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

[mpauliks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 3 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

My experience is that there may be an improvement, but it's not game changing.

Depending on personal needs, like always. To me, SL3-S is much much faster in AF then even SL3. But make the tests on your own and know, what you need.

Edited 21 hours ago by mpauliks

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

No, but there is a difference between results and theoretical numbers. If you are googling you should have found that PDAF is faster, CDAF more accurate, DFD for low light and DPAF is more for Video. Reason that we see hybrid systems As these all have their own tipping points and compromises, it is impossible to say which is "better". It all depends on the purpose, subject and other parameters like the lens (for instance the Sigma 70-200 is extremely fast, being designed that way with dual AF motors).So simply quoting AF site numbers or systems tells us basically nothing. The only criterium is: does it meet the need of the user, and even then, AF focusing being an acquired skill, it depends on the individual. 

 

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, mpauliks said:

To me, SL3-S is much much faster in AF then even SL3

Maybe, but less accurate. So great for Formula1, but less for wildlife. 

 

3 hours 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. +++ 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.

This sounds like AI generated, and therefore unreliable. AI incorporates all the bollocks written on the Internet as well. 

[jaapv]

I think that the watershed between us is that I regard AF as a non-essential. Except for a short excursion into Canon DSLR at the turn of the century, when AF was more of a hindrance than a help, I did not have AF in my main cameras at all (M and R series, including DMR and Visoflex) I only incorporated it seriously with the SL and CL. So although I like it for convenience, it is not an essential part of my photography and the differences between the various implementations are not something that I really notice or even use. In my book the responsibility for focus is with the photographer, not the camera. If it helps, fine, happily accepted, if not, there are other ways to get me where I want to be.
And yes, I know that many photographers struggle without AF nowadays. Inevitable, I guess. I also know how to drive a car with broken synchromesh or clutch...🤩

[Archiver]

8 hours ago, PhotoCruiser said:

Oh, thats interesting.
I don't have the impression that my 14mm f1.8 Sigma i frequently use produces a color cast on my SL2, nor does the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. so i guess it was the Zeiss doing that.
Good information in case OP considers to use a super wide ZM lens.
Chris

Your Sigma 14mm is not a M mount lens; wide M mount lenses, particularly older pre-digital designs, can suffer worse performance on mirrorless cameras including the SL line. The Zeiss 21mm f2.8 ZM is very sharp and constraty on the M9, but strangely soft and shows lower contrast on the SL2S.

[PhotoCruiser]

Zitat

other parameters like the lens (for instance the Sigma 70-200 is extremely fast, being designed that way with dual AF motors).

Yes, the model of the lens can influence AF speed and performance a lot.

However, in all the about 2000 photos i shot with my SL2 and Sigma lenses i had very low number of problems with AF for not fast moving objects, 
Just a few days ago Af on the Sigma 14mm had troubles to focus to infinity on a grey day with low contrast between sky and land and i took only this lens and left the 28mm (what probably would have done better for focusing) at home. I guess it would have been the same with my D800 and the Sigma 15mm diagonal fisheye where i had similar problems under low light contrast situations and using very wide lenses.
Would have the phase/hybrid AF have helped under that not very common conditions, maybe or probably yes, but thats not a reason for me to fork out 3K more to get the SL-3.

Chris

Edited 11 hours ago by PhotoCruiser

[PhotoCruiser]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Elliot Harper:

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

Yes, i had the same feeling even if i have big hands, the SL3 felt a bit more comfortable in my hand than the SL2.
Chris

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb mpauliks:

After this shot with Zeiss ZM 21 F/2.8 on SL2 at the Leica store, I decided for SL2-S that time. Take a look on the left side please.

Thanks for the photo, yes that looks really wired and yes it is always a good idea to test expensive gear before forking out substantial amounts of money.
You may open a new tread showing your experience with that to discuss possible causes for that as it's a important point for one who want to buy a wide ZM lens for his SL2.
Chris

 

Edited 12 hours ago by PhotoCruiser

[Markey]

1 hour ago, PhotoCruiser said:

Yes, i had the same feeling even if i have big hands, the SL3 felt a bit more comfortable in my hand than the SL2.
Chris

... yes , it did for me too. 

[Matt Todd]

I want to thank everyone for their insights. I am leaning toward returning the SL2s and going for the SL3s. The low light and the increased speed feel like they would be important tools to how and what I photograph. Also the ability for the handheld multishot seems like a real advantage as well. I rarely have the ability to shoot on a tripod. 

This has all been so helpful and made me feel very welcome on the forum with so many responses. Thank you again I can't wait to see how this goes. 

[Jeff S]

Can you rent or demo first?  I played briefly with the SL3, but preferred my SL2 in terms of ergonomics, simple on/off button, shutter sound, etc.  Minor stuff, but that’s where a lot of modern cameras differ; IQ has not generally been a limiting factor for most any high end camera in competent hands.  Print viewers can’t distinguish, and don’t care.