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

[Crem]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

18 hours ago, jiggyb21 said:

It's proving tough to find a definitive answer to this question. I'm beginning to think the AF isn't that improved or people would be saying so. 

I too struggled to get this answer. Best thing you can do is go try one. I can sum it up as it depends on your expectations, what AF modes you use, what lenses you use, and what other systems you have used. The SL3-S is the best AF camera Leica has ever made. Major improvement over the SL2-S, but I still think the competition (Sony, Canon, and Nikon) is significantly better for any sort of fast moving sports/action/kids. Especially if you pair those bodies with lenses that are top AF performers. I decided to keep my SL2-S and Sony instead of selling both and getting a SL3-S. My SL2-S is mostly for fast M lenses with my bad eyes, the Sony for anything moving around unpredictably, and M for everything else.

[Advertisement]

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

[roma]

4 hours ago, Ken Abrahams said:

It’s a beautiful sound especially with a burst of continuous. 😀 Electronic shutter is silent. Program Fn if that’s a function you use often. I find there are not enough programable buttons but you find out which ones you need the most after some time working the camera  
ken 

Thank you for your input, Ken!

Roman

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, Ken Abrahams said:

The SL2S gives the SL3/3S cameras a run for their money with regards to grain at high iso. And the SL2S can use 1/16000 sec exposure in A mode where the SL3/3S cannot irrespective of Leica's technical literature for those cameras. Where do I have the time to shoot with all three cameras? I take at least two cameras with lenses attached plus another lens in the bag out for excursions on the street. I have two M adapters so I can shoot both with M lenses if I so choose to use them however usually I will take an SL lens to maximise my usage of AF functions as that is the way one gets to select the best settings for fast auto focus work on the street. The combination of SL3S and the SL Summicron Asph is the best for fast AF Tracking and Eye/face and Body detection. I can literally point the camera at something near and it grabs focus immediately as I am already pushing the shutter action. I tend to try the ridiculous with AF to see "what its got" Some shots where I turn after passing a subject and hit the shutter have miraculously been spot on much to my incredulous amazeballs.      

Agree on the Summicron SL (or the equivalent Sigma) In my experience the Sigma 70-200 is as good, which is amazing for the type of lens. 

[Ken Abrahams]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Agree on the Summicron SL (or the equivalent Sigma) In my experience the Sigma 70-200 is as good, which is amazing for the type of lens. 

Now that is amazing. Hard to believe really through all that glass but these are the somewhat quiet miracles going on right before our eyes. I bet it’s light as a feather, relatively? 

[jaapv]

They used two AF motors for the purpose. No, not lightweight - it is an OK weight lens - which is in itself amazing for a 2.8 70-200-, and the image quality rivals the 90-280. I carry it as a standard lens with the lightweight Sigma 35/2.8. A powerful combo. 

[Jeff S]

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

They used two AF motors for the purpose. No, not lightweight - it is an OK weight lens - which is in itself amazing for a 2.8 70-200-, and the image quality rivals the 90-280. I carry it as a standard lens with the lightweight Sigma 35/2.8. A powerful combo. 

Specifically, the 90-280 is roughly 4lb (9.3 inch), while the 70-200 is 3lb (8.1 inch) and a bit narrower, both with internal zoom and focus.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But the 90-280 is 2.8-4.0 and the Sigma is 2.8 constant aperture. Image quality wide open is comparable. 

[Jeff S]

Yup

[jaapv]

And the price is not comparable 😌

[Jeff S]

I’m not defending either, or trying to compare, just clarifying comment regarding size/weight, rather than just “light as a feather” or “OK weight.”

[ALScott]

I have both the SL3 and SL3-S.  I have been shooting them side by side at grandson’s youth baseball games for several games now.  Here are some of my thoughts.

- Glad I got the SL3-S over SL2-S for the UI matching the SL3

- SL3-S EVF is noticeably better than the SL3 in AFc which is making the SL3 even more irritating in that one regard.  To my eye there is no change in EVF from AFs to AFc on the SL3-S

- I have shot several games starting at 5PM and finishing after dark.  Both perform excellently in low light of field lights.  

- The focus of the SL3-S is definitely faster than the SL3.  On base runners, quick shot of fielding the ball, whatever.  It is faster.  The SL3 is capable of grabbing the same shots but with less certainty in my mind.  Both have missed but I have shot a ton of sports in my life and there have always been, and will continue to be, missed shots and many of those are due to me, not any gear.

- The focus on the SL3-S seems stickier to the subject.  A pitcher for example.  With the SL3 you might get an odd/weird focus bounce off the pitcher during their movement but the SL3-S has not done that once.  Once on their torso/face from straight on or from the side, it stays.  I am only using field and AFc no tracking or eye/face detection.  Next few games I plan to try some combo of the other focus modes.

- The freedom of being able to shoot a little more loosely for action and crop in more later on the SL3 is a nice option to have.  I can crop in on the SL3-S, of course, but not as much due the sensor size difference.   Both of them clean up beautifully using LRc AI noise reduction alone and even better with Topaz if I need it with some of the low light/high ISO shots.  

- The color on both is beautiful.  I mean just beautiful and accurate to reality with very little editing.  That’s what I have come to love most about Leica.  I have sent pics to family and they have shared with their friends.  They all have commented on how “clear and pretty” the pics are.  “They are so much better than my phone.”  Hahahahaha.  I would hope so.

- If I had to only keep one body it would be the SL3 for the sensor alone.  I feel it gives me more freedom to crop and more file to work with if needed.  Plus, sports is a small portion of my shooting needs and I can easily get by with the SL3.  That said, I would hate, hate to give up the SL3-S.  For some reason it feels more like the workhorse of the two.  

I have been shooting with the Sigma 150-600 on the SL3 and the Sigma 70-200 on the SL3-S.  Shutter speed at 1/1000 in M mode, auto ISO.

- I use the SL3/150-600 for shots across the field at first base (I am at 3rd base) and outfield catches and it has done well with the focus on those.  I really only missed one and that was me just not getting to it quickly enough in the frame.  I use the SL3-S for all other infield action, fielding, running the bases and batting and it does a great job of keeping the focus.  Somehow the SL3-S is better and staying on the original subject of focus even if someone runs between the original subject and the camera, much, much better in fact.  I find the SL3 will almost always bounce off the original point of focus if someone crosses between subject and the camera.

Now, let me say that there are probably settings that could make everything work better.  I do have a Sports Profile set up on the SL3 that I am using and I believe all sensitivity options are at the max.  So that could be making it worse or better.  The SL3-S is being used out of the box.  I have not set up any profiles on the SL3-S other than some dial use/functions.

Bottom line.  For what I feel are the most demanding AF shots I use the SL3-S with confidence.  I do not have the same confidence in the SL3 in the same situation as I do with the SL3-S.  To me, the SL3-S feels much more care free focus, much easier to grab a fast shot in focus.  The SL3 requires more deliberate effort and thought for good AF which isn’t always bad.  They both have their pros and cons and each fill a unique spot in the SL lineup.  I won’t be getting rid of either for any other brand.

Edited April 8 by ALScott

[jaapv]

Thanks. Note however, that there is a noticeable difference in AF performance between the 150-600 and 70-200. The 70-200 is considerably faster and stickier than the 150-600. So to reach a final conclusion you must switch lenses and bodies. Having said that, the SL3S should outperform the SL3 anyhow. 

[ALScott]

23 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Thanks. Note however, that there is a noticeable difference in AF performance between the 150-600 and 70-200. The 70-200 is considerably faster and stickier than the 150-600. So to reach a final conclusion you must switch lenses and bodies. Having said that, the SL3S should outperform the SL3 anyhow. 

Thanks.  I wondered and will do.

[ALScott]

heUpdate to my post above.

I reversed the lenses on the bodies 150-600 on the SL3-S and 70-200 on SL3 this time.  I was shooting a baseball game again.  Shot both as I had before, 1/1000th and switched between shutter priority and manual depending on light and/or situation and auto ISO.  I noticed some difference between the 70-200 and 150-600 on the SL3-S.  I am sure there is some purely due to the physics of these lenses but it is not a hugely noticeable difference to me while shooting baseball.  Both performed very well on the SL3-S.  The 70-200 on the SL3 however, did lag behind the SL3-S in AF accuracy and stickiness.  Either lens on the SL3-S is as good as I will ever need ,I believe, for 75% or more of what I shoot and rarely missing.  The SL3 did miss more with the 70-200 than the SL3-S, far more hunting.  The best way I can think to describe it is that it just isn't as sure of itself and will pick a lot more to focus on that isn't necessarily the subject even though it was just on the subject.  SL3-S doesn't do this in this use case.  Next, I tested eye/face/body detection on AFc and it was really awesome with the SL3-S even on the 150-600.  It would stay on the first baseman when I chose him even with a runner and/or pitcher walking/moving in between me and the first baseman.  Eye/face detection was really awesome to me.  The SL3 with the 70-200 on the other hand would fight me and jump off a batter for example and would take a great deal of moving focus point off then back on to get it to stay on the batter.  It would stay on the batter and they jump to the catcher and absolutely would not pick up the batter again without significant readjustment.  On the SL3-S I found the boxes easy to move among potential subjects in the frame with the back button and have it grab the one I wanted with the shutter button half press or back button press and it would stay.  Eye/face detection also picked up fast action very well and I actually got some shots in focus that I have been missing in only AFc and Field.  If I put the SL3 on AFs and shot the batter that way it was perfect as it has been.  The SL3-S definitely provides more options that are accurate and fast.  Bottom line they both have their use cases, they were built as different cameras and they are.  However, you (the human) can make decisions about the setup of both or either and get excellent results.