Autofocus Comparison Leica SL2(-S) vs. Leica SL3

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Photoworks said:

There is no Leica Sport Camera!

but from all your complaints, I'm not sure the perfect camera exists!

I didn’t provide a lot of complaints, just pointed out the AFc and continuous shooting with the SL system isn’t reliable. I’ve been using the SL system for a long time and have invested heavily because they’ve gotten so much right. 

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

I get the impression that the Panasonic implementation is presently the most advanced in the L alliance. Try an S5Ii. Or S5iiX if you are into video. 

 I’ve considered this but I don’t care for the camera body and dedicated buttons,  and I’d like more than 24 MP if I’m purchasing a new body. I don’t shoot video so the higher MP sensors would work for me. 

[jaapv]

We're different then - I wouldn't consider buying a high-MP body; it wouldn't improve my photographs and I don't want to cope with the drawbacks. 24 MP is about ideal for me.

[Photoworks]

12 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

 I’ve considered this but I don’t care for the camera body and dedicated buttons,  and I’d like more than 24 MP if I’m purchasing a new body.

thank you for proving my point in no time.

[LD_50]

48 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

thank you for proving my point in no time.

I’m not sure what your point was? That there’s no perfect camera? Sure, agreed, hence the discussion.

[jaapv]

I am a bit puzzled about the dedicated buttons remark as well. The point of the S5ii is that it requires very few button pushes to operate, arguably less than the SL and certainly less menu use as most of the main functions have been moved to the two analog-style wheels on the top. 

[Markey]

I don`t know why Leica af is not competitive with other makes.

You would imagine that would be a priority but they seem intent instead on clouding the issue by adding more af modes suggesting a competence which just doesn`t exist.

Too late in the day for me. I`m past running across fields and climbing over gates to get the shot so af hasn`t the same significance that it once had for my photography.

Back in the `80`s I did that with an M3 dw .

Somehow though I can`t help but feel that Leica will need to address this issue .

Edited January 6 by Markey

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, Markey said:

I don`t know why Leica af is not competitive with other makes.

...

Somehow though I can`t help but feel that Leica will need to address this issue .

Leica relies on Panasonic for their autofocus, so there's not much they can do on their own. 

Unfortunately, Panasonic was really stubborn with their CDAF, and implemented PDAF only two years ago.

Now they have a 10+ years gap with the other brands, and it's going to take time and effort to reach parity.

Leica is further behind, I find that the S5II focus faster and tracking is more effective than the Q3 43mm.

[jaapv]

The point was that CDAF was slower but more accurate They waited until they had a PDAF based system that was  comparable in precision. According to reviews they are not far behind the leading systems at all as per your S5Ii remark. I fully expect the S3S to be similar to the S5Ii. The reason that the S3 and Q3 do not quite reach the same level is the high-resolution sensor. 

[BernardC]

Also, don't forget that when people claim that Leica isn't as good as others, they mean cameras like the Canon R1, Nikon Z9, and Sony a1, which are high-end sports cameras. Leica is more competitive with those brands' other models, like the R5.

We are purely talking about speed here. People tend to lump-in speed and accuracy, but there are no accuracy issues with Leica's AF.

On the video front, Panasonic's S5ii is considered to be better than the competition, because it doesn't get confused and dart around like a manic squirrel. The SL3 isn't really a video-optimized camera, but we should expect world-class performance when/if the SL3-s is released.

 

[Markey]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Leica relies on Panasonic for their autofocus, so there's not much they can do on their own. 

Unfortunately, Panasonic was really stubborn with their CDAF, and implemented PDAF only two years ago.

Now they have a 10+ years gap with the other brands, and it's going to take time and effort to reach parity.

Leica is further behind, I find that the S5II focus faster and tracking is more effective than the Q3 43mm.

Thank you.

I just couldn`t understand the discrepancy in performance.

Now I can.

[Markey]

8 minutes ago, BernardC said:

We are purely talking about speed here. People tend to lump-in speed and accuracy, but there are no accuracy issues with Leica's AF.

 

 

Probably being a bit stupid here but surely its no use having one without the other  ?

By the time you`ve waiting for it to be accurate the moment has passed.

 

[3D-Kraft.com]

vor 18 Minuten schrieb BernardC:

We are purely talking about speed here. People tend to lump-in speed and accuracy, but there are no accuracy issues with Leica's AF.

As far as I know, all mirrorless cameras that meanwhile also make use of phase detect pixels for determining the required direction and first estimation of the focus point, still use contrast AF for "fine-focussing" - usually called "hybrid AF". So also these have no problem with accuracy, but are simply much faster and do not need to "dart around".

[BernardC]

15 minutes ago, Markey said:

Probably being a bit stupid here but surely its no use having one without the other  ?

Phase-detect (PDAF) is fast, but it isn't accurate. Contrast-detect (CDAF) is accurate, but it isn't as fast. The reason why PDAF is faster is because it can estimate the approximate focus plane based on the phase difference between two focus planes (one slightly proud of the sensor, one slightly behind the sensor), so it can jump to that approximate plane directly.

You want both of course, and most mirrorless camera switch from one to the other if there is enough time, but which one is more important depends on your style of photography.

[LD_50]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

I am a bit puzzled about the dedicated buttons remark as well. The point of the S5ii is that it requires very few button pushes to operate, arguably less than the SL and certainly less menu use as most of the main functions have been moved to the two analog-style wheels on the top. 

I don’t like the layout of the buttons on the S5ii. I prefer the SL cameras (I actually really liked the original SL’s four non dedicated rear buttons). 

 

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The point was that CDAF was slower but more accurate They waited until they had a PDAF based system that was  comparable in precision. According to reviews they are not far behind the leading systems at all as per your S5Ii remark. I fully expect the S3S to be similar to the S5Ii. The reason that the S3 and Q3 do not quite reach the same level is the high-resolution sensor. 

Others have higher than 24 MP sensors combined with accurate and reliable AF. Maybe Panasonic has been unable to achieve this but Sony, Nikon, and Canon have. 

 

57 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Also, don't forget that when people claim that Leica isn't as good as others, they mean cameras like the Canon R1, Nikon Z9, and Sony a1, which are high-end sports cameras. Leica is more competitive with those brands' other models, like the R5.

We are purely talking about speed here. People tend to lump-in speed and accuracy, but there are no accuracy issues with Leica's AF.

 

This is not accurate. The SL system’s AF is not competitive with many cameras in those three systems below the flagship models you mentioned. What those three brands tend to do is introduce AF systems in the flagship and then similar systems in the lower end cameras. 

As an example, my D4 and D4s cameras from over a decade ago were better at AFc and tracking than the SL2 and SL2-S. More recent Nikons throughout the range are comparable or better than those old DSLRs. I’ve not shot the SL3 so I can’t make the same comparison. 

There are accuracy issues with Leica’s AF (and others’) when the system can’t keep up in AFc. The camera fails to lock focus at the speed it shoots so I don’t know what else you’d call that. They could simply prevent the photo from being captured when focus isn’t locked, but then you’d have a camera that doesn’t often have AFc available. I imagine this is why the Hasselblad X2D forgoes AFc altogether.

In AFs I’ve found Leica to be as accurate as the other brands. With the CDAF system it’s slower but it’s typically fine in use. They all tend to now use a combination of PDAF and CDAF for speed and accuracy. Panasonic (and Leica) just have some work to do to catch up. I hope the SL3-S shows a bump in performance and I hope it’s combined with a resolution increase. 

30 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Phase-detect (PDAF) is fast, but it isn't accurate. Contrast-detect (CDAF) is accurate, but it isn't as fast. The reason why PDAF is faster is because it can estimate the approximate focus plane based on the phase difference between two focus planes (one slightly proud of the sensor, one slightly behind the sensor), so it can jump to that approximate plane directly.

While somewhat true in theory, in practice I’ve found PDAF to be accurate often enough with DSLRs to be very useful. All the pre-mirrorless sports and action photography (not to mention landscape, portraits, etc) demonstrates this. Accuracy with extremely shallow DOF was certainly more challenging with PDAF only systems, but I got great results with my D4/D4s and 200 F2 (once calibrated), as an example.
 

Mirrorless was a step backwards with AF in some respects initially. Most have overcome this while Panasonic and Leica still have work to do. I do NOT miss having to do AF calibration with each lens on DSLRs. That was an accuracy nightmare that’s thankfully behind us. 

[BernardC]

3 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

This is not accurate. The SL system’s AF is not competitive with many cameras in those three systems below the flagship models you mentioned. What those three brands tend to do is introduce AF systems in the flagship and then similar systems in the lower end cameras. 

What I know about that is that an F1 photographer that I follow says that the R5 just doesn't cut it for sports, unlike his R1 and R3. He uses the R5 for video and for higher resolution static shots.

5 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

Accuracy with extremely shallow DOF was certainly more challenging with PDAF only systems, but I got great results with my D4/D4s and 200 F2 (once calibrated), as an example.

Mirrorless takes away the need to calibrate individual lenses for front/back-focus. Basically what the calibration does is to tell your body where the real image plane on your specific lens might be, relative to what the PDAF sensor can resolve. It's still a guess, but it's a more informed guess. As I wrote earlier, it really depends on your style as a photographer, and what kind of pictures you shoot. Most of the time that guess is close enough, especially with a 16MP D4s or 18MP EOS 1Dx. The level of precision needed for 60MP-generation cameras is at a different level.

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

The point was that CDAF was slower but more accurate They waited until they had a PDAF based system that was  comparable in precision. According to reviews they are not far behind the leading systems at all as per your S5Ii remark. I fully expect the S3S to be similar to the S5Ii. The reason that the S3 and Q3 do not quite reach the same level is the high-resolution sensor. 

No, I disagree. Canon, Nikon, Sony all had this tech for years, and besides all brands use a mix of PDAF + CDAF. PDAF is faster and helps to tracks the subject, then the AF switch to CDAF for precision and fine tuning. Panasonic lost 10 years of AF development for no reason.

SL3 / Q3: The impact of high resolution sensor is negligible, high resolution cameras of other brands focus just fine. Leica is the black sheep here. But yes, Panasonic is not that behind the big 3s, and it's constantly improving their AF. I'm optimistic that parity will be reached in a couple of years.

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

On the video front, Panasonic's S5ii is considered to be better than the competition, because it doesn't get confused and dart around like a manic squirrel. The SL3 isn't really a video-optimized camera, but we should expect world-class performance when/if the SL3-s is released.

that is the rumor of the SL3-s

but on the SL3 I was disappointed to see AFS using more CDAF, you couldn't tell any difference from SL2. Only AFc had improvements and showed better performance, especially in video, but not even close what the S5II performance.

Plus they sold the SL3 with PDAF combined, but never explained how it is implemented..

[LD_50]

4 minutes ago, BernardC said:

What I know about that is that an F1 photographer that I follow says that the R5 just doesn't cut it for sports, unlike his R1 and R3. He uses the R5 for video and for higher resolution static shots.

Mirrorless takes away the need to calibrate individual lenses for front/back-focus. Basically what the calibration does is to tell your body where the real image plane on your specific lens might be, relative to what the PDAF sensor can resolve. It's still a guess, but it's a more informed guess. As I wrote earlier, it really depends on your style as a photographer, and what kind of pictures you shoot. Most of the time that guess is close enough, especially with a 16MP D4s or 18MP EOS 1Dx. The level of precision needed for 60MP-generation cameras is at a different level.

I think they’ve upgraded significantly with the R5ii. I haven’t used it but I was told it’s at or near R3 level. R1 seems so rare I can’t comment on its ability. That said I’m surprised F1 would be challenging for any of the newest AF systems. The motion is not very erratic in motorsports. I’ve shot MotoGP with the SL without much issue. It’s similar to F1. 

I agree with everything you said regarding mirrorless and the lack of need for calibration (overcome by the use of CDAF or PDAF/CDAF hybrid). The resolution point is important as well, especially with more shallow DOF. 

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

because it doesn't get confused and dart around like a manic squirrel

The AF that get confused the most sadly is Leica's. Whenever there is more than 2-3 people in the frame, and face/eye detect is enabled, the AF jumps around from face to face like crazy. My workaround is to disable face detect and switch to crosshair, and that's fine, but I really wish Leica's team could spend their effort to make the focus point more sticky. That would really make a big difference. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LD_50]

11 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

The AF that get confused the most sadly is Leica's. Whenever there is more than 2-3 people in the frame, and face/eye detect is enabled, the AF jumps around from face to face like crazy. My workaround is to disable face detect and switch to crosshair, and that's fine, but I really wish Leica's team could spend their effort to make the focus point more sticky. That would really make a big difference. 

This seems to be a challenge with several systems. It would be nice to have an option to “stick” on a face and then only change when prompted with the joystick.