SL3 vs SL2 feel in hand

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There’s a small reduction in weight approximately 60g and a few mm shorter and narrower comparing the SL3 to the SL2. In actual usage, has anyone noticed a meaningful difference in practice vs the SL2?

Thinking about adding the SL3 for M lens use instead of a M11 for ibis and the evf. Have a SL2 currently but definitely not a fan of the weight; and deteriorating eyesight along with not so steady hands would keep M lenses in continuous use. 

[LD_50]

I don’t notice much difference in weight with the SL native lenses attached (35 APO, 24-90, etc). Take the battery out of your SL2 and you’ll have a decent approximation (though the battery weighs more (I think around 100g) than the quoted difference in weight between the two cameras). 

I wrote up my opinion on the change from SL2-S to SL3-S in another thread, including the handling and weight differences. 

[Jeff S]

Other threads indicate that some prefer the ergonomics of the SL3, while others prefer the SL2. Likewise, some like to adapt M lenses to one or both, while others prefer to use native lenses with each system.  Only you can determine your preferences.  Fortunately, as your profile shows US residence, opportunities for rental or dealer demos are available.  
 

For your M, before making any decisions, be sure that your gear is well calibrated and that your eyes are corrected for distance and/or astigmatism. At near 75, with some hand tremors and changing eyesight, I’ve still been able to adjust to M use with RF only (now M10R/M) using glasses, a +.5 diopter, and appropriate shutter speeds. My SL2 serves complementary needs using the 24-90.  I keep my M lenses (28/35/50) on my M bodies.  The SL2 feels better in my hands than the SL3.

 

[Markey]

5 hours ago, o2mpx said:

There’s a small reduction in weight approximately 60g and a few mm shorter and narrower comparing the SL3 to the SL2. In actual usage, has anyone noticed a meaningful difference in practice vs the SL2?

Thinking about adding the SL3 for M lens use instead of a M11 for ibis and the evf. Have a SL2 currently but definitely not a fan of the weight; and deteriorating eyesight along with not so steady hands would keep M lenses in continuous use. 

As I`ve said in another thread I noticed a difference in the handling sufficient to plan to pick up an SL3 sometime in the future.

Up until that point I`ve never been interested in the new model.

I agree it not obvious from the quoted figures but never the less ,for me ,it was apparent.

I`ve been thinking about this further and maybe its because I`ve never been totally happy with he handling of my SL2s so any "improvement" was noticeable.

[Gateway77]

Personally I find a considerable difference of 'feel' in the hand, especially with M lenses.  This is of course very subjective and down to personal opinion.

I haven't used my SL2-S really at all since I bought  my SL3.  This is just out of choice of what to pick up on the day and I prefer the SL3.

(I also can't quite bring myself to sell the SL2-S - as it feels so 'quality' in my hands, even if I'm not using it. 😂

[Biotar]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb Gateway77:

(I also can't quite bring myself to sell the SL2-S - as it feels so 'quality' in my hands, even if I'm not using it. 😂

... and that's why I think the SL2 combines better with M lenses 😉

[wjdrijfhout]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most of the weight-loss is not because the camera is smaller. In fact, SL3 is slightly bigger than the SL2. It is narrower but significantly thicker. It is more chunky, less sleek. It results in a different weight-distribution and quite a different grip. 

Most of the weight-loss comes from the different materials, more magnesium, less aluminum. It's quite apparent with the tactile feel of the rotating knobs.

Together these differences in haptics make what many describe as a 'less quality' feel. It's more SoNiCa, less Leica.

A 60g weight difference won't make a difference carrying it the bag. It can make a difference when you hold it in your hands, either positive or negative. Handling is always a personal thing. I have owned the SL1, SL2 and SL3, and find the SL3 has the worst handling. I would strongly advise to borrow/rent first and see how handling works for you. Perhaps you'd largely prefer the SL3, perhaps you appreciate your SL2 more for what it is.

From a specs perspective there are three main improvements in SL2 vs SL3: 13M more pixels, somewhat improved AF and the tilting screen. In your use-case with M-lenses, the AF is irrelevant, leaving more megapixels and tilting screen as the main differentiators. Personally I regret having upgraded.

 

[jaapv]

Even if one might notice a weight difference between the cameras when picking up the respective bodies side by side, in use, especially with a solid lens mounted, the difference is not noticeable - it is the weight of one battery.

[Elliot Harper]

I had both for a short period of time. When switching from one to the other, I can notice the difference of size and weight. But after holding one for a while, I don't feel anything.

[Ken Abrahams]

I notice the difference all the time. I am mainly using the SL3 and SL3S but the SL2S is still very active in my shooting. I used the SL2S without the RRS L bracket last night and the feel of the camera is quite different. It's the body angles of the SL2S which are "square" compared to the SL3/S. When I pick up the SL3 or SL3S I also notice the weight difference, its only small but I notice that along with its shape. It's undeniably different to the SL2S. The SL2S feels indestructible in my hands compared to the SL3 models. It may be the CF card housing that has a plastic or lighter feel compared to the tank design of the SL2S 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On paper the differences are insignificant. In the hand I vastly prefer the SL3. Others prefer the SL2.

Spend time in a Leica store and see which works for you.

Gordon

[Geoff C. Bassett]

I'm one of the rare one's that hates the thicker body of the SL3. 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Geoff C. Bassett said:

I'm one of the rare one's that hates the thicker body of the SL3. 

Post 3, last sentence, but wouldn’t consider it hate, just preference for me.

[CptSlevin]

Material of SL3 feels cheap, like M11 vs M10R

[LD_50]

2 hours ago, CptSlevin said:

Material of SL3 feels cheap, like M11 vs M10R

I don’t share the opinion the SL3 feels cheap (in comparison to SL2 or SL). Are you referring to the use of magnesium as opposed to aluminum in the body? Magnesium is typically more expensive and lighter. I did note the feel of the top dials on a new SL3-S was lighter and less heavily damped than my well worn SL2-S and the immediate feeling I had was “cheaper.”

If it’s the lighter weight, perhaps you’re equating “heavy” with “expensive” and “light” with “cheap.” There’s certainly a psychological hurdle to overcome if you’re used to heavier cameras, but with many products, light weight is obviously synonymous with higher cost. 

Examples: When I owned Ducati motorcycles, the use of magnesium in various parts of the motorcycle were a clear upgrade in terms of weight over steel and aluminum, and added significantly to the cost. The same can be seen with magnesium used in motorcycle or automobile wheels, where the cost is much higher, and the weight lower than steel or aluminum.

My current road bicycle is mostly carbon fiber, and weighs significantly less than would an equally aerodynamic steel or aluminum or titanium bicycle. Light weight in cycling = expensive.

A carbon framed camera or carbon housed lens would probably be described as feeling cheap because we’re just not used to that type of material being used, even if it’s ultimately more expensive to manufacture than aluminum or magnesium. I love the feel of metal parts machined from a solid block (ie billet aluminum), but acknowledge it’s often not the best manufacturing technique and introduces clear limitations in dimensions and performance.   

[CptSlevin]

2 hours ago, LD_50 said:

I don’t share the opinion the SL3 feels cheap (in comparison to SL2 or SL). Are you referring to the use of magnesium as opposed to aluminum in the body? Magnesium is typically more expensive and lighter. I did note the feel of the top dials on a new SL3-S was lighter and less heavily damped than my well worn SL2-S and the immediate feeling I had was “cheaper.”

If it’s the lighter weight, perhaps you’re equating “heavy” with “expensive” and “light” with “cheap.” There’s certainly a psychological hurdle to overcome if you’re used to heavier cameras, but with many products, light weight is obviously synonymous with higher cost. 

Examples: When I owned Ducati motorcycles, the use of magnesium in various parts of the motorcycle were a clear upgrade in terms of weight over steel and aluminum, and added significantly to the cost. The same can be seen with magnesium used in motorcycle or automobile wheels, where the cost is much higher, and the weight lower than steel or aluminum.

My current road bicycle is mostly carbon fiber, and weighs significantly less than would an equally aerodynamic steel or aluminum or titanium bicycle. Light weight in cycling = expensive.

A carbon framed camera or carbon housed lens would probably be described as feeling cheap because we’re just not used to that type of material being used, even if it’s ultimately more expensive to manufacture than aluminum or magnesium. I love the feel of metal parts machined from a solid block (ie billet aluminum), but acknowledge it’s often not the best manufacturing technique and introduces clear limitations in dimensions and performance.   

nope, its' finish is cheap and scratchy like Q models which where budget ones.
When Leica changed finish in latests models (black M11 and SL3) people noticed the difference

[FlashGordonPhotography]

My M11’s and SL3’s all look basically new after years of regular use. They show lees wear than my SL2, which I didn’t use as much. If anything I’ve found the newer coatings more durable than the earlier ones. They certainly feel a bit different. Rougher.

I still have at least one body from each SL generation and none of them look of feel cheap to me. They are the cameras I baby the least. When the conditions are bad I reach for the SL3 bodies. I usually have a camera slung over my shoulder with a spare lens or two in a bag. I’ve taken my SL3’s to 4 continents on over a dozen trips with exactly zero issues. I’ve shot in volcanic sand and then rinsed the camera off under a tap. Same in salty conditions. Dust storms? They’ve been just fine in -20 and +45C. Their exceptional build quality is a highlight of the camera for me. And the paint basically looks new.

Personally, I’d say cheap is the last thing I’d use to describe how the SL3 feels in hand. YMMV.

Gordon

[Archiver]

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

My M11’s and SL3’s all look basically new after years of regular use. They show lees wear than my SL2, which I didn’t use as much. If anything I’ve found the newer coatings more durable than the earlier ones. They certainly feel a bit different. Rougher.

I still have at least one body from each SL generation and none of them look of feel cheap to me. They are the cameras I baby the least. When the conditions are bad I reach for the SL3 bodies. I usually have a camera slung over my shoulder with a spare lens or two in a bag. I’ve taken my SL3’s to 4 continents on over a dozen trips with exactly zero issues. I’ve shot in volcanic sand and then rinsed the camera off under a tap. Same in salty conditions. Dust storms? They’ve been just fine in -20 and +45C. Their exceptional build quality is a highlight of the camera for me. And the paint basically looks new.

As an aside, I'm a bit concerned about how easy it is to mark the SL2-S. In the first week of owning one, the edges at the strap points have tiny marks which can be attributed to the Peak Design strap connectors I used. After that, I switched to a nylon and plastic strap and have had no further issues at those points, but marks on the bottom rear edge and on the left edge of the screen have since appeared. And yet, the PD connectors get constant use on my Panasonic G9, S5 and S1 and have never made such marks. In fact, the Panasonic bodies hardly mark at all. Only the left dial and the left back edge of my G9 show wear, and that's after five years of constantly going in and out of camera bags. I wonder if the SL3/S finish is more durable.

[wjdrijfhout]

On 6/7/2025 at 2:46 PM, LD_50 said:

I don’t share the opinion the SL3 feels cheap (in comparison to SL2 or SL). Are you referring to the use of magnesium as opposed to aluminum in the body? Magnesium is typically more expensive and lighter. I did note the feel of the top dials on a new SL3-S was lighter and less heavily damped than my well worn SL2-S and the immediate feeling I had was “cheaper.”

If it’s the lighter weight, perhaps you’re equating “heavy” with “expensive” and “light” with “cheap.” There’s certainly a psychological hurdle to overcome if you’re used to heavier cameras, but with many products, light weight is obviously synonymous with higher cost. 

Examples: When I owned Ducati motorcycles, the use of magnesium in various parts of the motorcycle were a clear upgrade in terms of weight over steel and aluminum, and added significantly to the cost. The same can be seen with magnesium used in motorcycle or automobile wheels, where the cost is much higher, and the weight lower than steel or aluminum.

My current road bicycle is mostly carbon fiber, and weighs significantly less than would an equally aerodynamic steel or aluminum or titanium bicycle. Light weight in cycling = expensive.

A carbon framed camera or carbon housed lens would probably be described as feeling cheap because we’re just not used to that type of material being used, even if it’s ultimately more expensive to manufacture than aluminum or magnesium. I love the feel of metal parts machined from a solid block (ie billet aluminum), but acknowledge it’s often not the best manufacturing technique and introduces clear limitations in dimensions and performance.   

All fair points, but that does not flip the argument. It does not mean that lighter = more expensive = better. Magnesium as raw material may be more expensive, but is easier to machine, cast, etc. So what the effect on final production cost is, is difficult to say unless you’re operations director at Leica. What we can say is the final difference between the two, with magnesium having the benefit of being lighter and aluminium having the benefit of being stronger, better corrosion resistant, more durable and better heat conducting. So it’s just a matter of what you find more important as a manufacturer, weight or maximum strength/durability. As a ‘different’ and ‘ultimate quality’ company, Leica always chose for the latter and chose aluminium (or even brass), in contrast to the main brands. It looks like Leica is moving towards weight as a priority, and becoming more like the main brands. 
Finally, aluminium has in general a more premium feel, partly probably psychological like you say, but partly because it is just a very strong and durable material. Apple makes most of its products from aluminium, probably because of these same reasons. A premium feel/experience has always been essential for Leica, so I’m interested to see which way this is going.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Ken Abrahams]

When I switch from the SL3 to the SL2S there is an immediate sense that I have just picked up a tank. Yes it's heavier and it feels good in the hand by comparison. Conversely when I pick up the SL3 it feels significantly lighter than the SL2/SL2S which makes me feel thankful for the lighter design. Going on these "feelings" and making sense of the different weights doesn't make the lighter camera cheaper. The only concernable sense of "cheapness" comes with the SL3' Cf/SD card hatch. For me this might be a validated cheaper feel, compared to the SL2/SL2S. With all the attributes of the SL3 and apart from its weight doesn't collate to cheapness but improved tech and design factors that have addressed the weight factor. The courier dropping off a parcel yesterday handed me a large box which was feather light. He quipped with his courier philosophy that the heavy ones are less expensive packages while the lightest are expensive.