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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, trickness said:

Not sure I saw a summary as to why you prefer it over the SL2, forgive me if you've shared this but I'd love to know why you prefer the newer camera

It’s incredibly subtle.

1. The buttons are on the correct side and the play button can be used without lowering your eye from the evf or hand gymnastics.

2. The slight change in shape, size and weight, really worked for me. The camera is MUCH better balanced. It doesn’t pull to the left as much with mid weight primes like the APO Summicrons. That means less hand fatigue.

3. I think the IQ is spectacular. They drag slightly more from the sensor than even Sony does. *Slightly*. Very slightly.

4. The new layout means I can have almost every function set up like my X2D. It’s bizarre how close they are.

5. The Af improved where I needed it too. I’m not saying it’s great. Just that it now doesn’t hold ME back. I do have a Sony kit for stuff that moves.

6. I use the flip screen every shooting session.

There are still things I don’t like.

a. The power button makes no sense. It needs to pulse when asleep so we know it’s not turned off.

b. The left dial is useless. Leica need to add more functions to it. Say profile selection or drive speed or subject type.

c. There not enough choice on the new Leicons on the quick menu screen.

Small format IQ basically peaked a few years ago. Now I really do base my cameras off UI and build quality.

I didn’t dislike the Sl2. I just like the SL3 more.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, ALScott said:

There has been little to no mention of the ISO doubling to 200,000 on the "same" sensor.  The "same" sensor as the S5II is 25% of that.  That's another reason I bought it.  Everyone here raves about the low light performance of the SL2-S, isn't doubling that capability a pretty significant improvement?

One stop -which virtually nobody will be using. 

[Jan1985]

I would prefer to test the SL3-S first and then make a conclusion.

[jaapv]

Shoot the SLS2S at  100.000 -1EV. I doubt that there will be a significant difference.

[frankchn]

1 hour ago, didier said:

First time I read this… the 90-280 came out at the very beginning of the SL series and is, AFAIK a ‘pure’ Leica Lens…

The optical patent belongs to Panasonic: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2016139125A/en

[frankchn]

For that matter, the SL 16-35/3.5-4.5's optical patent belongs to Konica Minolta: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2018087903A/en?oq=JP2018-087903, and so does the patent for the Summilux SL 50/1.4: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP6485287B2/en?oq=EP3136147

In contrast, the Apo-Summicron-M 35 f/2's optical patent belongs to Leica Camera AG: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220066176A1/en?oq=US20220066176

The point is that there is a lot of collaboration and out-sourcing of both optical and electronic components within the SL line.

Edited January 17 by frankchn

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, ALScott said:

There has been little to no mention of the ISO doubling to 200,000 on the "same" sensor.  The "same" sensor as the S5II is 25% of that.  That's another reason I bought it.  Everyone here raves about the low light performance of the SL2-S, isn't doubling that capability a pretty significant improvement?

You know that ISO is just gain applied, right? If you have different ISO in the menu, it doesn't mean camera has different sensor...

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, ALScott said:

There has been little to no mention of the ISO doubling to 200,000 on the "same" sensor.  The "same" sensor as the S5II is 25% of that.  That's another reason I bought it.  Everyone here raves about the low light performance of the SL2-S, isn't doubling that capability a pretty significant improvement?

I don’t think of the doubling of max ISO to  ISO 200,000 as “doubling the capability” because I didn’t use the previous max. That’s why it’s probably not mentioned often. 

Improving IQ at the most used ISO range, or expanding the range of acceptable ISO values would receive more attention. 

[ALScott]

21 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

You know that ISO is just gain applied, right? If you have different ISO in the menu, it doesn't mean camera has different sensor...

Sure but if it had been the same or less... good grief the abuse heaped on it if that had been the case.   I know, call me a fan boy, whatever, fine.  I have really enjoyed getting into Leica.  I really don't care who makes the sensor, how thick it is or this or that minuscule detail.  I care what the images look like all of the time.  I also love that I have to barely touch them in LrC to make them look like I want.  I got the Q3 and was truly impressed with what it could do so went for an SL3 and then an M11P.  All have pushed me back into loving photography again.  The UI for each was a big part of that.  It made learning the cameras enjoyable, not an absolute chore.  Again, I am coming from some older Canon gear so all of these are massive improvements to me.  I am not one to buy one of everything to compare them all or use this brand/model for specific things, nor do I want to be.

[trickness]

6 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It’s incredibly subtle.

1. The buttons are on the correct side and the play button can be used without lowering your eye from the evf or hand gymnastics.

2. The slight change in shape, size and weight, really worked for me. The camera is MUCH better balanced. It doesn’t pull to the left as much with mid weight primes like the APO Summicrons. That means less hand fatigue.

3. I think the IQ is spectacular. They drag slightly more from the sensor than even Sony does. *Slightly*. Very slightly.

4. The new layout means I can have almost every function set up like my X2D. It’s bizarre how close they are.

5. The Af improved where I needed it too. I’m not saying it’s great. Just that it now doesn’t hold ME back. I do have a Sony kit for stuff that moves.

6. I use the flip screen every shooting session.

There are still things I don’t like.

a. The power button makes no sense. It needs to pulse when asleep so we know it’s not turned off.

b. The left dial is useless. Leica need to add more functions to it. Say profile selection or drive speed or subject type.

c. There not enough choice on the new Leicons on the quick menu screen.

Small format IQ basically peaked a few years ago. Now I really do base my cameras off UI and build quality.

I didn’t dislike the Sl2. I just like the SL3 more.

Gordon

Yeah, that was kind of my perception that there were incremental tweaks that would definitely be appealing to some people and maybe inconsequential to others. When I first held the camera in my hand, I thought it was too small and felt very much like a Japanese camera, relative to the SL2 and more so the 601. I kind of enjoy having the chunk in my hand, and I really dislike tilt screens. I only use the view finder, old habits die hard. 
 

I appreciate you sharing your feelings because I know you work with the camera and use it quite a lot. I haven’t really been tempted at all by the SL3, all the things they improved are things that do not really matter to me that much for what I do. And your post confirmed that for me. Sincere thanks for responding.

[wjdrijfhout]

3 hours ago, trickness said:

When I first held the camera in my hand, I thought it was too small and felt very much like a Japanese camera, relative to the SL2 and more so the 601. I kind of enjoy having the chunk in my hand,

Same for me, the increased thickness of the body, the switch from aluminum to magnesium for some parts, the fact that my fingers get stuck between the grip and the lens, feels like a trend towards Japanese camera design. I far prefer the SL2 design and for quite some parts even the 601 design. Don’t get me wrong, it is still a very solid body, but the design trend is for me the wrong direction.
Would it not be amazing if the SL4 marketing campaign would include a 45min video of the realtime milling and polishing of a new thin, sleek all-aluminum body. They’ve done it before..  Better than new icons.

[LocalHero1953]

I am reminded of the reaction to the body shape here on this forum when the SL was launched......and when the SL2 with its new grip was launched.....and now with the SL3.

Fundamental law of camera design: the previous version is always better. And the one before that is a timeless classic, a thing of beauty.

[LocalHero1953]

There appear to be mixed stories emerging about AF and the SL3-S, some that it is not much different from SL3, SL2-S or S5ii, and some saying that it's excellent.

I am fortunate to feel no urge to buy the SL3-S, so can sit back and can wait for hands-on reviews from those testing from the perspective of practical photography similar to mine (not from those with an axe to grind, those with a YouTube channel but limited talent, those unable to take an objective approach, or those who start from "it's expensive therefore it's not good enough").

Coming from the Q2 to the Q3 43 was an interesting comparative experience. I found eye/face/body recognition in the Q2 to be poor, and used it only occasionally. Early reviews (and spec-sheet commentators) implied that the Q3 43 was not much of an improvement. I have found the improvement to be substantial, and now I will use eye/face/body most of the time with active scenes. It's still not great, but  find it definitely usable. It has been a lesson that we all use cameras in different ways, and personal photographic practice (and experience, and a willingness to explore settings to maximise performance) are important in whether we find performance poor, acceptable or good.

Looking forward to more reviews.

[helged]

11 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

It’s incredibly subtle.

1. The buttons are on the correct side and the play button can be used without lowering your eye from the evf or hand gymnastics.

2. The slight change in shape, size and weight, really worked for me. The camera is MUCH better balanced. It doesn’t pull to the left as much with mid weight primes like the APO Summicrons. That means less hand fatigue.

3. I think the IQ is spectacular. They drag slightly more from the sensor than even Sony does. *Slightly*. Very slightly.

4. The new layout means I can have almost every function set up like my X2D. It’s bizarre how close they are.

5. The Af improved where I needed it too. I’m not saying it’s great. Just that it now doesn’t hold ME back. I do have a Sony kit for stuff that moves.

6. I use the flip screen every shooting session.

There are still things I don’t like.

a. The power button makes no sense. It needs to pulse when asleep so we know it’s not turned off.

b. The left dial is useless. Leica need to add more functions to it. Say profile selection or drive speed or subject type.

c. There not enough choice on the new Leicons on the quick menu screen.

Small format IQ basically peaked a few years ago. Now I really do base my cameras off UI and build quality.

I didn’t dislike the Sl2. I just like the SL3 more.

Gordon

Couldn't agree more. As of now, I don't use the left wheel on the top at all. Actually, I end up shooting at Odd ISOs since the wheel has been touched unintentionally. 

[tomasis7]

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 

I am fortunate to feel no urge to buy the SL3-S

 

sounds strange.

I feel fortunate to own  a 1500$ worth SL601.

I don't feel obliged to buy a new camera every year. I'm clever enough to realize that i need spend a lot time on practicing my own skills.

Edited January 18 by tomasis7

[LocalHero1953]

20 minutes ago, tomasis7 said:

sounds strange.

I feel fortunate to own  a 1500$ worth SL601.

I don't feel obliged to buy a new camera every year. I'm clever enough to realize that i need spend a lot time on practicing my own skills.

Well, there's a difference between an obligation to buy a new camera (few people have this) and an urge to have a new camera (many people have this).

My comment was made in the context of all those in the thread stating that it was not worth swapping the SL2S for the SL3S, or that is was worth the swap, or that that upgrading was the only reason anyone would ever have for buying the SL3S (as if there were no new buyers around).

I have had the SL2-S since launch. In the lead up to the SL3-S I couldn't think of anything the SL3 was likely to offer that would make a major difference to the photographs I take. That remains the case.

[Luke_Miller]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I have had the SL2-S since launch. In the lead up to the SL3-S I couldn't think of anything the SL3 was likely to offer that would make a major difference to the photographs I take. That remains the case.

I've been shooting digital cameras since 2002 and can remember when each new camera generation brought important performance and functional improvements.  Now days, not so much.  No doubt the "new and improved" SL3 and SL3-S are better than my SL2 and SL2-S, but the SL2s are are sufficient to my needs.  I do not require the latest and greatest.

[trickness]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I am reminded of the reaction to the body shape here on this forum when the SL was launched......and when the SL2 with its new grip was launched.....and now with the SL3.

Fundamental law of camera design: the previous version is always better. And the one before that is a timeless classic, a thing of beauty.

I shot probably 40-50,000 (and counting) images across my various SL2 bodies without once ever the thought entering my mind that it needed to be smaller. The 601 from a design standpoint was the boldest of the three bodies but the grip isn’t as good as the SL2 imho. The SL3 grip for me gets a bit cramped when you use native lenses on it.

Sometimes people’s opinions are based on actually using things that they’re talking about. 

Edited January 18 by trickness

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Photoworks]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Coming from the Q2 to the Q3 43 was an interesting comparative experience. I found eye/face/body recognition in the Q2 to be poor, and used it only occasionally. Early reviews (and spec-sheet commentators) implied that the Q3 43 was not much of an improvement. I have found the improvement to be substantial, and now I will use eye/face/body most of the time with active scenes. It's still not great, but  find it definitely usable. It has been a lesson that we all use cameras in different ways, and personal photographic practice (and experience, and a willingness to explore settings to maximise performance) are important in whether we find performance poor, acceptable or good.

I think the disappointment comes from misinformation.

LeicaWhen leica implemented PDAF to the SL3 I was expecting improved AF speed and accuracy.
To my surprise AF-s does not use PDAF. Nobody said why, and the AF-C was an improvement over any other leica.
I almost never use AF-C.

The same is true for the SL3-S, most of the improvements are in AF-c.

when it comes to AF-s, the face/body algorithms are probably the best in accuracy and speed on the SL lineup.

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, pf4eva said:

You know that ISO is just gain applied, right? If you have different ISO in the menu, it doesn't mean camera has different sensor...

By that logic there's never been any improvement in low-light sensitivity on any sensor 😀! Brands have just been increasing the gain for 20 years...

I love the symmetry of the two narratives. On one side are people who have the camera in hand, and find that the new model has a little more depth in the shadows. On the other side are people who know everything in advance and stick to their narrative.

I haven't tried the new camera, but I also don't have a preconceived opinion about its performance. I just find the conversation fascinating.