Sl2-S versus SL3 versus SL3s reckoning what to do best.

[Elliot Harper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still own Q3/43 and I had a SL2-S and upgraded to SL3-S recently. So I think I am "qualified" to comment on this subject.

Do not upgrade SL2-S to SL3-S, I fully agree what @jaapv said, the difference is marginal. I wouldn't have done the upgrade if it were not because of a great price of SL3-S I paid for (almost zeor cash outflow when upgrading).

One deciding factor for me was the form factor, I have rather skinny and small hands, so SL3/S feels better in my hands.

19 hours ago, jaapv said:

The differences between SL2S and SL3S are rather marginal.

 

[mpauliks]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb Elliot Harper:

I fully agree what @jaapv said, the difference is marginal.

I disagree. Handheld Multishot is advantagous for e.g. architecture images. AF ist much faster IMO.  Here from the Technical Specs. This is not "marginal".

SL2-S:

Autofokus-Messfelder

225

SL3-S: 

Autofokus-Messfelder

Kontrast-AF: 315 / Phasendetektions-AF: 779

Edited 20 hours ago by mpauliks

[mpauliks]

Another argument against (some versions?) of SL2-S. Do you like a camera with such a skin? Search the web and you will see several SL2-S with that. Meanwhile Leica uses different material, what I heard. My SL3-S has non of this issues anymore. Another example for skin issues: https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/leica-sl2-s/sku-3396655

 

 

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!

Edited 20 hours ago by mpauliks

[LocalHero1953]

We ought to be able to distinguish between differences that are important to our own use, differences that will affect everyone and differences that are simply a matter of opinion.

Handheld multishot for architecture is a bit niche! A different skin is simply a matter of preference (I couldn't tell you what the difference is - it's totally irrelevant for me!).

[mpauliks]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

A different skin is simply a matter of preference

I am not talking about a "different" skin. I am taking about a skin in bad quality like the images show. SL3-S has a new glue according to Leica.

[Markey]

17 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Another argument against (some versions?) of SL2-S. Do you like a camera with such a skin? Search the web and you will see several SL2-S with that. Meanwhile Leica uses different material, what I heard. My SL3-S has non of this issues anymore. Another example for skin issues: https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/leica-sl2-s/sku-3396655

My SL2s has wear on the front ... more extensive than shown here. Covered to some extent by an Oberwerth half case .

Seems to be a case of sloppy procurement by the company

 

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!

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Markey

[mpauliks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Markey:

 

Thank you Markey. You may get a new skin if you want to have it fixed. At least I think so   (When I came up with this issue here at this forum, some folks told me, it is fungus and that thread got closed....) ++ I have the same issue with my D-Lux7 007. That skin was no good at the beginning. But like said, meanwhile it seems to be fine.

Edited 20 hours ago by mpauliks

[Markey]

4 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Thank you Markey. You may get a new skin if you want to have it fixed. At least I think so   (When I came up with this issue here at this forum, some folks told me, it is fungus and that thread got closed....) ++ I have the same issue with my D-Lux7 007. That skin was no good at the beginning. But like said, meanwhile it seems to be fine.

I was very grateful that you raised it.

Prior to that I couldn`t understand how it had happened.

I use my SL2s in rough conditions out in the field doing equestrian shots so initially put it down to wear and tear.

The camera now has a dent on the top plate which had jammed the first custom button so I put it all down to character  .

They don`t bounce very well on concrete  

Michael

[LocalHero1953]

23 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

I am not talking about a "different" skin. I am taking about a skin in bad quality like the images show. SL3-S has a new glue according to Leica.

Yes, I'm aware of that issue. It's not universal; some people had the problem, some didn't - my SL2-S didn't. 

[mpauliks]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

some people had the problem

Enough had this issue. And to hear here at this forum: "This is fungus".... Ok...Let´s change topics, okay?

[mpauliks]

Back to AF please. If this is important, than you need to switch to SL Gen3 as those have phase AF fields, while Gen 2 has only contrast AF fields. Also, there is an improvement from SL3 to SL3-S. SL3-S has more phase AF fields than SL3.

 

[jaapv]

If the OP is happy with his SL2S ( as I am) what benefit does another AF have. In my experience AF performance is more a matter of lens used than of a number on a spec sheet. And of technique by the user. 

[mpauliks]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

If the OP is happy with his SL2S ( as I am) what benefit does another AF have. In my experience AF performance is more a matter of lens used than of a number on a spec sheet. And of technique by the user. 

Well, you are asking what benefit has a phase-contrast af compared to a contrast af only. please google for this. in a nutshell: phase af is faster and contrast af is more precise. so, you use the combination of both. also phase af is better at low light than contrast af. if you are happy with contrast af for you - all is fine. then you do not need an hybrid af from leica SL gen3. myself is quite often on the road at low light, so i prefer it.

Edited 19 hours ago by mpauliks

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, mpauliks said:

I am not talking about a "different" skin. I am taking about a skin in bad quality like the images show. SL3-S has a new glue according to Leica.

Discussed here, for instance, regarding SL2.  Leica NJ agreed to replace torn cover on mine for $40, including sensor clean, which I don’t need and didn’t request.  I would have had it done, nevertheless, but was told wait could be a couple of months.  No thanks.  My SL2 is fabulous otherwise; no desire for SL3.

 

[mpauliks]

deleted

Edited 18 hours ago by mpauliks

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Thank you. Just scrolling through your post and laughing about the reactions to OP. Similar like I got that time. Fungus, Only once, bla bla bla

Four different members with same experience just on page one.  Nobody laughing; mostly sympathy and surprise.

[mpauliks]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Jeff S:

Four different members with same experience just on page one.  Nobody laughing; mostly sympathy and surprise.

Leica fixed it meanwhile. Which is good. The reaction of some "premium" members is a different question.

Edited 18 hours ago by mpauliks

[jaapv]

34 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Well, you are asking what benefit has a phase-contrast af compared to a contrast af only. please google for this. in a nutshell: phase af is faster and contrast af is more precise. so, you use the combination of both. also phase af is better at low light than contrast af. if you are happy with contrast af for you - all is fine. then you do not need an hybrid af from leica SL gen3. myself is quite often on the road at low light, so i prefer it.

I am not asking at all. I doubt that Google adds much, if anything. As the SL3S is a Leicafied Lumix S5ii, although users claim that Leica is a bit behind AF-wise, I can easily compare. Let's put it this way - I cannot remember when I pulled out the Lumix - it is purely backup. And I shoot in the dark too...

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!

 

[mpauliks]

vor 9 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

And I shoot in the dark too...

Jaap, you do not want to open a discussion about contrast-AF only against hybrid-af at low light? Do you? Posting images does not tell anything about af speed and precision. +++ AI compare: https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state={"ids":["1sdKWg7jwr1XUQuqN0-ETQcQbbt5j116L"],"action":"open","userId":"109917373417051585333","resourceKeys":{}}&usp=sharing

Summary:

Comparison Table: Traditional AF vs. Hybrid AF

Feature	Traditional Contrast-Detection AF (CDAF)	Traditional Phase-Detection AF (PDAF - DSLR Type)	Hybrid Autofocus (Hybrid AF)
Speed	Slow (hunts for focus)	Very Fast (direct calculation)	Very Fast (initial acquisition by PDAF)
Accuracy	Very Accurate (fine-tunes to max contrast)	Generally Accurate (can sometimes be less precise than CDAF)	Extremely Accurate (fine-tunes with CDAF after PDAF acquisition)
Tracking Moving Subjects	Poor	Excellent	Excellent (often superior to DSLR PDAF due to wider coverage)
Low Light Performance	Good (but slow)	Can struggle	Good to Excellent (combines strengths)
Hunting	Frequent and noticeable	Rare	Minimal (mostly for fine-tuning or in extreme conditions)
Camera Type	Mirrorless (older), Compacts, Live View on DSLRs	DSLRs (dedicated sensor), some mirrorless (on-sensor PDAF only)	Most Modern Mirrorless Cameras, Smartphones
Operation in Video/Live View	Works well (but slow)	Does not work (mirror up)	Works seamlessly and effectively
Focus Point Coverage	Often covers the entire sensor	Limited to a central cluster	Often covers a very wide area or even the entire sensor

Conclusion

The evolution from traditional AF to Hybrid AF has been a significant leap forward in camera technology, particularly for mirrorless systems. Hybrid AF systems offer a compelling balance of speed and accuracy, making them highly versatile for a wide range of photographic situations, including fast-action, portraiture, and video recording. It has largely closed the autofocus performance gap that once existed between DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, and in many cases, surpassed it.

Edited 18 hours ago by mpauliks

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

13 minutes ago, mpauliks said:

Jaap, you do not want to open a discussion about contrast-AF only against hybrid-af at low light? Do you? Posting images does not tell anything about af speed and precision. 

The specs for CD-AF, PD-AF and PD points is one thing. Real world experience of both cameras is - er - real to me. I don't doubt you have found AF to be faster or more accurate in the SL3-S than the SL2-S. My experience is that there may be an improvement, but it's not game changing.

There are a lot of factors that make AF good or bad: speed of achieving focus, accuracy of focus, reliability of tracking, reliability of face/eye recognition. I didn't have a problem with the speed of focus of the SL2-S. It was fast and accurate enough for me. However, I would have liked both SL2-S and, now, the SL3-S to be better at identifying faces and, especially, staying locked on them. I guess (though I don't know) that this is more to do with image processing and processor power than the number of PDAF points.