Leica SL3-S Incoming?

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I’ve never understood the need for some Leica users to try and make a case for stealth BSI sensors being used prior to 2021. We all know how every Leica sensor to date actually performs, so it’s a moot point really.

Exactly. I never understood the need for commenters to constantly denigrate Leica's sensors, even though they perform as well as (and usually better then) anything from the competition. Even when Leica sensors are at the top of DxO's ratings (for instance), you'll hear the same voices claim that they "can't compete" because they are missing some acronym only found on lower-rated sensors! Clearly there is a disconnect between what people see with their eyes, and the narrative that they wish to be true. One of the funniest eras was when you would constantly heard how non-Leica sensors were inherently "better" at handling off-axis light rays, even though they were objectively terrible in real life... Then Leica switched sensor fabs and outperformed every other customer of the same foundry, but the doom-and-gloom narrative didn't change...

So here we have a case where a publicly-traded foundry claims to have been using a tech years before it became "the thing every influencer knows," but we aren't supposed to believe them because it doesn't fit a narrative. It reminds me of was when iPhone users first had access to OLED screens and thought that Apple invented the tech, even though it was already common in mid-range phones (even Blackberry had it).

At some point you have to laugh about it. You know that whatever Leica puts-out, somebody's gonna claim that it's 100% thanks to Sony or Panasonic (even though their own-brand products don't perform nearly as well), or they'll ignore performance altogether and concentrate on acronyms, not bothering to check if the underlying tech is used elsewhere already with a different acronyms, or what it actually does. I find this phenomenon fascinating because I am a technologist in addition to being a photographer (although I keep the two well-separated in practice), so I tend to have more of a "show me" attitude than someone who believes whatever the sales teams tell them.

[hdmesa]

51 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Exactly. I never understood the need for commenters to constantly denigrate Leica's sensors, even though they perform as well as (and usually better then) anything from the competition. Even when Leica sensors are at the top of DxO's ratings (for instance), you'll hear the same voices claim that they "can't compete" because they are missing some acronym only found on lower-rated sensors! Clearly there is a disconnect between what people see with their eyes, and the narrative that they wish to be true. One of the funniest eras was when you would constantly heard how non-Leica sensors were inherently "better" at handling off-axis light rays, even though they were objectively terrible in real life... Then Leica switched sensor fabs and outperformed every other customer of the same foundry, but the doom-and-gloom narrative didn't change...

So here we have a case where a publicly-traded foundry claims to have been using a tech years before it became "the thing every influencer knows," but we aren't supposed to believe them because it doesn't fit a narrative. It reminds me of was when iPhone users first had access to OLED screens and thought that Apple invented the tech, even though it was already common in mid-range phones (even Blackberry had it).

At some point you have to laugh about it. You know that whatever Leica puts-out, somebody's gonna claim that it's 100% thanks to Sony or Panasonic (even though their own-brand products don't perform nearly as well), or they'll ignore performance altogether and concentrate on acronyms, not bothering to check if the underlying tech is used elsewhere already with a different acronyms, or what it actually does. I find this phenomenon fascinating because I am a technologist in addition to being a photographer (although I keep the two well-separated in practice), so I tend to have more of a "show me" attitude than someone who believes whatever the sales teams tell them.

The irony is that color has gotten subjectively worse (IMO) – less filmic, less inspiring – since the SL 601 and original Q in the search for more dynamic range in the shadows and high ISO performance. I don't think the tradeoff was worth it for those of us who shoot mostly at base ISO. 

[SrMi]

46 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

The irony is that color has gotten subjectively worse (IMO) – less filmic, less inspiring – since the SL 601 and original Q in the search for more dynamic range in the shadows and high ISO performance. I don't think the tradeoff was worth it for those of us who shoot mostly at base ISO. 

Less filmic and less inspiring probably means more accurate and boring ;-). Many yearn for the incorrect but artistic colors of the film. 

I am concerned that manufacturers will focus too much on how they fare on P2P or DxO when the measurements tell only part of the story,

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

Less filmic and less inspiring probably means more accurate and boring ;-). Many yearn for the incorrect but artistic colors of the film.

Agree. I read about a lot of users who stay behind a sensor generation or two for this very reason (GFX 50mp variants, Leica M9, etc.).

What I think we all may not agree on is are current high mp / high DR sensors like the SL3, X2D, GFX100 actually more accurate or are they more neutral? I would say they are more neutral. More accurate for me means they can convey images that strike me in a similar fashion to the scene when observed. I think there's a big deviation there between the two camps. I've wondered if part of the desire for something beyond neutral comes from the fact that most of us visually experience the world stereoscopically and in motion. A two dimensional single moment in time (a photograph) needs help to convey the same emotion.

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

I am concerned that manufacturers will focus too much on how they fare on P2P or DxO when the measurements tell only part of the story,

It will probably be another five years at least before we see sensor makers finally start looking at what comes post-CMOS. We still have to wait for improvement and democratization of global sensors before they may be ready to move on.

Edited January 5 by hdmesa

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

What I think we all may not agree on is are current high mp / high DR sensors like the SL3, X2D, GFX100 actually more accurate or are they more neutral? I would say they are more neutral. More accurate for me means they can convey images that strike me in a similar fashion to the scene when observed. I think there's a big deviation there between the two camps. I've wondered if part of the desire for something beyond neutral comes from the fact that most of us visually experience the world stereoscopically and in motion. A two dimensional single moment in time (a photograph) needs help to convey the same emotion.

I want my images to convey my emotions, not the accuracy of the scene. IMO, the older lower MP cameras do not do that better than the new breed of high MP cameras.

[hdmesa]

6 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I want my images to convey my emotions, not the accuracy of the scene. IMO, the older lower MP cameras do not do that better than the new breed of high MP cameras.

I wasn't trying to lump "older lower MP" cameras together. Although some do, I personally don't find the GFX 50mp sensor more interesting than the 100mp sensor. But I do find the sensor shared with the SL 601 and original Q to produce more pleasing color to my eye, at least at base ISO. I still get results that I like with the modern cameras, but I have a place in my heart for the images I made with those cameras, particularly the original Q.

[HPFM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Got an invitation today from the local  Leica Store  (Stuttgart, Germany) for Jan 16th, so the announcement date for the new SL3S already published by Leicarumors seems to be correct....

Don´t know whether I´ll buy the SL3S as owner of a SL3 and second body SL2... that will depend on the behavior of the autofocus and the fps-rate for wildlife....

But... I´m curious and will attend the "announcement" 😎

[helged]

2 hours ago, HPFM said:

Got an invitation today from the local  Leica Store  (Stuttgart, Germany) for Jan 16th, so the announcement date for the new SL3S already published by Leicarumors seems to be correct....

Don´t know whether I´ll buy the SL3S as owner of a SL3 and second body SL2... that will depend on the behavior of the autofocus and the fps-rate for wildlife....

But... I´m curious and will attend the "announcement" 😎

+1. And your buying desire matches mine, exactly... (plus well below 20 ms sensor read out time, please...).

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, HPFM said:

Got an invitation today from the local  Leica Store  (Stuttgart, Germany) for Jan 16th, so the announcement date for the new SL3S already published by Leicarumors seems to be correct....

Don´t know whether I´ll buy the SL3S as owner of a SL3 and second body SL2... that will depend on the behavior of the autofocus and the fps-rate for wildlife....

But... I´m curious and will attend the "announcement" 😎

I don’t know.. If you are a happy SL2 and SL3 user.. The SL2S is really another part of the forest. You might be better off waiting a few years for  an SL4. 

[hellobrandonscott]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

I don’t know.. If you are a happy SL2 and SL3 user.. The SL2S is really another part of the forest. You might be better off waiting a few years for  an SL4. 

This is where I'm at. There's nothing I'd change about the SL2-S right now. In fact, the two main additions to the SL3 (which will ofc be carried to the SL3-S) are almost deal breakers.

1. Flippy screen - I have zero use for one and only adds bulk.

2. Extra wheel - It's right where I put my thumb when shooting portrait orientation.

I'm solidly in 2-S camp until the 4-S generation. 

[helged]

2 hours ago, hellobrandonscott said:

This is where I'm at. There's nothing I'd change about the SL2-S right now. In fact, the two main additions to the SL3 (which will ofc be carried to the SL3-S) are almost deal breakers.

1. Flippy screen - I have zero use for one and only adds bulk.

2. Extra wheel - It's right where I put my thumb when shooting portrait orientation.

I'm solidly in 2-S camp until the 4-S generation. 

Flippy screen on Q3 and SL3 is in frequently use by me. I would even love to have a fully articulated screen... 

[LocalHero1953]

I am surprised by how often I use the flip screen on the Q3 43, even for little things like opening it to access the menus when the camera is set down on a table. For video (on the Blackmagic CC 6K) I find the flip screen extremely useful, and I would use it for that purpose if it was on the SL2-S/SL3-S. Fully articulated would be even better for video.

Edited January 8 by LocalHero1953

[costa43]

I've owned a Q3 for just a few days and I'm definitely a fan of the tilt screen. If my SL2s had one, I think I would get good use out of it. I enjoy the perspective I get from shooting people at waist level and it just makes it a lot easier with the tilt screen. It's a great addition. Saying that, there is almost zero chance I will upgrade to an SL3s. With my primary use case being adapting vintage lenses on there and using it for film scanning, there is nothing besides a huge reduction in size and weight that will make me consider an upgrade. 

 

[keeping_a_balance]

5 hours ago, helged said:

Flippy screen on Q3 and SL3 is in frequently use by me. I would even love to have a fully articulated screen... 

yes!!!

[jaapv]

An articulating screen is quite useful to hide and protect it, a flippy screen would see little use by me. 

[helged]

18 minutes ago, costa43 said:

nothing besides a huge reduction in size and weight that will make me consider an upgrade. 

😉; it would be more than surprising if the size/weight of SL3-S differs in any substantial way relative to the existing SL2-S/SL3.

[costa43]

Just now, helged said:

😉; it would be more than surprising if the size/weight of SL3-S differs in any substantial way relative to the existing SL2-S/SL3.

Totally agree, I'm almost certain we will get the SL3 body with the Panasonic S5ii sensor/phase detect updates but there is always a tiny chance that Leica go off track.

[helged]

4 minutes ago, costa43 said:

Totally agree, I'm almost certain we will get the SL3 body with the Panasonic S5ii sensor/phase detect updates but there is always a tiny chance that Leica go off track.

The S5ii sensor with a 20+ ms readout time is not particularly interesting for me (having SL3 with similarly slow readout time), so I hope for something different. Based on the past, 'reuse' of sensors are more the rule than the opposite, so the S5ii-sensor is possible, though. 

[Jon Warwick]

Given the S5ii already has high resolution mode, I wonder if Leica would add it out-the-box to the SL3-S (and add it to the SL3 via firmware? ....here's hoping)?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, helged said:

The S5ii sensor with a 20+ ms readout time is not particularly interesting for me (having SL3 with similarly slow readout time), so I hope for something different. Based on the past, 'reuse' of sensors are more the rule than the opposite, so the S5ii-sensor is possible, though. 

I think that Leica will consider the percentage of photographers who really need a super-short read-out time.
Given that it is said that the S5Ii sensor is a co-development of Leica and Panasonic which seems to be a reasonable assumption, I doubt that we will see a revolutionary change there. But time will tell.