longer have clients. Clients suck. haha. But I sold 4 prints last week so I’m good. Ego stroked….

Gordon

[SrMi]

12 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I think if you want to understand Leica you don’t look at how many working photographers (the term I prefer) use Leica for their work. Look at how many have one as a personal camera and why. That’s what Leica does best. They’re the anti-camera brand. Less is more and all that. For a small subset, we are able to make the system fit into our workflow in a paid environment as well. Fewer still find a way to use the red dot as a marketing strategy. I did. That’s not why I started using Leica. That was because the smartest cameras at that time were getting in my way and driving me spare, so I pivoted to a system that had less. There’s a longer version but it’s dull. But basically I wanted to enjoy my work. And that meant not fighting my gear. But I made sure the red dot seemed important to my customers.

I would guess that Leica gives absolutely no thought to how many working photographers use the cameras. Everybody’s money is the same. And being the system *pros* use doesn’t have the same pull it did in the last century. Just look at the two most desirable cameras on the market. The Q3 and X100VI. Today’s camera market is hype driven and once again becoming toys for the more wealthy as phones become the cameras for everyone else. We talk about Leica’s being jewellery but even Fujis are becoming this.

Something is also true. Eventually most pros get bored with cameras *the do the job*.. As time goes on things like absolute performance are replaced with gear they also get to enjoy using. There’s no point going through all the hassle of working for yourself if it can’t be satisfying and fun. That fun camera isn’t always a Leica or Hasselblad. It could just as well be a Lomo or a Fuji or a Zf. Many that don’t pivot like this eventually get out because if it isn’t fun you burn out. So they buy a Q3 as a personal camera or an M. The lucky ones are able than put that Q3/X100/Zf to work as well and they start enjoying working again. A few can’t. Poor bastards.  But many find the skill set they’ve built over the years allows then to use *lesser* gear and get better results.

I couldn’t still be working as a shooter after more than 30 years, if I wasn’t using gear that I enjoy. I also have made the decision to no longer have clients. Clients suck. haha. But I sold 4 prints last week so I’m good. Ego stroked….

Gordon

+1

I also believe that people make better photographs when they use cameras that they enjoy using.

[JTLeica]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

+1

I also believe that people make better photographs when they use cameras that they enjoy using.

I 100% agree with that. For me that is definitely the case

[Archiver]

What's becoming evident from this discussion is the intersection of a system/camera's quirks, its shortcomings, and its use for a specific type of photography. @lightsourcekauai and @geesbert have identified quirks and shortcomings that make the SL3 less than optimal for their needs, and this is perfectly valid.

We all have thresholds of acceptability for quirks vs results; I still use the M9 for a lot of documentary/event work, and it has taken me years to arrive at a point where I'm fully conversant what I can and cannot do with it. I even shoot fast paced combat sports with the M9 and a 35mm f1.4 wide open, and long practice has allowed me to make that work. Is it optimal? No way. But I love the results and the process, and because I can get desired results, the M9 remains.

The Panasonic S5 has reasonable autofocus; it isn't optimal for the sports work I shoot, but it offers the best balance of still image quality and video quality for the price. The Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras that would give me the same video quality and features would cost a lot more than the S5, so I stick with the S5 and figure out how to optimize my shooting practices to shore up the difference. The SL3 costs even more than the aforementioned CaNiSony cameras, but it would be great if I could rent a SL3 for a job and see how it performs vs the S5.

[Archiver]

On 11/2/2024 at 11:23 PM, BernardC said:

If anything, the economics that don't make sense are shooting with the same generic Canon/Sony as everyone else, with the same mid-range zoom. There's a lot more to a successful career than equipment, but it helps if your bride's friends say "your wedding photos are amazing, who shot them?"

As I've said elsewhere, weddings aren't a part of my work, although I'll shoot them for family, friends, or clients who already know my work and have suitable expectations. On a few occasions, I've been brought in to create video of a wedding and taken some stills, and the bride and groom liked my stills more than the pros they hired. And they were using the usual CaNikon zooms with onboard flash, while I was using the M9 and a 35/1.4 or Summicron 50 with available light. And that lead to others wanting me to do the stills for their wedding. So what @BernardC said bears out in my experience.

Edited November 5, 2024 by Archiver

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, Archiver said:

As I've said elsewhere, weddings aren't a part of my work, although I'll shoot them for family, friends, or clients who already know my work and have suitable expectations. On a few occasions, I've been brought in to create video of a wedding and taken some stills, and the bride and groom liked my stills more than the pros they hired. And they were using the usual CaNikon zooms with onboard flash, while I was using the M9 and a 35/1.4 or Summicron 50 with available light. And that lead to others wanting me to do the stills for their wedding. So what @BernardC said bears out in my experience.

Well, I did shoot weddings professionally for decades. Over 2000 of them. I’ve used many systems. Canon, Hasselblad, Mamyia, Bronica,, Leica, Fuji, Sony. Even mixed them with each other at the same wedding. It never made a lick of difference to the images. Everything, down to lens selection is more important than the brand you shoot. I absolutely used my M’s and SL’s as a marketing tool when I shot them. And I shot with them because I wanted to shoot with something I enjoyed using. But better photos? Nope.

Give yourself some credit. If the photos were better it was you, not the camera.

Gordon

[Brian C in Az]

On 10/28/2024 at 10:10 AM, geesbert said:

.... 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. 

 

 

 

 

 

I, too, am looking at the X2D. Did you compare it to the X1D ii ? I am undecided between them and would appreciate your opinion and recommendations.  Thanks

[JohnSantaF4]

I'm not sure I've synthesized this thread, but it seems like the SL3 is

- Good for landscape photography, static subjects, fine-art,  and posed or slow moving portraiture, But

- Not very good for wildlife, kids/dogs/grandkids, sports, and low light scenes and/or events.

Does that about cover it? or what have I missed? thank you for helping me boil it down before I make a bad purchase decision. 

John

[FlashGordonPhotography]

54 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

I, too, am looking at the X2D. Did you compare it to the X1D ii ? I am undecided between them and would appreciate your opinion and recommendations.  Thanks

X1Dii is smaller and lighter. That’s it. Everything else favours the X2D, especially if you’re off a tripod. It is faster, has better AF, IBIS, flip screen etc.

Generally you won’t notice much IQ differences unless you make big prints regularly (say over A1) but you will notice how good the IBIS is.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

19 minutes ago, JohnSantaF4 said:

I'm not sure I've synthesized this thread, but it seems like the SL3 is

- Good for landscape photography, static subjects, fine-art,  and posed or slow moving portraiture, But

- Not very good for wildlife, kids/dogs/grandkids, sports, and low light scenes and/or events.

Does that about cover it? or what have I missed? thank you for helping me boil it down before I make a bad purchase decision. 

John

I’d put events in the top column and low light, kids dogs grandkids in a middle group. I’d also look at priorities rather than *not good at*. It’s OK. But there’s better.

If you’re into wildlife or sports there are better choices.

If you’re into fine art, travel, portraiture, street and landscapes there’s no better option.

Everything else is somewhere in between.

Gordon