Leica SL3-S: ‘More light’ – The Unbearable Lightness of Being

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jonnyboy said:

Talking on a pure video-related point of view here.
Not trying to be political at all but a lot of those 'influencers' photographer been advertising the camera as something that is not. I'm not a huge fan of false advertisement.

If you use the camera to take pictures it's kind of acceptable but with that said, the SL-S is gathered for videos (right?) and the autofocus on video is obnoxious. Maybe if you shoot interviews or minimal movement you can get away with it but for real life work (which doesn't include sit down interviews) it's very unreliable. Oh and if it's not properly lit then forget about it. Anyone thinking you can mount the SL-S on a gimbal and rely on auto-focus you will be in for a lot of surprirses.

With that amount of money you can buy so many better options for video.

I use the SL2-S mainly for still photography, and sometimes for video; nobody told me it was supposed to be just for video.

As for AF, I hope you realise that there are a large number of serious videographers out there who do not use auto focus? (And that's for 'real life work'). Of course if you need AF for video then buy a camera more dedicated to it - why wouldn't you? (My main video camera is a BM CC6K - which doesn't do AF, other than as back button spot focusing).

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

37 minutes ago, jonnyboy said:

the autofocus on video is obnoxious.

Interested in your findings. Could you share one or two of your examples of the SL3S please?

[jonnyboy]

I haven't used the SL3-S sorry I was referring to the SL2-S.

Probably it's not explicitly marketed as a video camera but it's quite obvious - hence the 'low' resolution sensor.

I get it, a real cinematographer will not use auto-focus...probably won't even use a mirrorless. I think mirrorless are more targeted to 'one-man-band' smaller budget video, and that's why my expectations for autofocus are crushed.
Again not hating the camera it should just be more clear that the AF is not reliable. Now, I haven't used the SL3-S but this is on the page:

 

Engineered for Speed

Every moment counts. Whether autofocus, handling or connectivity – the Leica SL3-S is built to be fast.

 

 

 

[jonoslack]

33 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I use the SL2-S mainly for still photography, and sometimes for video; nobody told me it was supposed to be just for video.

As for AF, I hope you realise that there are a large number of serious videographers out there who do not use auto focus? (And that's for 'real life work'). Of course if you need AF for video then buy a camera more dedicated to it - why wouldn't you? (My main video camera is a BM CC6K - which doesn't do AF, other than as back button spot focusing).

I know nothing - but of my many videographer friends I don't know any who use autofocus for serious work

[jaapv]

Well, I regard it as a hybrid camera and find it perfectly fine for my stills use. I regard the 24 MP sensor as a courtesy to stills photographers that have a strong adversion to a higher resolution - and before you ask - I know quite a few. For Video I would look to the newest Panasonic offerings and probably the SL3S which appears to put some more emphasis on Video work.

(sorry for the late edit) 

[LocalHero1953]

17 minutes ago, jonnyboy said:

Probably it's not explicitly marketed as a video camera but it's quite obvious - hence the 'low' resolution sensor.

I get it, a real cinematographer will not use auto-focus...probably won't even use a mirrorless. I think mirrorless are more targeted to 'one-man-band' smaller budget video, and that's why my expectations for autofocus are crushed.

This just shows how two people reading the same stuff come to different conclusions. I haven't read the SL2-S or SL3-S stuff as marketing a video camera, but rather a hybrid camera: usable for high quality stills and video without going to the expense of buying two devices, and allowing you to take stills and video together. Low resolution does not have to mean intended for video; frankly most still photography needs little more than 24mp, and it reduces the processing requirements, both in-camera and for post processing - and it appears to contribute the exceptional low light performance.

What do you use video for?

Edited January 19 by LocalHero1953

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jonnyboy said:

If you use the camera to take pictures it's kind of acceptable but with that said, the SL-S is gathered for videos (right?) and the autofocus on video is obnoxious

Assuming the SL3-S is similar to the Lumix S5ii, then it's one of the best. 

I've posted a link before where Lok Cheung says that it's much better than Sony, and I've enjoyed his work for well over a decade by now. He has used every brand. 

I rarely use AF in video because it interferes with story telling. It doesn't know when you want to rack focus, where you want to rack it to (your subject might not be there yet), or how fast you want it to focus. The main type of shot where it's useful is a slow dolly where you want to hold focus. Even then I'll do it myself if the shot consists of more than one camera move. 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

This just shows how two people reading the same stuff come to different conclusions. I haven't read the SL2-S or SL3-S stuff as marketing a video camera, but rather a hybrid camera: usable for high quality stills and video without going to the expense of buying two devices, and allowing you to take stills and video together. Low resolution does not have to mean intended for video; frankly most still photography needs little more than 24mp, and it reduces the processing requirements, both in-camera and for post processing - and it appears to contribute the exceptional low light performance.

What do you use video for?

I would disagree with one thing in this post - the vast majority of stills needs nothing more than 18 MP and mostly 10 suffice. The amount of detail may be reduced, but the acuity and quality of detail is better - and that is what counts -at least for me. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Just to insert some actual pics.  Here's what an SL3-S can do on a cold rainy night.  Quite sensibly stay indoors.

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!

 

and finish the puzzle that has been waiting for the right team to get together

 

[Kim Dahl]

So I have to agree with jonnyboy

I have produced reportage video for over 15 years (and still images for newspapers and online) I have attended courses in Minneapolis in the USA as one of the first in Denmark to see and learn how to make a 1-2 man band video. A photographer and a journalist. Back then with the small "real" video camera. There was a DV tape in it.

We also used AF there.

I know - in the "old days" when we used big and heavy gear - and AF was not developed - Today, all the photojournalists I know make video with some degree of AF (Maybe a combination.) and face recognition.

May I ask why not use it when the technology is there? Leica may not be there yet - but maby next generation

But AF is used where I am. Both with Canon and Sony.

[LocalHero1953]

I don't doubt that many applications need AF for video. And from my experience with the SL2-S (no experience with the SL3-S) I would not touch it for video if I needed AF. If you need AF for video, buy a camera that does good video AF. That does not mean that all those who prefer MF (not 'can do without AF') should not be happy with these hybrids, especially if they have high output quality, like the SL2-S (and SL3-S). Just look around the world today - there's an enormous range of video styles and applications out there. Reporters and YouTube influencers are an important part of it - but just a part.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Assuming the SL3-S is similar to the Lumix S5ii, then it's one of the best. 

I've posted a link before where Lok Cheung says that it's much better than Sony, and I've enjoyed his work for well over a decade by now. He has used every brand. 

I rarely use AF in video because it interferes with story telling. It doesn't know when you want to rack focus, where you want to rack it to (your subject might not be there yet), or how fast you want it to focus. The main type of shot where it's useful is a slow dolly where you want to hold focus. Even then I'll do it myself if the shot consists of more than one camera move. 

My S5ii isn’t better at AF than any of my Sony or Canon cameras, in any mode for either stills or video. I enjoy Mr Cheungs videos but I don’t think his opinions are much more than that. And his findings don’t align with my testing.

Having said that, I do think it’s good enough for many/most users much of the time. I am not a video pro. And I don’t pretend to be one but for my casual video shooting it’s more than adequate. But no where near my A1ii/A7R5. Not even close. Even at my level the difference is obvious.

I am glad for any improvement, though, for others. Hybrid cameras are leading the next revolution in video production. They’re forcing the whole industry forward and camera sales would be in even more trouble if not for hybrid and video shooters using them. As the tech evolves and improves more and more uses for AF in video will arrive. There will still be need for focus pulling and the like but for sure AF use will increase. I have a lot of friends in the wedding industry and AF is sharply on the rise with AI subject recognition and subject identification.

If the SL3-S meets some people’s needs then awesome. And if they see the value over the S5ii, great for them. Shot what you want and what you enjoy. But it say it’s at SOny’s level is not a reality, at least for the S5ii. I do look forward to testing a SL3-S. If it’s actually at SOny standard I might consider one for some wildlife trips I have coming up.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I would disagree with one thing in this post - the vast majority of stills needs nothing more than 18 MP and mostly 10 suffice. The amount of detail may be reduced, but the acuity and quality of detail is better - and that is what counts -at least for me. 

While I broadly agree most don’t need as much resolution as they think, acuity and quality of detail is more lens and sensor stack based rather than resolution. If all else is equal the acuity between sensors would be the same at the same output size.

It’s fun on the forum when someone says that they don’t need more resolution because they don’t print billboards. Most billboards require more than 10MP either as they’re printed at about 3dpi or less.

Resolution is tied to output not to image quality. There are few places where vast resolution is needed. It is handy for those that crop though.

Gordon

[SrMi]

24 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Resolution is tied to output not to image quality.

In my experience, and what I have seen, higher resolution can provide more detail even when compared at the same output size. Some of it comes from reduced aliasing, some from more data. It is noticeable when pixel peeping and sometimes when printing or sharing JPGs. Regardless, I feel comfortable shooting at 24MP as well.

Edited January 19 by SrMi

[jaapv]

Exactly. More. But better? And do you need detail that nobody knows is there if it  is absent? 

[Jon Warwick]

42 minutes ago, jaapv said:

And do you need detail that nobody knows is there if it  is absent? 

That’s an interesting point. I’m inclined to agree with it.

That said, i think one of the problems with digital is if the sensor resolution is too low, it tries to record the detail anyhow, and the result is digital artifacts at still high’ish contrast and high acutance, aliasing etc - it’s not a graceful look, IMHO.

Film was rather wonderful in that regard, given the grain gently filled in (at ever decreasing contrast) those gaps where the film / lens were unable to record down into the finer and finer detail.

I’m not sure if the best answer is more megapixels (to get less chance of poorly recorded data), or the addition of grain in post processing (to obscure the fine data that isn’t properly recorded digitally and to your point perhaps nobody would miss if it was absent), or when possible using a different sensor like a Monochrom (which I think can be enlarged like film in terms of it looking natural at very large print sizes).

Edited January 19 by Jon Warwick

[Cronilux]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb jonoslack:

I know nothing - but of my many videographer friends I don't know any who use autofocus for serious work

I know many professional videographers, that avoided AF in the past, but all of them switched to using AF very often in the last two years. With Sony you simply can rely on it. I think it’s the typical “you have to do if this way or you are not a pro” - talk some seasoned (to not say old) professionals say to feel better, than others.

Not taking advantage of available and reliable technology makes absolutely no sense in any professional field. 
Who does not move with the times, will be removed over time. 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

In my experience, and what I have seen, higher resolution can provide more detail even when compared at the same output size. Some of it comes from reduced aliasing, some from more data. It is noticeable when pixel peeping and sometimes when printing or sharing JPGs. Regardless, I feel comfortable shooting at 24MP as well.

 

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Exactly. More. But better? And do you need detail that nobody knows is there if it  is absent? 

Oh, I should have been more clear. Bad me!

In this instance I meant a better photo rather than technical details.

I absolutely agree that more resolution can help technically at even modest sizes. But that won't help a rubbish photo. And a great photo can often trancend any technical flaws in the data. It's nice to have both but if I can have only one for myself it would always be more compelling photos over higher quailty data. Or better gear.

I have the best cameras money can buy and I'm technically very strong. But also decidedly middle of the pack when it comes to compelling imagery. Thats' the best bit. Striving to make more interesting photos. Gear can help. But really it's a fair way down the chain to make great photographs. I would guess many Leica photographers feel the same. Having the absolute cutting edge matters less than pushing themselves and challenging themselves. As always the most important photographers tool is the one holding the camera.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Photoworks]

2 hours ago, Cronilux said:

Not taking advantage of available and reliable technology makes absolutely no sense in any professional field. 
Who does not move with the times, will be removed over time. 

SL3-S AFc is not much different than SL3, for video use, it is very usable and can be used.

Many claim cinema cameras don't need AF to be professional. Well, the cameraman looks at the screen, and it is in focus in the right place—most likely because there is a focus puller on set or a fancy Arri lidar system. So yeah, the use AUTO FOCUS

[jaapv]

14 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Just to insert some actual pics.  Here's what an SL3-S can do on a cold rainy night.  Quite sensibly stay indoors.

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!

 

 

 

 

Maybe interesting to add a couple of SL2S images @ 100.000 with LR AI Denoise and some processing (notably some magenta vignetting on the first shot). The second one virtually not processed beyond LR default.

 

This house was completely in the dark, the only lights a street light near the front left tree and a couple further away on the righthand side (outside the image lighting up the side wall).

 

I am not surprised that Leica went to 200.000 with improved noise processing available.