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

[Elliot Harper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Pierre68 said:

Question: do you own an SL3-S?

I owned a SL2-S for a year or so and traded in for SL3-S last month. I think I am the most "qualified" person in this thread to speak about both cameras.

I agreed on most of the points here. The improvements are subtle and mostly superficial.

I like the ergonomics of SL3-S, slightly smaller and lighter, buttons locations, etc. I like the menu too because I am used to it as having owned Q3/43 for a few months too.

Performance wise, I didn't notice the AF difference too much, simply because a) I don't shoot AF-C, b) I don't shoot video, c) 50% of the I shoot manual M lenses.

But AF-S alone with face detect does improve even though it's not a lot. Contrast vs phase detection does make difference. But this kind of improvement wouldn't make me to trade-in.

I did trade-in only because I sold SL2-S at a very good price and bought SL3-S almost tax free price. So the cash outflow is almost negligible. 

I wouldn't have paid $2500+ to just upgrade though

[Advertisement]

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

[Malabito]

14 hours ago, Pierre68 said:

Question: do you own an SL3-S?

I was going to, but ended up not doing it. I was able to use the SL3s (for a limited time) and compare it to my SL2s. This was with the 35mm SL APO and a Panasonic 24mm f/1.8.

Honestly, if I could spare the money, I would have done it, but this is just because I like new cameras. But going with the SL3s would not have solved my main issue with the SL2s, which is continuous autofocus and face detection when you have multiple subjects, so I didn't go through with the change. I'd rather change my SL2s for a Nikon ZF/Z8, or wait for an SL4s.

I only do photos, so perhaps in video department the plus is greater, but i don't  know much about video.

[jaapv]

17 hours ago, Elliot Harper said:

I owned a SL2-S for a year or so and traded in for SL3-S last month. I think I am the most "qualified" person in this thread to speak about both cameras.

I agreed on most of the points here. The improvements are subtle and mostly superficial.

I like the ergonomics of SL3-S, slightly smaller and lighter, buttons locations, etc. I like the menu too because I am used to it as having owned Q3/43 for a few months too.

Performance wise, I didn't notice the AF difference too much, simply because a) I don't shoot AF-C, b) I don't shoot video, c) 50% of the I shoot manual M lenses.

But AF-S alone with face detect does improve even though it's not a lot. Contrast vs phase detection does make difference. But this kind of improvement wouldn't make me to trade-in.

I did trade-in only because I sold SL2-S at a very good price and bought SL3-S almost tax free price. So the cash outflow is almost negligible. 

I wouldn't have paid $2500+ to just upgrade though

Phase detect is faster but contrast detect more precise, reason why Leica uses a hybrid system that switches from phase to contrast during focusing. That will always be behind phase detection systems that other brands use for pure speed, but more accurate. 
https://petapixel.com/2024/03/07/leicas-new-sl3-has-phase-detect-af-and-60-megapixel-sensor/

 

[Pierre68]

On 4/24/2025 at 11:28 AM, Malabito said:

I was going to, but ended up not doing it. I was able to use the SL3s (for a limited time) and compare it to my SL2s. This was with the 35mm SL APO and a Panasonic 24mm f/1.8.

Honestly, if I could spare the money, I would have done it, but this is just because I like new cameras. But going with the SL3s would not have solved my main issue with the SL2s, which is continuous autofocus and face detection when you have multiple subjects, so I didn't go through with the change. I'd rather change my SL2s for a Nikon ZF/Z8, or wait for an SL4s.

I only do photos, so perhaps in video department the plus is greater, but i don't  know much about video.

I can tell you that for horse races the SL3-S is far superior to the SL2-S and to the SL3 too. You just have to set the AF setting to your liking and save them to user profile...

 

[Malabito]

9 hours ago, Pierre68 said:

I can tell you that for horse races the SL3-S is far superior to the SL2-S and to the SL3 too. You just have to set the AF setting to your liking and save them to user profile...

 

You can shoot horse races with the SL2s as well. It's not focus demanding, subjects are relatively far and move in a non-erratic manner, plus the light tends to be good.

I am not saying that the SL3s is not an improvement over the SL2s, it is, of course, in regards to autofocus. I am just saying that the autofocus is still mediocre compared to the competition and the improvement it's not big enough to solve the main issues I have with the SL2s.

[TealWayFilms]

I use my SL2-S for both photo and video when traveling. I have a nice set of lenses, SL and M that work well with the camera. 

I just bought a Q3-43 and am having a ton of fun. It is way lighter than the SL and great for anything that pops up on a walk. Weather sealing makes it a true carry all the time camera.

The SL2-S is really a great tool when I really need to capture the image or video, but the Q is just easy to carry around when I don't want to travel with a backpack full of stuff.

I have no interest in the SL3-S.

[zupfgeiger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 22.4.2025 um 17:54 schrieb 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.

Is the low light performance of the successor model even better than that of the SL2-S?

[jaapv]

Marginally.  

[zupfgeiger]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Marginally.  

Yes, I think so too. At least for my purposes the upgrade doesn't make much sense. I decided to purchase an SL2-S together with a 50mm SL asph lens a short while ago. I am happy with the results. Also with my m lenses pics are very nice on the SL2-S. The colours  are gorgeous. 

[jaapv]

If usable ISO 100.000 ( with a spot of Topaz) is not enough for your purpose I wonder what is…Black cats in a coal cellar come to mind. 

[Chris Nebard]

On 5/2/2025 at 8:18 AM, Malabito said:

You can shoot horse races with the SL2s as well. It's not focus demanding, subjects are relatively far and move in a non-erratic manner, plus the light tends to be good.

I am not saying that the SL3s is not an improvement over the SL2s, it is, of course, in regards to autofocus. I am just saying that the autofocus is still mediocre compared to the competition and the improvement it's not big enough to solve the main issues I have with the SL2s.

Absolutely you can.

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!

[jaapv]

Very nice shot. But it is easy on a rangefinder as well 😉 Prefocus. 

[zupfgeiger]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Marginally.  

I was in the market for the SL2-S when its price dropped considerably. Mine was a bargain compared to the SL3-3. 

[jaapv]

The SL2S is a fantastic camera - most if not all of the critique comes from different perceptions of the functions of the camera or indeed any tool.
One school will wish for a camera to make all photographic functions invisible background items that will work faultlessly without user input, the second school will look for a camera that provides tools to be controlled by photographer within their limits to arrive at an optimal result. I would say that Leica cameras provide for the second school of thought. 
 

[zupfgeiger]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

The SL2S is a fantastic camera - most if not all of the critique comes from different perceptions of the functions of the camera or indeed any tool.
One school will wish for a camera to make all photographic functions invisible background items that will work faultlessly without user input, the second school will look for a camera that provides tools to be controlled by photographer within their limits to arrive at an optimal result. I would say that Leica cameras provide for the second school of thought. 
 

Thruth is, it has some bugs and hiccups, although bought new from a dealer. Gone after restarting. Nonetheless absolutely worth the purchase. It‘s not like those computers with a lens in front.

[Crem]

On 5/2/2025 at 12:18 AM, Malabito said:

You can shoot horse races with the SL2s as well. It's not focus demanding, subjects are relatively far and move in a non-erratic manner, plus the light tends to be good.

I am not saying that the SL3s is not an improvement over the SL2s, it is, of course, in regards to autofocus. I am just saying that the autofocus is still mediocre compared to the competition and the improvement it's not big enough to solve the main issues I have with the SL2s.

It’s the whole AF experience that is mediocre compared to the competition. Things Sony does well:

1. You can easily setup dual back button focus on Sony. One for object tracking. One for eye AF. It works really well when there are multiple subjects in the frame and you want to work fast. You can even assign one of these to a button on the lens which can be nice.

2. Sony has always on depth of field without having to press a button like on the SL2-S (didn’t test this on the SL3-S). 

3. All of the lenses have very fast and silent linear motors. Hit rate on randomly moving subjects with eye AF is shockingly good. Including all the top end primes.

4. Very little messing with settings. Just put it in AFC tracking and take photos (moving or still life). I never use AFS. I spend little time thinking about the AF and more thinking about the composition.  

5. Batteries last a long time even with all these features enabled.

All these features make it a difficult to pick the SL3-S if AF is your top priority when deciding what to buy. I stuck with my SL2-S for M lenses because nothing comes close to it. I will someday upgrade to a very lightly used SL3-S when prices inevitably come way down, but it won’t be for the AF improvements. 

Edited May 3 by Crem

[jaapv]

Which proves exactly the point about expectations from tools that I made. If those Sony features are of importance to a photographer he will be much happier with a Sony. If other aspects  (Leica users know what they are) prevail, the choice for Leica is clear.

Proclaiming one or the other superior is a personal choice, not a fact. 

[Chris Nebard]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

Very nice shot. But it is easy on a rangefinder as well 😉 Prefocus. 

Without a doubt. In fact, there was a chap at this race meeting - Cartmel Races - who was doing exactly that. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Markey]

27 minutes ago, Chris Nebard said:

Without a doubt. In fact, there was a chap at this race meeting - Cartmel Races - who was doing exactly that. 

I was shooting  M`s back in the eighties and I always used prefocus if I knew where the horses were going to be at a given point.

Jumps being the prime example.

Hit and miss for other moving targets.

[Crem]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Which proves exactly the point about expectations from tools that I made. If those Sony features are of importance to a photographer he will be much happier with a Sony. If other aspects  (Leica users know what they are) prevail, the choice for Leica is clear.

Proclaiming one or the other superior is a personal choice, not a fact. 

At product launch I found it very difficult to make sense of the SL3-S AF improvements. It wasn't particularly obvious based on what I read like "fastest AF in a Leica" and influencer reviews that didn't dive into the AF details. To me, it was unclear if Leica had finally reached the level of 5+ year old Sonys for overall AF experience. I did eventually reach my own conclusion. To me it's clear that the Sony/Canon/Nikon AF experience is superior by a significant margin and in measurable ways. I do believe Leica can solve 9/10ths this with a lot of firmware development and I really hope they do. Overall superiority though is definitely a personal choice as the AF is clearly good enough for many people.