Who went from SL3 to SL3-s or owns both and whats your findings?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have read nearly all SL3-s reviews  ( some of them really great! ) I could find and also looked at high iso comparisons...but many of the high ISO stuff is more bookshelves, so I would be very thankful for more real world experience in regards of:

1) How does the SL3-S compare in color - is it almost same like SL3?

2) Does the good high iso noise behavior lead to an everyday advantage in regards of being able to receive more room to adjust shadows without loosing color or getting too much noise

3) Besides AF and speed, which is your choice for overall camera SL3 or now SL3-S

 

[Ken Abrahams]

15 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I have read nearly all SL3-s reviews  ( some of them really great! ) I could find and also looked at high iso comparisons...but many of the high ISO stuff is more bookshelves, so I would be very thankful for more real world experience in regards of:

1) How does the SL3-S compare in color - is it almost same like SL3?

2) Does the good high iso noise behavior lead to an everyday advantage in regards of being able to receive more room to adjust shadows without loosing color or getting too much noise

3) Besides AF and speed, which is your choice for overall camera SL3 or now SL3-S

 

My "real world experience" is via street photography and Urban Abstract/landscapes. Basically walk around stuff rather than any Landscape work at the moment. The colour work is the same between cameras. I cant tell which is the best for skin tones but both these leicas have exceptional skin tones/colours. It might be the SL3S. The building images I love shooting both render the same beautiful details with amazing colours and which allow me to apply my own impressions in post editing. Recently I went back to the SL3 after working the SL3S since it's delivery. Well, when I did pick up the SL3 I just loved the larger files and the potency of the data when editing, real fantastic camera. I am only just starting to appreciate the SL3S snd will need more time. I love having the two cameras with same set up, re menu system and buttons as I use the two cameras. The SL3S can easily achieve the same outcomes as the SL3 it's just that the SL3 has a real kick with resolution. 

I shoot street and nothing in the studio so noise is a part of my world. Sometimes I want to use that grain and sometimes I dont. Either way the grain patterning, its texture is very similar with both cameras. I can easily use adjustments to eliminate noise on both or utilise grain in B&W conversions or give grunge to colour street work including my "movement abstracts".

I have both cameras. I wouldn't be without the SL3 and the things you said not to include like razor fast eye and body focus- I have never before been able to use auto focus lenses for Street work. My Street images are taken while moving and the subject might be moving in another direction. It's fast moving higher iso and with the M camera I set the distance for focus on the fly and often shoot at 1.4 and 2.0. The SL3S has instant ability to latch onto eyes even when I am not looking through the view finder. It's a bit of a trick but a quick first press the camera finds the target and the next is shutter push. Its really remarkable how quickly this thing fires. I was using the Summicron SL 50 Asph which is so fast. The APO 35 SL is also quick, as is the 90-28 although that is still requiring field work by me. M lenses are better on the SL3S and I have a few M lenses so there is that too.

 

If I was to decide one camera it would be the one that helps my accuracy for fast moving close subjects and that would be the SL3S. But I choose the two cameras. If I was working professionally then I would have two SL3's and probably couldn't afford the SL3s too. 

Ken   

   

[phojomatic]

15 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I have read nearly all SL3-s reviews  ( some of them really great! ) I could find and also looked at high iso comparisons...but many of the high ISO stuff is more bookshelves, so I would be very thankful for more real world experience in regards of:

1) How does the SL3-S compare in color - is it almost same like SL3?

2) Does the good high iso noise behavior lead to an everyday advantage in regards of being able to receive more room to adjust shadows without loosing color or getting too much noise

3) Besides AF and speed, which is your choice for overall camera SL3 or now SL3-S

 

I've had some time with the SL3-s. I have only used the SL3 here and there. But I also have a lot of time with the SL2 and SL2-S.

1) my instinct is that the SL3 is punchier, and for some reason my SL3-S files IMO looked better in B+W. The color looked a little muddy to me, but easy to clean up. I also tend to shoot B+W 1/3 stop over (up to one stop if needed) so that might be why. I've had some amazing saturation of color with the SL3, and I bet with APO lenses or the 24-90, it would be even better. I had the SL2/24-90 combo and that color was magical (daylight, up to 1600). 

My SL3-s use has been mostly M glass and the Sigma 24-70 (new version). I did get a fast chance to use an SL APO 50mm which I thought would outclass the 24mp chip but it just punches the contrast to another level. The AF is slower with the APOs, but no so bad.

2) ISO noise is exactly the same as SL2-s as far as I can tell. Also with IBIS I have shots at 1/30 and ISO 1000 with no noticeable noise. I could have gone to 2500 ISO and bumped shutter and still been happy.

3) SL3-s for documentary work because of file size and I like the look of 24mp sensors. For my work, which is predominantly B+W, the 24mp is plenty and I don't need to crop. If I had the SL3, it would be for a different purpose, maybe portraits (shot square to get 40mp) or landscape (I like the idea of one day being a landscape photographer). I also think the AF is better, but I only use the single AF mode, without face tracking so I'm not the target customer. I understand this is still using contrast detect for this setting only, and the continuous uses Phase detect. That's plenty sticky but drives me crazy watching a square locked on someone move around the frame.

Hope that's helpful. It's real world and not an influencer's take.

[tom0511]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb Ken Abrahams:

My "real world experience" is via street photography and Urban Abstract/landscapes. Basically walk around stuff rather than any Landscape work at the moment. The colour work is the same between cameras. I cant tell which is the best for skin tones but both these leicas have exceptional skin tones/colours. It might be the SL3S. The building images I love shooting both render the same beautiful details with amazing colours and which allow me to apply my own impressions in post editing. Recently I went back to the SL3 after working the SL3S since it's delivery. Well, when I did pick up the SL3 I just loved the larger files and the potency of the data when editing, real fantastic camera. I am only just starting to appreciate the SL3S snd will need more time. I love having the two cameras with same set up, re menu system and buttons as I use the two cameras. The SL3S can easily achieve the same outcomes as the SL3 it's just that the SL3 has a real kick with resolution. 

I shoot street and nothing in the studio so noise is a part of my world. Sometimes I want to use that grain and sometimes I dont. Either way the grain patterning, its texture is very similar with both cameras. I can easily use adjustments to eliminate noise on both or utilise grain in B&W conversions or give grunge to colour street work including my "movement abstracts".

I have both cameras. I wouldn't be without the SL3 and the things you said not to include like razor fast eye and body focus- I have never before been able to use auto focus lenses for Street work. My Street images are taken while moving and the subject might be moving in another direction. It's fast moving higher iso and with the M camera I set the distance for focus on the fly and often shoot at 1.4 and 2.0. The SL3S has instant ability to latch onto eyes even when I am not looking through the view finder. It's a bit of a trick but a quick first press the camera finds the target and the next is shutter push. Its really remarkable how quickly this thing fires. I was using the Summicron SL 50 Asph which is so fast. The APO 35 SL is also quick, as is the 90-28 although that is still requiring field work by me. M lenses are better on the SL3S and I have a few M lenses so there is that too.

 

If I was to decide one camera it would be the one that helps my accuracy for fast moving close subjects and that would be the SL3S. But I choose the two cameras. If I was working professionally then I would have two SL3's and probably couldn't afford the SL3s too. 

Ken   

   

Thank you, this sounds encouriging!

[tom0511]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb phojomatic:

I've had some time with the SL3-s. I have only used the SL3 here and there. But I also have a lot of time with the SL2 and SL2-S.

1) my instinct is that the SL3 is punchier, and for some reason my SL3-S files IMO looked better in B+W. The color looked a little muddy to me, but easy to clean up. I also tend to shoot B+W 1/3 stop over (up to one stop if needed) so that might be why. I've had some amazing saturation of color with the SL3, and I bet with APO lenses or the 24-90, it would be even better. I had the SL2/24-90 combo and that color was magical (daylight, up to 1600). 

My SL3-s use has been mostly M glass and the Sigma 24-70 (new version). I did get a fast chance to use an SL APO 50mm which I thought would outclass the 24mp chip but it just punches the contrast to another level. The AF is slower with the APOs, but no so bad.

2) ISO noise is exactly the same as SL2-s as far as I can tell. Also with IBIS I have shots at 1/30 and ISO 1000 with no noticeable noise. I could have gone to 2500 ISO and bumped shutter and still been happy.

3) SL3-s for documentary work because of file size and I like the look of 24mp sensors. For my work, which is predominantly B+W, the 24mp is plenty and I don't need to crop. If I had the SL3, it would be for a different purpose, maybe portraits (shot square to get 40mp) or landscape (I like the idea of one day being a landscape photographer). I also think the AF is better, but I only use the single AF mode, without face tracking so I'm not the target customer. I understand this is still using contrast detect for this setting only, and the continuous uses Phase detect. That's plenty sticky but drives me crazy watching a square locked on someone move around the frame.

Hope that's helpful. It's real world and not an influencer's take.

Thank you very much.

[Elliot Harper]

SL3-S is way overpriced. With half of the price you can get a SL2-S

 

[LD_50]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

49 minutes ago, Elliot Harper said:

SL3-S is way overpriced. With half of the price you can get a SL2-S

 

What’s the point of posting this on a thread asking for a comparison between SL3 and SL3-S?

[tom0511]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Elliot Harper:

SL3-S is way overpriced. With half of the price you can get a SL2-S

 

The SL2-S, while a great camera, didnt cut it for me in regards of c-af. Now I wonder if the SL3-s might do so.

One day I would like to get rid of my Canon equioment which I still own for sports and action.

 

[Ken Abrahams]

1 hour ago, Elliot Harper said:

SL3-S is way overpriced. With half of the price you can get a SL2-S

 

My SL2S Reporter is having a holiday, what a great camera. A couple of second hand Reporter units here, are selling near the new prices. Not that they are selling though. 

[hoolyproductions]

On 2/24/2025 at 1:55 AM, Ken Abrahams said:

My "real world experience" is via street photography and Urban Abstract/landscapes. Basically walk around stuff rather than any Landscape work at the moment. The colour work is the same between cameras. I cant tell which is the best for skin tones but both these leicas have exceptional skin tones/colours. It might be the SL3S. The building images I love shooting both render the same beautiful details with amazing colours and which allow me to apply my own impressions in post editing. Recently I went back to the SL3 after working the SL3S since it's delivery. Well, when I did pick up the SL3 I just loved the larger files and the potency of the data when editing, real fantastic camera. I am only just starting to appreciate the SL3S snd will need more time. I love having the two cameras with same set up, re menu system and buttons as I use the two cameras. The SL3S can easily achieve the same outcomes as the SL3 it's just that the SL3 has a real kick with resolution. 

I've only had my SL3-S for a couple of weeks, so am still assessing. I've had the SL3 for a few months and I absolutely adore it.

I did a short landscape trip last weekend, with the 90-280mm on the SL3-S and also took the SL3 with 24-90mm. Very tentative first impressions, I found the rendering, tonality, malleability and colour very similar between the two cameras. The only real difference I could spot is what Ken Abrahams has described above - the extra resolution on the SL3 is very pleasing.

I haven't yet had a chance to try the SL3-S for low light music photography, but I'm going to a gig on Thursday night so will see how it goes. In terms of low light performance (I've now shot a handful of gigs with the SL3 at around ISO 12500-25000) I am astonished by the SL3 and cannot easily see a big difference compared to my SL2-S (my main camera for the last 4 years). I am still playing with this but am not sure that low light is anymore a strong enough reason to go for the -S variant (ok, you can get 'useable' files at ISO 50,0000 but they don't look very satisfying by my standards). So I am interested to test this further - and to see if the eye detect autofocus in low light is quicker than the SL3 - this could still be a reason to prefer the SL3-S for music (and other 'people') photography. From what Ken has posted above on SL3-S AF performance this sounds encouraging, but I wonder if it still applies in very low light. 

 

[Elliot Harper]

3 hours ago, LD_50 said:

What’s the point of posting this on a thread asking for a comparison between SL3 and SL3-S?

The point is SL3-S is not worth the price, comparing to any SL cameras

[LD_50]

10 minutes ago, Elliot Harper said:

The point is SL3-S is not worth the price, comparing to any SL cameras

Pointless, got it. 

[LeicaRFan]

Zitat

Ich habe fast alle SL3-Bewertungen gelesen (einige davon wirklich toll! ) Ich konnte und auch hohe Iso-Vergleiche sehen... aber viele der hohen ISO-Sachen sind mehr Bücherregale, also wäre ich sehr dankbar für mehr reale Welterfahrung in Bezug auf:

1) Wie vergleicht sich der SL3-S in der Farbe - ist es fast gleich wie SL3?

2) führt das gute High-Iso-Lärmverhalten zu einem alltäglichen Vorteil in Bezug auf die Möglichkeit, mehr Raum zu erhalten, um Schatten anzupassen, ohne Farbe zu verlieren oder zu viel Lärm zu bekommen

 

 

 

Hello tom0511,

I swapped my SL3 for an SL3s about 2 weeks ago. I've had the SL3 since it came out. It's a great camera with, in my opinion, outstanding image quality.

I bought it to go with my SL2, expecting the AF to have taken a significant step forward. In my opinion, this was not the case. The quality differences to the SL2 are visible, but in practice they are too small. I photograph a lot of wildlife and nature. 

That's why I borrowed the SL3s from my dealer for a weekend to test them. The AF is, in my opinion, noticeably better than the other SL models. Plus the faster frame rate and a faster EVF. With the SL3, it was always stuttering a lot at 5FPS and AFC. 

After 2 sleepless nights, I decided to switch because the SL3s gives me more options for my photography. If the 24 MP isn't enough for landscapes, I can still use the SL2, which I kept (my wife uses it now). But SL3 and SL3s were just too much for me. 

Best regards

Christian

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Elliot Harper said:

The point is SL3-S is not worth the price, comparing to any SL cameras

That was the point of comparing the price of a discontinued camera, which is NLA at most stores, with its replacement? 

Every camera model goes through that cycle when a replacement comes along. Aren't you just trying to say that buying old-stock, or used, is cheaper?

[CptSlevin]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

That was the point of comparing the price of a discontinued camera, which is NLA at most stores, with its replacement? 

Every camera model goes through that cycle when a replacement comes along. Aren't you just trying to say that buying old-stock, or used, is cheaper?

He is saying that SL3S doesn’t hold its” asking price value at all and it’s not new model cycle.

A lot of M / Q cameras hold value very well, but not the SL3S, as it’s DOA with outdated specs and inflated price with little to no improvements over SL2S

[吉拉德]

7 hours ago, Elliot Harper said:

The point is SL3-S is not worth the price, comparing to any SL cameras

Well, it depends of your needs. I just sold my SL2S for a SL3S. Tilt screen, helps a lot with low angle shooting, handheld multi-shot, better AF. 

[Ken Abrahams]

I am not so interested in my cameras holding their value for upgrading but understand that for those juggling assets in order to routinely upgrade is common financial sense.

I should have sold my 601 a few years ago and for that matter the SL2 as well. The SL2 was new (to me) in April 23. At the time I wanted the SL2S but all they could supply at that time was the SL2 and lens deal. It wasn't what I wanted but with a very considerate discount (thanks to Leica) I took the camera. Later I purchased the SL2S Reporter model and I was very happy. At the time my health was in question with Palliative Oncologists presenting my limited longevity. Theoretically I shouldn't be around to enjoy my cameras, here now. In fact the oncologist just rang me (as I was writing this) to go over my two year roller coaster ride and mentioning a longer prognosis now. Crazy times for me back then which made buying of equipment in my case, most urgent.  Anyway the SL2 hasn't had much work and selling now would mean a huge depreciation so I decided not to sell. 

I am much happier with two cameras of the same design, each unit with its own potential and including the old SL2S which can shoot up to 1/16000 sec in A mode where the SL3 series cannot. The SL3S has so much going for it especially with what has been written above regarding tracking, speed, multishot and low light high iso etc.

When the SL2S came out I remember the discussions about whether to get one or was the SL2 better, one or the other. Leica presented us with two options, two "babies" and to choose one meant missing out the other. Leica accidentally (or on purpose) set the scene so that customers would potentially buy the two camera options. With a new but still not quite effective focus tracking system the SL2S was a let down for many at the time but it had other qualities which made it a very desirable unit even to this day. 

Ken 

 

 

 

[hoolyproductions]

I'm 'loving' how these various discussions on the SL camera and their specific merits are getting 'bombed' by invididuals who simply state something along the lines that the SLx "is an overpriced disappointment'. Very helpful, thanks for your contribution, I am much better informed now  I guess it could be worse, but it is a little frustrating/ignorant that people seem to think how they assess a camera's merits and values must apply to others also - and in some cases very experienced photographers who are producing wonderful work (I am not referring to myself here)

Personally I am blown away by the SL3, I can't think of much more I would ask in a camera. Previously I felt that way about the SL2-S but the various additions/changes in the SL3 line have been more than enough to seduce me. I've had it since October and am still constantly yearning for opportunities to go out and shoot with it. I'm also very glad to have the SL3-S but have not used it long enough to draw any conclusions yet.

 

 

Edited February 26 by hoolyproductions

[MediaFotografie]

would also like to contribute to this interesting question. I've been using the SL system since its launch in November 2015 and was happy with the SL3 a year ago. 

Nevertheless, for my purposes the SL3-S has completely replaced the SL3, for me it is the much more skilful, faster, more modern camera - except for really very large prints.

The SL3-S offers me
- much better AF - especially AFc 
- AFc with up to 30fps with AF tracking
- better high-ISO (but the SL3 is already good in this respect)
- MultiShot
- CAI
- Use of SSD as storage medium
- and I like the black Leica lettering much better 🙂

Personally, I believe that the SL3-S is the most misunderstood Leica - precisely because ‘again only 24MP’; I was sceptical myself, but that has completely subsided, just as the dust is settling on the SL3

 

thomas

 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tom0511]

Thomas,

what I have not understood yet: Is the AF performance only better in C-AF or is it also snappier in S-AF, for example in darker light or more difficult subjects?