Upgrade from the SL2-s to the SL3-s???

[jimleicam3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been using my SL2-s for a few years now with no problems.  Use a combo of 21 mm and 50 mm M lenses, and have added the 24-70- and the 100-400.  I also have the non APO 35 mm SL lens.

So I am wondering if anyone has traded for the new SL3-s?  I like that it is slightly smaller and lighter than the SL2-s.

Thanks

[Chris Nebard]

Not me. I think I’ll hold on to my SL2-s for a few years yet. The upgrades, additional wheel on the top plate, phase detect AF etc etc don’t appeal enough to make me even consider it. The simplicity of the SL2-S, its lovely sensor and low light capability are just a few reasons why - for me.

Also, I’m not the type who always wants the latest version. I think one of the great things about Leica is that they’re such a premium item the latest tech is not always the crucial factor - you’re expected to keep them for years. They used to be seen as a camera for life. If the latest tech were my driver, I’d be buying a different brand anyway. I’m looking for quality, simplicity, great lenses. I do need to bond with, and get to know, my cameras. And I definitely have bonded with the SL2-S. Don’t get me wrong, I’m still lusting after (even more) L Mount and M lenses for it - but neither they, nor an SL3/S, are going to up my game if I’m honest with myself. 

There you go, I’ve talked myself into keeping my SL2-S for years to come. My wife will be delighted. Now, if Leica were to bring out a photo only SL, without video, slightly more compact, and a set of small aperture-ringed primes based on (for example) the Sigma DG DN I Contemporaries, then I might well start drooling and things could change! 😂😂

Each to their own. Whatever you do - enjoy it! 

Edited April 22 by Chris Nebard

[BernardC]

10 hours ago, jimleicam3 said:

So I am wondering if anyone has traded for the new SL3-s?  I like that it is slightly smaller and lighter than the SL2-s.

The size difference is very slight. Some people prefer the old shape, it probably depends on the shape of your hands.

The SL3-s's main differences are faster AF, a flip screen, higher burst rates, more video options, and a slightly different shape. There's no reason to upgrade if you don't find these objectionable with the SL2-s.

[dynaerik]

I have the SL2-S and I would rather spend the money on lenses. Maybe some old M lenses or go for one of the SL APO beauties

[Pierre68]

I did trade my SL2-S reporter for the new SL3-S. For better AF and low light performance. And I just discovered the video function that I never used on the SL2-S, and I like and use it a lot now. Smaller boy is a plus too.

[Scelo45]

I traded the SL2-S for the the SL3-S. I love the better features of the SL2-S, but for me the tilt screen was the main reason. 

The new pixelshift (multi-shot) handheld is not really useable very well, this feature of the SL3-S is not really a reason to buy it.

If I had a new lens in mind I would spend the money on the lens instead. The SL2-S is still good enough and the upgrade not worth it (if it is not about the tilt screen).

[Elliot Harper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I resisted the temptation of upgrading sl2-s to sl3-s in the beginning for about a couple of months.

I wouldn't have done it if it were not because of a good price I got. The difference isn't really meaningful to me at all. But with the price I got, I just did it. Nothing to lose.

Buying anything like this kind price, I have a 1-2 months cooling period rule. If I still want it after 2 months then I buy it.

For the upgrading to sl3-s, I didn't want it anymore one month after it was introduced. But a very attractive price came up for both my old sl2-s and the new sl3-s, so I took it.

Edited April 22 by Elliot Harper

[martin]

I checked one in a local store, it's not much different, test shots looks similar, the flipping screen is nice to have but not really worth the money. Additional 2k7 € is too much for that gimmick 😎

I also prefere the buttons at the left side of the screen with the old 2-s

 

[Markey]

My SL2S is rather battered and worn so I wouldn`t get a lot for it.

I would appreciate the better AF of the new model but not for the extra that I`d have to fork out so I`m sticking with what I have. 

[archive_all]

I'm new to the SL2-S but also use M cameras, actually as my only cameras for over a decade. The only interest I have is whether I should go with or have gotten a high res version like the SL2 or SL3 but for reasons like simply having a 24mm lens and then switching to APSC mode so it doubles as sort of a 35mm FOV. I think for single shots which is all I do the autofocus is good already and aside from weight I'm not sure about the thicker new camera bodies. I may be in the minority but I don't like the flip screen, I'd tolerate it sticking out making the camera thicker but I see it as a negative. I think the SL2-S and SL3-S are essentially the same in my use case and the only benefit is the slightly lighter weight.

[V23]

I had my SL2-S for a while, about six month ago I purchased  SL3. Sold my LS2-S recently and got a SL3-S, makes sense, same body that shares leather halve case, L bracket and same user factor. That left hand side wheel does not get any use by me. Happy with both cameras.

Edited April 23 by V23

[jaapv]

For me there is no compelling reason to spend a not inconsiderable number of Euros for an upgrade that addresses nothing that I need. 

[Fleabag]

 

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

For me there is no compelling reason to spend a not inconsiderable number of Euros for an upgrade that addresses nothing that I need. 

This. The upgrade from the SL2-S to the SL3-S, even when selling the SL2-S, would cost more than I paid for the SL2-S. Nope.

[LocalHero1953]

For the cost of changing from SL2-S to SL3-S (a minimum of £2k) I could get a Panasonic S5iix.......a Sigma BF.....or a suite of used Sigma DP Merrills........now there's an idea......!

What would you buy for around £2k instead of upgrading from SL2-S to SL3-S?

[Malabito]

You are not really gaining much by going to the SL3s. The flippy screen is, I would say, the biggest improvement.

Yes, autofocus is better, but still mediocre compared to other brands. You still won't be able to shoot sports with it, nor in low light with continuous autofocus. Software remains a joke. You wont be able to select an area of interest for face detect nor lock a face when composing a frame with many faces. It still jumps from face to face.  In video, the improvement is bigger, given the video autofocus of the sl2s was none existent.

If you have the money, go ahead; having the newest toys is always more fun, but don't expect any significant improvement.

[tom0511]

I went from SL2 and SL2-s to just the SL3.

Its not a major advantage but the SL3 has better noise behaviour than SL2, and its good enogh for me. So with the SL3 I have one camer with good high ISO (yes, SL2-S and SL3-S are still a bit better in this regard) AND high resolution (if I want to use it).

In regards of body ergonomics I prefered the slightly larger size of SL2/SL2s for my hands, but I go used to SL3 body as well.

The C-AF went from "not really usable" in SL2(s) bodies to "usable but not great" for sports but not Canon /Nikon /Sony like. I cant find a bit difference in S-AF which was llready good in the SL2-series.

[jaapv]

Flippy screen - I had a couple of Sonys with a floppy screen, hardly ever used it. Now an articulated screen - that is useful, you can turn it in to make a camera "without" LCD and it is handy when using the camera on a bean bag, or for video. 

[Crem]

On 4/21/2025 at 8:44 PM, jimleicam3 said:

I have been using my SL2-s for a few years now with no problems.  Use a combo of 21 mm and 50 mm M lenses, and have added the 24-70- and the 100-400.  I also have the non APO 35 mm SL lens.

So I am wondering if anyone has traded for the new SL3-s?  I like that it is slightly smaller and lighter than the SL2-s.

Thanks

I pre-ordered a SL3-S with plans to trade in my SL2-S, but in the end decided not to do it. The SL3-S is definitely better than SL2-S, but not so much so that it's worth the upgrade for my needs. The used prices on SL2-S models are what they are and dealers can only offer so much for trade in. On top of this, the auto focus on the SL3-S is improved, but overall it is not Sony/Canon level. So for auto focus I use my Sony and for everything else I use Leica. Personally I'd like the smaller and lighter body of the SL3-S, but I dislike how it requires two different types of media to run in backup storage mode. I much prefer the Sony solution of a slot that can take two different types of cards.

[Markey]

Useful to read comments comparing the AF performance.

If there was a marked improvement over the SL2s I`d happily take the financial hit but that appears not to be the case. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Pierre68]

6 hours ago, Malabito said:

You are not really gaining much by going to the SL3s. The flippy screen is, I would say, the biggest improvement.

Yes, autofocus is better, but still mediocre compared to other brands. You still won't be able to shoot sports with it, nor in low light with continuous autofocus. Software remains a joke. You wont be able to select an area of interest for face detect nor lock a face when composing a frame with many faces. It still jumps from face to face.  In video, the improvement is bigger, given the video autofocus of the sl2s was none existent.

If you have the money, go ahead; having the newest toys is always more fun, but don't expect any significant improvement.

Question: do you own an SL3-S?