SL3-S AF-C & Tracking Accuracy - Noticeably Better Than The SL3?

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

54 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

I’ve seen this claim repeated on the forum multiple times, that SL3 and SL3-S only use CDAF in AFs. I’ve also typically seen it mentioned that Leica does not and will not specify how/when CDAF and PDAF are implemented.

Is there a source for this claim? Is there some experimental evidence that indicates PDAF is not used in AFs?

that is a shortcoming of Leica. Don't know if Panasonic is any better at this.

But the AFs perform the same on SL2 and SL3, it is good for most uses, but it fails the same way when the subject or lighting is not ideal.

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

15 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

that is a shortcoming of Leica. Don't know if Panasonic is any better at this.

But the AFs perform the same on SL2 and SL3, it is good for most uses, but it fails the same way when the subject or lighting is not ideal.

My question still stands. Is there a source for the claim that AFs on SL3 and SL3-S does not use PDAF? 

If the evidence is just anecdotal observation that AF speed seems similar, that should probably be mentioned when the claim is made. 

[jaapv]

AFAIK both S5iiand SL3S have PDAF and only use CDAF additionally for precision   For the S5ii I am certain. 

[LocalHero1953]

42 minutes ago, jaapv said:

AFAIK both S5iiand SL3S have PDAF and only use CDAF additionally for precision   For the S5ii I am certain. 

And the source of this info?

@LD_50 is right - there are so many statements like this circulating on the forum that they become unquestioned 'fact'. It would be good to have a few authoritative sources. 

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, LD_50 said:

My question still stands. Is there a source for the claim that AFs on SL3 and SL3-S does not use PDAF? 

If the evidence is just anecdotal observation that AF speed seems similar, that should probably be mentioned when the claim is made. 

Yeah, wouldn't that be nice if Leica actually opened that black box about AF? Unfortunately all marketing and not insights.

AF was my first reason to get the SL3. I have been shooting it for 1 year, and 6 years the SL2. If I knew what I know now I would not have updated the camera to SL3 so quickly as most of what I do is in AFs

nobody has done a report, but the Leica store in Miami was mentioned a few times in the video, and later came to the same conclusion.

 

[BernardC]

46 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

Yeah, wouldn't that be nice if Leica actually opened that black box about AF?

Is there any brand that does?

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Is there any brand that does?

how many other brands disappoint in AF performance?

how many years is contrast AF just been ok?

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

And the source of this info?

@LD_50 is right - there are so many statements like this circulating on the forum that they become unquestioned 'fact'. It would be good to have a few authoritative sources. 

I don't recall where. It was a (semi)official statement and not on the forum, that I do remember.

A mini-search on DDG reveals this on Peta-Pixel. Apparently "the company says" 

Quote

The sensor finally introduces phase detection (PDAF) which combines with Leica’s depth mapping[*] and contrast recognition [**] to produce a far superior autofocus system than Leica has previously featured in its SL series. The company says its combination of PDAF, object detection, and contrast detection makes the SL3 capable of creating super-sharp photos even in dim light, and the intelligent subject recognition allows humans to stay in focus even in dynamically changing scenes.

[*] = DFD  [**] = CDAF

 

 

[BernardC]

16 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

how many other brands disappoint in AF performance?

how many years is contrast AF just been ok?

The idea that the SL3 only uses CDAF, even though Leica says otherwise, has no attributed source. It's pointless talking about it as-if it were true. What is more likely is that they use PDAF at certain times, and CDAF at other times, using a complex algorithm. I see no reason why Leica should publish that algorithm (not that you could make heads or tails of it without a deep dive into the whole code base).

As for who else disappoints: every consumer-level camera, and every medium format camera. For video it's everybody except Lumix.

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, BernardC said:

The idea that the SL3 only uses CDAF, even though Leica says otherwise, has no attributed source. It's pointless talking about it as-if it were true. What is more likely is that they use PDAF at certain times, and CDAF at other times, using a complex algorithm. I see no reason why Leica should publish that algorithm (not that you could make heads or tails of it without a deep dive into the whole code base).

As for who else disappoints: every consumer-level camera, and every medium format camera. For video it's everybody except Lumix.

Well, given that it is more than likely that Leica draws heavily on Panasonic's AF expertise, and the fact that Panasonic made a big deal of introducing additional PDAF on the S5ii, chances are that the S3 did not have PDAF yet, but only CDAF+DFD, and that the SL3S basically uses the newer Panasonic system. 

[BernardC]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

chances are that the S3 did not have PDAF yet, but only CDAF+DFD, and that the SL3S basically uses the newer Panasonic system. 

Leica's specifications say that it uses "phase detection (PDAF), depth mapping (Object Detection AF), and contrast recognition (Contrast Detection AF)".

[LeicaRFan]

Hello everyone,

I switched from the SL3 to the SL3s a month ago. I've had the SL3 since March 24 and the SL2 since Dec 19. I bought the SL3 in the hope that the AF would be better than in the SL2. In some cases, in my opinion, it is. At least in AFc. The animal detection also offers some advantages in beta mode. But the 5FPS is really low for wildlife or similar. At 9-10 it might look a bit different. But the biggest disadvantage for me was the slow EVF at 5 FPS/AFc. You can't track moving subjects this way. In addition, the slow readout time of the sensor makes for blurred subjects (wingtips of flying birds, despite the fast shutter speed).
I borrowed the SL3s for a long weekend. Then I made the compromise and swapped 60 M for 24 M.
The gain for me :
1. up to 30 FPS/AFc, I've already managed some pictures with it that wouldn't have been possible with 5 FPS.
2. in my opinion, the AFc is faster and more accurate than with the SL3
3. the animal detection is better and will hopefully no longer be beta at some point!
4. the file size
5. multishot for landscape and similar also well with hand held.
6. EFV much faster, good for tracking subjects.
7. considerably less rolling shutter.

The disadvantage:
Only 24 M, you can no longer crop as much as with 60 M, the image quality was already top with the SL3.

But for me the SL3s is the better choice, having both was too much money for me, I'd rather have another good lens at some point.

This is my personal opinion and experience.

 

Best regards Christian

 

[Dr. G]

I know this is not an apples to apples comparison, but what about the S1r ii for stills?  AF is apparently much better than the SL3-S and on par with Sony at this point.  I currently use the APO Summcron-SLs (21/35/75) with the SL3 and am thinking that for more candid shooting it could be a good choice.  

Edited March 13 by Dr. G

[davidmknoble]

Something I don’t see mentioned here is the focus points.  The SL3 has about 300 (315?) focus points (pixels on the sensor) and the SL3-S about 775 (779?).  I don’t know if the processor will focus any ‘faster’ ie latency from pushing the shutter to determine focus is complete, but it would seem the accuracy of the focus point would be much better.  So, accuracy over speed, and in some cases less hunting, so faster focus achieved.

So, where the SL2 series and the SL3 might say they are in focus, but miss it, the SL3-S might hit the focus.  I have seen the spec differences in fast shooting with higher color results, which makes sense with 24mp.  I have the Sl2-S but I also don’t use my SL system for really fast wildlife with the hope of getting it spot on.

I do, however, use it for landscape, and the SL2 and Sl2-S were incredibly accurate when shooting in Antarctica (penguins, whales and seals).  My hit rate was over 90%.  I also have very close Leica friends who prefer Sony and the like for Safari work over Leica.

Finally, I would also say that I use the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 with the SL3 and it focuses really well.  So, I’d agree more current lenses with focusing systems intended for fast focus, and more open f/stops (more light) would likely focus more accurately on the SL3-S.

[Ken Abrahams]

One needs to test these things out for themselves and listen to people who already have tested it such as reviewers, rather than believe marketing copy. I remember buying the SL2S with the knowledge that the AF was much quicker and more accurate than the SL2. It kind of was (quicker) however nothing towards what I expected from a modern camera developer. There were other aspects of the SL2S which I really liked (and still do) so I guess a slightly improved Auto focus could be accepted rather than alternatives. The thing was however, I believed the reports and marketing hype and was swept up in that. So now I can say that the SL3S is a lot quicker to Leica's previous models however it's no silver bullet for good AF and tracking technology. I respect those who ask the hard questions and look for factual technical information, not satisfied with qualitative data and or Leica hype in its various forms. 

Sometimes the camera wants to track a subject on the right of frame and no matter how hard I press left on the joystick the subject on the right maintains the little green tracking frame. The subject in this image was beautifully tracked and three out of four frames in continuous mode are sharp. (AFC with Eye and body detect). I think by chance the person on the right is also reasonably sharp and within the depth of field/focus at f2.  (SL3 with Summicron SL 50 Asph.) A great lens to grab quick shots on the streets, focusses fast and tracks very well, mostly. The Apo Summicron SL 35 lens isn't as quick but not far off this 50 Asph lens for speed. I need to be fast for Street Photography however over 40 years I never thought I would ever use autofocus lenses for the job. I certainly don't expect the AF function and lens of any camera to be spot on every time for street work. I am still experimenting and developing my techniques with the auto focus for street photography, on both SL3 and SL3S. Once I get the best results possible then techniques can be applied to other types of moving subjects.   

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!

[tom0511]

I am quite undecided. With the information about the SL3-S from reviewers and actual users it looks to me, that:

- the SL3-S C-AF is clearly improved over the SL3 but still a big gap compared to a Canon or Sony Sports camera, so I personally will keep my Canon for now for faster sports; It is not just AF but the fact (confirmed by 2 reviewers) than when shooting burst the SL3-S will not show life view in the viewfinder but allways the last image taken, sounds like you look at a fast slide show (correct me if I am wrong?)

- for me the question is now more SL3 vs SL3-S, how much do I gain with a SL3-s over SL3 for everything except faster sports shooting? I must say though, that for occasional sports shooting I found the sl3 to be a clear improvement in C-AF over SL2 series bodies....I am still curious and try to resist the SL3-S for now and just use my SL3.

[jaapv]

Why don’t you just rent one and try it out for yourself instead of seeking justification in the opinion of others? 

[tom0511]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Why don’t you just rent one and try it out for yourself instead of seeking justification in the opinion of others? 

yes, I could do that, but renting for a certain period is not cheap, and I think forums like here are a good possibility for chatting about such questions.

But certainly you are correct, probably the best way to find out what works good.

 

Edited March 19 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

yes, I could do that, but renting for a certain period is not cheap, and I think forums like here are a good possibility for chatting about such questions.

But certainly you are correct, probably the best way to find out what works good.

 

Only you can judge whether a camera fits your needs. For instance, is the AF good enough for you despite not being perfect or even unacceptable for some.  I may be biased, but I don't mind working within the limits of a system, my main concern is the camera taking over my creativity. 

[tom0511]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Only you can judge whether a camera fits your needs. For instance, is the AF good enough for you despite not being perfect or even unacceptable for some.  I may be biased, but I don't mind working within the limits of a system, my main concern is the camera taking over my creativity. 

A real time viewfinder and a reliable AF don't hurt my creativity, they even help to focus my mind on the subject and the action.

Anyways, for 90% of my photography the SL3 AF and viewfinder works quite fine.