Panasonic S1II and S1IIE render SL3-S obsolete...

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

However it varies by lens

As it always has. Certain lenses do very poorly indeed. And others are just a bit worse. Very few if any are as good on a non-M body as they are on on an M body. If you don't care about the outer 2/3rds of the frame, then they are all brilliant.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

For members new to Leica M::

The point is that the problems are not caused by the  focal length as such but by the incidence angle of the light on the sensor.  When it exceeds the acceptance angle of the sensor the image quality will deteriorate. Also the thickness of the filter stack will cause aberrations like vignetting and colour shifts. 

Older Leica M lenses are designed for film so there has been no consideration of this problem. 
Also Ionger focal length lenses will not produce problems as the light will come in at an angle that the sensor can handle, but with lenses under 50-35 mm there is a different situation.   The back of the lens ( or rather the exit pupil) is too close to the sensor

. 
More modern wideangle lenses can have a telecentric design which shifts the exit pupil ( the virtual point where the light rays appear to originate) forward making the light bundle more parallel on the sensor. 
A rough estimate of the exit angle can be made by the rear element of the lens. If it is close to the sensor and small the lens will be problematic, if it is further away and relatively large the lens will probably perform well 

[jaapv]

Panasonic is more video oriented and market-leading in that respect.
The idea of a different tech partner is wholly unrealistic. Leica and Panasonic have integrated their technical development for decades in a number of progressively extensive agreements. Switching would negate that progression, and create a host of teething troubles for the users. Would anybody really be interested in a Sony with a Leica skin at triple the pricenand full of bugs?  

10 hours ago, archive_all said:

I see it that way too. The Leicas to me are about cross compatibility, simple menus and handling preferences. 
However I think they should and should have looked for a different tech partner for the SL series. I know Panasonic is part of the alliance but I think the SL system is where it’s at because of Panasonics inadequacies. Luckily I don’t use those features but for those that do I get the argument.

 

[Photoworks]

.

Edited Saturday at 01:07 PM by Photoworks

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

For members new to Leica M::

The point is that the problems are not caused by the  focal length as such but by the incidence angle of the light on the sensor.  When it exceeds the acceptance angle of the sensor the image quality will deteriorate. Also the thickness of the filter stack will cause aberrations like vignetting and colour shifts. 

Older Leica M lenses are designed for film so there has been no consideration of this problem. 
Also Ionger focal length lenses will not produce problems as the light will come in at an angle that the sensor can handle, but with lenses under 50-35 mm there is a different situation.   The back of the lens ( or rather the exit pupil) is too close to the sensor

. 
More modern wideangle lenses can have a telecentric design which shifts the exit pupil ( the virtual point where the light rays appear to originate) forward making the light bundle more parallel on the sensor. 
A rough estimate of the exit angle can be made by the rear element of the lens. If it is close to the sensor and small the lens will be problematic, if it is further away and relatively large the lens will probably perform well 

does it make a difference to bring up these points if the current Leica 21, 28,35, and 50 don't perform as intended on non-Leica cameras?

What do we have left, 75, 90, 135.

[Elliot Harper]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

For members new to Leica M::

The point is that the problems are not caused by the  focal length as such but by the incidence angle of the light on the sensor.  When it exceeds the acceptance angle of the sensor the image quality will deteriorate. Also the thickness of the filter stack will cause aberrations like vignetting and colour shifts. 

Older Leica M lenses are designed for film so there has been no consideration of this problem. 
Also Ionger focal length lenses will not produce problems as the light will come in at an angle that the sensor can handle, but with lenses under 50-35 mm there is a different situation.   The back of the lens ( or rather the exit pupil) is too close to the sensor

. 
More modern wideangle lenses can have a telecentric design which shifts the exit pupil ( the virtual point where the light rays appear to originate) forward making the light bundle more parallel on the sensor. 
A rough estimate of the exit angle can be made by the rear element of the lens. If it is close to the sensor and small the lens will be problematic, if it is further away and relatively large the lens will probably perform well 

I have a noctilux 50/1.2 adapted to Nikon Zf, the center of the picture is perfect but the edge is smeared a little. Not matter how many times I brought up this I was always dismissed by Nikon lovers. So be it.

I adapted the same lens to SL3-S, the image is perfect edge to edge.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

33 minutes ago, Elliot Harper said:

I have a noctilux 50/1.2 adapted to Nikon Zf, the center of the picture is perfect but the edge is smeared a little. Not matter how many times I brought up this I was always dismissed by Nikon lovers. So be it.

I adapted the same lens to SL3-S, the image is perfect edge to edge.

The Summilux 50 asph should behave better, but I have no personal experience.  As I said, especially in these marginal focal lengths, lens design makes a difference. For instance, I tried the Summilux 24 M on the Panasonic S5ii. The corner performance was clearly below an M camera, but in my eyes quite acceptable for most subjects. 

[LD_50]

On 5/16/2025 at 2:25 AM, simon_hsn said:

The release of the Panasonic S1II cameras makes it increasingly clear that Leica may not be prioritizing the SL3-S as much as I hoped.

It’s almost absurd that the S1IIE — which uses the same sensor as the SL3-S and is essentially a SL3-S — costs around €2,400 less, yet offers more features, including internal ProRes RAW and more.

At an asking price of €5,200, I would have expected the SL3-S to come with a more advanced, partially stacked sensor — like the one in the S1II. Choosing the SL3-S over Panasonic’s offerings at this price point feels 100% irrational - Even the body is not so unique anymore like with the SL2-S or the original SL Type 601.

What I’d like to see from Leica now is a serious step up in terms of software. The last firmware update brought almost nothing new to the table. At the very least, features like internal ProRes RAW, AF improvements, HEIF image format, 60p without crop! should be added to justify the premium price.

In addition, Leica should invest in expanding their lens lineup—not by rebranding Panasonic or Sigma designs, but by creating more compact, original lenses that reflect the true Leica pedigree, much like their iconic M-series glass.

(Apologies for the rant — it’s just disheartening to see Leica fall so far behind.)

There are so many threads here that either start or end up this way, with the same posts about price and value between Leica and Panasonic and Sony and whomever else. 

I am often left wondering, do people really buy products thinking about things this way?

Using current US prices set by manufacturer: 

Leica SL3-S is $5665. 
Panasonic S1 II is $3199. 
Difference is around $2500. 

I purchased an SL3-S in the last week, fully aware of everything on the market. I had considered a switch to a Nikon system (I shot Nikon for years prior to M and SL) but my shooting needs haven’t shifted as I had been expecting so that’s not necessary right now. 

Reading threads here and elsewhere my decision to purchase the Leica would be called irrational or senseless or I’m a fanboy or I want to show off the Leica badge, etc. 

The way I actually think about a purchase has almost nothing to do with price, unless the price difference is large enough to be important. That’s completely subjective and varies from person to person. In other words it should not be the central talking point in camera comparisons. 

Let me explain.

I think most people, when spending disposable income, don’t need to justify WHY they pick one option or another. $2500 difference is essentially meaningless to me when choosing a camera I’ll be shooting for 4-5 years. It would then be irrational to choose the cheaper camera that I do not prefer because of that price difference, assuming both cameras meet my functional needs. 

My wife purchased a cross body bag recently for around $1800 and then returned it and purchased a different brand for around $3000. Why? She preferred the second one. With a meaningless price difference, and both meeting her functional needs, that’s all that really matters.

I see this all the time in car comparisons. A car is deemed better somehow and then the comparison is called into question as unfair due to the differences in cost. But in reality, if you have the money for the more expensive option, and you prefer it for whatever reason, why consider the price important? If you prefer the cheaper option, why talk about the price? I have had three sports cars in the last 6 years for track driving. One $200k+ (Porsche), one  around $120k (Lotus), and one around $55k (Honda). All three have pluses and minuses. I could write up a detailed comparison about my preferences and never mention the price. Given the large variance in price it matters to me in this case, but hasn’t dictated my current choice. 

Note: If shooting professionally I would be considering replacement availability, repair times, lens rentals, etc. I would not choose Leica or Panasonic. I wouldn’t call the money spent on gear for professional work disposable income, so I would treat it differently. I’d be looking at my ROI. 

[jaapv]

I follow your argument but for many of us price differences of thousands of dollars are not inconsiderable. If you are in a position to spend near to half a million on cars handbags and the rest you are certainly not the average hobby photographer. It is more realistic to weigh pros and cons against price as a more affordable body means a better lens, for instance, or a trip to use the camera on. 
Limitless budget is not a realistic position to judge from. 

[Luke_Miller]

Panasonic S1II and S1IIE render SL3-S obsolete...

This statement in the post starting this thread implies one gets as much (or more) with the latest Panasonic L-Mount bodies and at a lower price point than with the Leica SL3-S. Probably true if one shoots exclusively with Panasonic or Sigma glass.  Demonstratively not true if one shoots exclusively with Leica M-Mount or  APO Summicron-SL lenses.  Sean Reid (Reid Reviews) finds more vignetting and softer corners during head-to-head comparisons when an APO Summicron-SL is mounted to one of the Panasonics after being tested on a Leica SL body.  Since Sean's tests were conducted using the prior generation Panasonic bodies it is possible the new models behave differently. I'll wait and see.

As one who is heavily invested in Leica glass I will stick with the SL bodies.  Under different circumstances I might be perfectly happy with Panasonic, particularly since I regularly shoot video.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

When the SL2 came out I did some testing against my S1R’s. Including the SL APO Summicron 50 and 90. I found that generally any differences were absolutely indistinguishable any where in the frame. Very very occasionally the thicker cover glass on the S1R showed as an insignificant loss of *bite* in some images. I only observed this on a test chart and never in the field. My conclusion was that it was there but irrelevant to real world shooting. I always preferred the SL2 but IQ had nothing to do with it.

I have the same conclusion with the SL3 and S1Rii. There may be a difference on a test chart but it’s so insignificant as to be a non issue. I now have 4 APO SL Summicrons to test. I did some basic testing to make sure each camera worked as expected and moved on.

In my testing the SL3 (I don’t have and SL3S) is still better than the S1Rii for M lenses. I don’t do a lot of this so it’s not important other than knowing it. The Panasonic is *significantly* better than the SL3 with lenses longer than 150mm due to the SL3 shutter shock and lack of EFCS. This will apply to the SL3-S as well. If you can use ES on the Leica or don’t shoot over about 150mm the SL3 renders more detail due to resolution. So there’s a couple of scenarios where there is a technical reason to choose one over the other but they’re outliers to most for general shooting. I shoot long lenses so the latter does matter. But it won’t to many.

The simple reason one might choose the SL3-S isn’t that it’s better in any way. That’s the logic defending a purchase decision. Leica’s are a want, not a need. And that’s a good enough reason. Leicas are great for what they take out, not all the things they have. All the other systems have those. The industrial level build quality and the streamlined menus. The feel in hand and the red dot. They’re all valid reasons to choose one over the other. I need the EFCS of the Panasonic. But in every other way I prefer the Leica because it’s the camera that I want to take out every day. And to me that beats any technical argument. Yeah, some of us work in the field. But photography is supposed to be fun, challenging and satisfying. The tools we need to do it should be tactile, engaging and interesting.

When I choose a camera I’m really interested in which one is the most engaging experience for that task. Normally that’s an SL3 or X2D or M. But all of those frustrate with longer lenses. It’s far more fun shooting wildlife with an A1ii or S1Rii than an SL3. For pretty much everything else nothing is more enjoyable than an SL or X body. I don’t really make it more complicated than that.

Gordon

[LD_50]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

I follow your argument but for many of us price differences of thousands of dollars are not inconsiderable. If you are in a position to spend near to half a million on cars handbags and the rest you are certainly not the average hobby photographer. It is more realistic to weigh pros and cons against price as a more affordable body means a better lens, for instance, or a trip to use the camera on. 
Limitless budget is not a realistic position to judge from. 

Limitless budget isn’t what I said or implied. I said $2500 difference in disposable income on a 4-5 year camera isn’t meaningful to me. 

Also if you’re shopping new Leica gear, you’re already outside the norm in terms of price for photography. 

I don’t agree at all that weighing pros and cons against price is meaningful for a public discussion, given price is subjective and personal. Personally, sure, consider price. If someone posts and says “I have $6k to spend on a camera, a lens, and a trip”, sure, talk about how price matters or best value. 

If someone says “the SL3-S is obsolete” and then cites price, I’m lost. If someone reviews a Leica camera or lens and then someone chimes in with “but I can get X, Y, and Z for the same price” I’m again lost as to the purpose. 

[jaapv]

Well, introducing. 200.000$ sports cars and 3000$ handbags in the discussion paints a rather clear picture. 

[LD_50]

23 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, introducing. 200.000$ sports cars and 3000$ handbags in the discussion paints a rather clear picture. 

No it doesn’t. For some reason you picked up on that rather than the point. 

I don’t have a limitless budget for camera gear. 

[jaapv]

If it shouldn’t be picked up on, why post it? 

[Archiver]

Admittedly, putting the S1 II tech inside the new SL3-S would have been a more fitting choice. One would think Leica would have been aware of the impending S1 II, but were they?

Sometimes it seems like interface and user experience are cited to justify Leica prices and purchases rather than explain the differences. Having said that, I recently purchased a Panasonic S1 and a Leica SL2-S, and I love them both for different reasons which are entirely due to handling and user interface. 

I've been so used to Panasonic operation after using their cameras for the bulk of my paid work for the past 13 years that the S1 felt like a old glove, albeit one that weighs one kilogram. The SL2-S still bugs me from time to time because of the completely different menu structure and minimalist lack of buttons, dials and switches: for me, it's much easier to dial in some changes on the S1 than the SL2-S. But the feel of the SL2-S in the hand, the brilliant EVF, the ability to select specific M and R mount lenses or dial in a generic focal length, these are big factors in favour of the SL2-S.

Just the other day, I shot an engagement party with the S1 and SL2-S - the S1 mostly did video duty, and the SL2-S was my primary stills camera. This played well to each cameras' strengths, as the SL2-S edges out the S1 for me in stills, and the S1 is a better video camera overall.

The difference in operation between the S1 II and SL3-S is assumedly similar, and for some, that difference may be enough to justify the SL3-S. At my budget, I waited 5-6 years before purchasing either camera, and got fantastic deals on them secondhand. Even though I'm behind the tech curve, they are wholly satisfactory for me.

[LD_50]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

If it shouldn’t be picked up on, why post it? 

I posted that three vehicles at different price points each have pluses and minuses. The best choice depends on what you’re looking for in your driving application, not on price. I currently drive the lowest cost one I posted, but I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to someone who can choose any of the three unless it’s characteristics meet a driver’s needs the best. 

I posted my wife prefers one bag over the other and the price is close (and cheaper than all the gear we’re talking about) so why would the price matter?

Are you really missing something or just arguing? You seem fixated on the dollars and not on the points being made. 

[BernardC]

Here's the thing. The subtext of this thread is 100% about price, because no-one can  argue that the SL3-S is technically obsolete when Panasonic just released copy-cats.

To put things another way: how are the exact same features "state of the art" in the S1II and S1IIE, and "obsolete" in the SL3-S? It's absurd to think so, and it leads to absurd arguments where people dig-out small differences and claim that they are massive, while conveniently skipping obvious differences like display quality and UX.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, LD_50 said:

I posted that three vehicles at different price points each have pluses and minuses. The best choice depends on what you’re looking for in your driving application, not on price. I currently drive the lowest cost one I posted, but I wouldn’t necessarily recommend it to someone who can choose any of the three unless it’s characteristics meet a driver’s needs the best. 

I posted my wife prefers one bag over the other and the price is close (and cheaper than all the gear we’re talking about) so why would the price matter?

Are you really missing something or just arguing? You seem fixated on the dollars and not on the points being made. 

Just pointing out that itis rather presumptuous to ignore that many of our members need to balance technical value against monetary value. 

[AdjusterBrett]

OK, I'm just an OUTSIDER - and a weekend hack - who happens to own (and love) a couple of Leica's that are not M class.  I think you ALL are missing the point - Leica is NEVER on the cutting edge, nor an early adopter - but they do absorb and perfect many of what the industry puts out there.  I'm disappointed in the SL3S, period - but I am NOT their customer...  I'm NOT normal - 9 years in this journey (10 y/o Daughter) - 30 some bodies later, 200+ vintage lenses, and probably 40 native lenses - I'm CHEAP (frugal is such an open-ended undercut of what is really going on).  I've only ever bought two bodies new - and I returned one (SL2S) - EVERTHING via used or trade.  Leica SL - arguably the BEST handling body ever - especially for vintage.  TL2 - just downright cool and somewhat useful with the Visoflex for manual.  I returned the SL2S because it didn't' handle as well as the SL, and it seemed on par with my S1 (which shoots in the dark - low light high ISO).  For the price - it just wasn't worth keeping in comparison.

IF I need autofocus - its Sony- face facts.  Perhaps Nikon is CATCHING UP - but it's been Sony forever.  I regularly stand at the ground level near the big hill drop at cedar point (roller coaster capital of the world) - and like other proud fathers - I attempt to grab some shots of my daughter and friends during the drop.  Guess what - even the S1ii or the SL3 will pale in comparison to the newer Sony's and Nikons - and if you think not - I'll gladly bet you (bring your pink slip for the SL3 and whatever lens you want), bring a travel bag as well, that way I can carry them home with me after the fact.   The autofocus is BETTER, but it's far from best - especially in that environment when you are shooting at 400+mm.

IF I need video - which I do very little - I'm likely headed to Lumix - they have been the leader and now it's pretty hard to argue against it.

IF I need IBIS - again - Lumix tends to set the bar.

IF i need a travel cam - I would own a Q - pretty firm on that - EXCEPT I am on my second Sony RX1 - and setting aside all that was said in regard to Sony's autofocus (the RX1 does not have good AF) - the RX1 is still my goto - small, add a Godox TT350 and they fit in the back pockets - and for a 15 y/o camera - its exceptional - a poor man's Q.  

Sidenote - I have two R1 (circa 2005) - imagine an exceptional Zeiss zoom 24-120 mounted to old Sony color science aps-c, then surround with cheap rounded plastics form 2005 - it's a great workhorse for harsh environments (she has shot >100 post fire engulfed commercial buildings).  You want to talk about slow - you want to talk about clunky - you want to offer something in comparison that would do the same job - good luck at a low-end price point.  The tone of the sidenote is the camera fits the need (theme)...

YES, I returned an SL2S (paid full price back then) - because FOR ME, it didn't offer anything for vintage or AF or video that the S1 or SL already did as well if not better (I actually use the 6k recording and multishot in the S1, and handling wise the SL was a masterpiece).  YES, with the prices down - being an idiot, I'm sure I'll buy a used one soon - but that questions my psyche - no bearing on this conversation LOL>

So what are we really talking about???   The S1IIe or S1II is a video camera first - and nowhere as stout as my S1 nor the SL - either can be used in an emergency to break a windshield...   The SL3s and even the SL3 - what are they?  in the marketplace you have the fuji mediums, the hassels and the big boy Sony (which if you have not looked through that EVF - do it).  There is also the newer Nikons which are shining well...

Leica is LEICA - it's NOT a cult - it's a belief, and an experience.  For instance - is the 50 lux 1.4 that much better than the lumix 50/1.4 or the sigma 50/1.2 - that's an opinion-based assessment but even the most devout fan boy cannot argue the other two can provide stunning images.  If you are a purist - I respect that - but if you think Leica is absolutely the end all - then live that life.   I cannot afford an SL3 and a lux 50/1.4, period.  Most can't.  

Leica is an opportunity to own and use the top of the line (quality) at a price about the same as those more technically advanced (a93, any of the mediums), and often much less in the used market.  Leica is special - yes, but its more about the experience for me than the simple review of the output.  When I shot my a7r2 - I dreaded switching lenses from say a 24mm to a 105mm - set the WB, adjuster the ISO (depending on color or B&W), mess with this setting - etc.  Same on the Lumix S1 (although most of what I needed to do had a hard button).  On the SL - it was a pleasure - swap - no IBIS to set, WB is a reflex, ISO is a reflex, etc.  HECK - aside from the fact I swear I'm gonna break the visoflex - I love it on the TL2 - whcih still have the absolute best user interface ever.

I have an acquaintance / friend (more money than God) - every once in a while, we meet up - and around his neck is more money than what I drove in on in most cases - last time - M11/Lux vs. my TL2 with a pancolor star wars.  Had better than a dozen people CONSTANTLY asking about mine - only two asked about his.  I enjoy showing it off - it's just cool - and it's a LOT OF WORK to shoot vintage on it - but I think it's worth it...   I love Jim as he lets me play with his toys - and he loves to TOSS me a lens (and yes, usually followed by a clothing change in the bathroom)...   He IS a better photographer than me - frames so much better, has an eye for it and a wallet to support his ridiculous habit - he literally buys everything - but guess what - he isn't half as proud of a keeper as I am on the TL2 and that god awful Exacta mount pancolor and its crapy focus ring - why - because I worked for that one - and I take pictures for ME, not others.  

I THINK Leica is about how it makes me feel - the experience.  I shot (Jims) Alpha 1 - WOW (and if I could have figured out a way to swap his EVF and mine, why didn't' I bring those tiny screwdrivers...).  Well its kinda like my iPads - I have many for work - specifically I have a 6th gen 12.9 with 2TB and have multiple 5th and 6th gen minis - and when I load up lightroom and edit away - there really isn't all that much difference in speed and NO DIFFERENCE in output.  HOWEVER, I much prefer the experience on the 12.9 with its rocket fast processer and gobs of memory and real estate.  Same result, but I paid to have the experience on the bigger screen/memory/processor.  Some might argue that is technical in its difference - I'd argue the bigger iPad is much like a Lecia - you can do pretty much the same thing on the smaller iPad minis which cost 1/5th as much - you just won't enjoy it as much.  That enjoyment isn't all technical based, as the 'handling' on the larger iPad with the pencil - so much better.  Not a perfect comparison - but a conversation starter.

If you think for one second Leica is looking to compete with an Alpha one or the A9III, then you probably should chase the other brands.  Leica is like an old Jag e-type - with a hood so ridiculously long, and a huge engine that only competes verbally with the competition - but if you have ever driven one - it's the experience, not the exhilaration that makes that such a sought-after classic.

Sorry for the long post, I'm off the soapbox (before I fall and hurt myself) - I just seem to either misunderstand the Lecia realm and wanted to give the opportunity for anyone to explain it so I might understand it better.

PS>>> I AM NOT dogging on anyone but want to make sure I'm in the right mindset for a Leica...   I myself have a Wishlist - EVF with double the normal magnification (I know this is a function of the sensor as well), IBIS, EXCEPTIONAL high ISO/ low light (I'll even take a lower Megapixel count), User entry into EXIF at lens change (PLEASE), SL like buttons, and a Panasonic coded Hotshoe, NO AF, NO VIDEO, M mount or M42, and a shorter flange (let me adapt even XF or Nikon Z)...  Call it the new Leica "V" for Vintage.

Neck extended - chop away!!!