SL3 is bigger than SL2

[wjdrijfhout]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When Leica and camera-reviewers mention the smaller size of the SL3 compared to the SL2, they refer to the width (7mm shorter) and height (3mm lower). No-one talks about the SL3’s thickness. But the SL3 is 5 mm thicker than the SL2 (excluding the screen that extends even an extra 2-3mm out)*. If you do the math**, the SL2 is 473 cm3 while the SL3 is 494 cm3. The SL3 is 4% bigger than the SL2!

Leica has done a reasonable job of ‘hiding’ the thickness by a slanted front top and an indented ridge on the back, but the increased thickness is unmistakably there. It takes more space in the bag, and lenses hang off their weight 5mm further away from the viewfinder.

 

Camera-grip and balance is very personal and some may appreciate this new compacter, bulkier and ‘busier’ design. For me, I much prefer the sleek, clean and thin design from earlier iterations, with the SL (typ601) still giving the overall best balance (and the SL2 in between).

 

On the continuum from “bold, unique, ‘das wesentliche’” to “a camera like all others”, Leica has shifted a bit to the latter with the SL3. If they reverse course with the SL4 a bit back to the former, they would find in me a huge fan.

 

* You have to do this with a caliper as interestingly Leica does not mention the dimensions of the camera in the manual of the SL3 anymore.... (in SL and SL2 they did)
** Assuming the camera as a box, not taking into account rounded edges etc.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

Volume is the only true measure of camera size. Since both bodies are weather sealed, please immerse both of yours in a bucket of water and see which one raises the water level by the greatest amount.

😉

[LBJ2]

For those that use/used both the SL3 and SL2 side by side, is this image from "cameradecision" porportionally accurate? 

https://cameradecision.com/topviewsizecomparison/Leica-SL3-vs-Leica-SL2-top-view-size-comparison.jpg

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 August 5, 2024 by LBJ2

[wjdrijfhout]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Volume is the only true measure of camera size. Since both bodies are weather sealed, please immerse both of yours in a bucket of water and see which one raises the water level by the greatest amount.

😉

Ha, 🙂, yes, was thinking that, but felt that a caliper was the safer option. 😉

[wjdrijfhout]

26 minutes ago, LBJ2 said:

For those that use/used both the SL3 and SL2 side by side, is this image from "cameradecision" porportionally accurate? 

https://cameradecision.com/topviewsizecomparison/Leica-SL3-vs-Leica-SL2-top-view-size-comparison.jpg

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!

Image on the left is enlarged compared to the image on the right, so no, they do not give a fair representation. But yes, proportionally you see that the SL3 is a shorter/fatter camera, with the SL2 being longer/sleeker. That is exactly how they compare.

[LBJ2]

38 minutes ago, wjdrijfhout said:

Image on the left is enlarged compared to the image on the right, so no, they do not give a fair representation. But yes, proportionally you see that the SL3 is a shorter/fatter camera, with the SL2 being longer/sleeker. That is exactly how they compare.

Thank you.

Anyone know if there is another post, article, video with a more realistic top down view comparison of the SL3 vs SL2 ?

[Biotar]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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!

SL2-s and SL3 original product images overlaid in transparency (SL3) and adjusted via the flashing contacts

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, wjdrijfhout said:

When Leica and camera-reviewers mention the smaller size of the SL3 compared to the SL2, they refer to the width (7mm shorter) and height (3mm lower). No-one talks about the SL3’s thickness. But the SL3 is 5 mm thicker than the SL2 (excluding the screen that extends even an extra 2-3mm out)*. If you do the math**, the SL2 is 473 cm3 while the SL3 is 494 cm3. The SL3 is 4% bigger than the SL2!

🤯

[Jim B]

I prefer the new design. I guess I’m just used to holding onto something thicker. For my hand, the grip puts my thumb exactly on the joystick. I also like having the buttons accessible with the thumb.

[jaapv]

Reminds me of the hoohah about the M240. Leica had measured the thickness including the thumb wheel Suddenly there were people who could hardly hold the camera because it had become so thick. In reality the difference in body thickness to the M9 was 0,5 mm…

[Gavin G]

I feel not comfortable when hold SL3, still prefer the SL2. Maybe my hand is not big..

[Geoff C. Bassett]

Count me in the camp that much prefers the SL2 body. The grip is worse for me on the SL2, because the place for the middle and ring finger is not as recessed and the increased body thinkness I don't enjoy.

[goodbokeh]

I'm not interested in replacing my SL2 with a SL3 for a number of reasons. I agree SL3 aesthetics & haptics have devolved to the generic. If Leica does produce a SL3-S I hope they opt for a body more in line with the size of the Lumix S5 IIX...but given common body shell economics that's not likely.

Edited August 7, 2024 by goodbokeh
Typo and added info

[LBJ2]

26 minutes ago, goodbokeh said:

I'm not interested in replacing my SL2 with a SL3 for a number of reasons. I agree SL3 aesthetics & haptics have devolved to the generic. If Leica does produce a SL3-S I hope they opt for a body more in line with the size of the Lumix S5 IIX...but given common body shell economics that's not likely.

SL3-S??  "On July 29 Leica registered a camera with code 4506. We don’t know what model…" 

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/category/rumors/

Edited August 7, 2024 by LBJ2

[jaapv]

49 minutes ago, goodbokeh said:

I'm not interested in replacing my SL2 with a SL3 for a number of reasons. I agree SL3 aesthetics & haptics have devolved to the generic. If Leica does produce a SL3-S I hope they opt for a body more in line with the size of the Lumix S5 IIX...but given common body shell economics that's not likely.

And the electronics of the S5ii…

[Gavin G]

9 hours ago, LBJ2 said:

SL3-S??  "On July 29 Leica registered a camera with code 4506. We don’t know what model…" 

https://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/category/rumors/

No idea when, but as know will has SL3-S