Is the SL3 faster autofocus than SL2-s ?

[Eliseo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, Switched from Nikon t L SL2 and I’m a little disappointed by the autofocus.

i bought the Sport version thinking it was going to be to be faster. I used a sport long lens for polo shots and half of the photos came a little bit blur. It seems it is not fast enough.

Does anyone knows if that is something in the SL3 has improved?

[jaapv]

Good question. The system should be faster and the high MP should slow it down. I would say that you need an Sl3S to find a real difference or better still one of the Panasonic S cameras. 

[LocalHero1953]

Curious: what's the Sports version? I don't remember that one. Or a Sport long lens.

Edited 14 hours ago by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

If he means the Sigma 60-600  Sports or 150-600 Sports, those are not amongst the fastest lenses. The 70-200 Sports is a lot faster. 

[SolarChronicle]

The SL2-S uses contrast-detection autofocus, while the SL3 adds phase-detection autofocus. Phase detection is generally faster than contrast detection.

[jaapv]

Yes but a high MP count will slow AF down, especially if it does not have an overly powerful CPU 

Don't think that AF is a simple 1:1 story.

The designer has to decide on a compromise between accuracy and speed and has a choice of five technologies
DFD, DPAF, CDAF, PDAF and PD/CD hybrid. And then AI comes in for subject detection. 

Even worse,  it depends on sensor design and specifications, MP count, CPU capacity and finally on the implementation in the lens. 

So it is impossible to judge by one single parameter.

Without testing myself I would think that the SL2S and SL3 should be approximately similar. The fastest SL is the SL3S. But there are faster brands.

[Ken Abrahams]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have little to none empirical details that would suggest that the SL2S autofocus is faster than the SL3 autofocus. I like what Jaapv says above, his outline on the matter and other things.

The SL2S in my experience with the other SL units is about equal in autofocus quickness when compared to the SL3.   I love using the SL2S and I have always been happy with its performance and the way it "pushes above its weight". 

On the other hand, one cant go past the SL3 and the 60 mp sensor size. I have been using this camera more often that the SL2S. The SL3S however, is the fasted autofocus SL with all the same Leica SL IQ and colour and button layout. It made sense to me that I would probably be using the SL3 and SL3S alternatively because of the convenience of the mirrored controls. 

I would wonder then, why I keep reaching for the SL2S regardless of easiness of using the SL3 with the SL3S? Maybe it's nothing? Could be its Reporter green"? Working the files over time, there are specific trade offs when using each camera and sacrifices must be made when choosing one camera over the other two. The nuances are subtle and "choosing" is definitely an uplifting problem to have.   

I have come to realise that the SL3 AF is not far off the speed of the SL3s when set up specifically for your typical shooting scenario.

 

Ken  

Edited 2 hours ago by Ken Abrahams

[PhotoCruiser]

Are you sure that it's the autofocus and not micro movement due the weight and length of the lens?

As jaap wrote,
there are considerable better to much better cameras for fast moving objects like for example photographing polo games.
Sport photography was not, is not and most likely never will be Leicas business, thats mostly Canon and Nikon who dominate this market.
I love my SL2 and still learning to get the best out of it, but i am also aware that my Nikon D800 had better solutions and AF is one of them.
As jaapv mentioned, a Panasonic body would give you the possibility to share your SL lenses with a Panasonic body.
We had another, similar tread not long ago and i still would buy me another camera if my requirement is that AF must be fast and same time accurate for sport or fast moving wildlife.
I suggest you to rent a SL3 or SL3-S for a weekend and photograph with her to see if you find autofocus better than the one of the SL2.
Chris

 

Edited 1 hour ago by PhotoCruiser

[LocalHero1953]

I get confused in threads like these. AF speed, to my way of thinking, is determined entirely by the lens motor, not the camera. Speed can be reduced if hunting means it takes time to achieve final focus, but that only happens in unusual cases: low light, flat surfaces etc. For neither of these two issues can I see much difference between SL2, SL2-S and SL3-S. What causes me AF problems is the camera identifying the correct thing to focus on and then tracking it: faces, tracked objects etc; for close faces, focusing on spectacles instead of the eyes behind them; the brighter distant faces rather than the nearer shaded face. For these things, I find the SL3-S to be a bit better than its predecessors, but not a lot.

[jaapv]

22 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:

Sport photography was not, is not and most likely never will be Leicas business, thats mostly Canon and Nikon who dominate this market.

 

An interesting observation and, thinking it over one might wonder why. In the last part of the last century Leica was leading in the design of lang lenses-think of all the  Apo Telyts and the later Leica designed zooms- and camera bodies did not compete on focus as it was all manual, it was still an extreme rarity to see a Leica out on the sports field. And the same goes for brands like Asahi Pentax, Minolta, you name them. 
My guess is that this speciality, which is dominated by professionals, is completely locked in and near-impenetrable for outside brands. If your business and that of the competition starts out with investing heavily in one specific brand, you are not going to waste money by switching, especially if the guy next to you in the huddle is not doing so either. 
In think this was a case of getting in early and locking down the market. 
Leica may have had equal or even superior offerings back then, but their advantages in image quality and little else could not compensate for the extra costs in a discipline that prioritizes getting the shot over the ultimate IQ. 

So the result is a market that is locked down and near impenetrable. However Sony might manage to break through by sheer industrial might, which no other photographic industry can match. The rest and especially Leica as a minor market player does not even attempt. 

[jaapv]

11 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I get confused in threads like these. AF speed, to my way of thinking, is determined entirely by the lens motor, not the camera. Speed can be reduced if hunting means it takes time to achieve final focus, but that only happens in unusual cases: low light, flat surfaces etc. For neither of these two issues can I see much difference between SL2, SL2-S and SL3-S. What causes me AF problems is the camera identifying the correct thing to focus on and then tracking it: faces, tracked objects etc; for close faces, focusing on spectacles instead of the eyes behind them; the brighter distant faces rather than the nearer shaded face. For these things, I find the SL3-S to be a bit better than its predecessors, but not a lot.

Maybe you missed my post. AF speed is not attributable to one single factor but to a complete chain of design compromises. There are no problems, just a camera maker’s decision on priorities. 
What I miss in these discussions, and your post indicates the same question, is that everybody has something to say about speed and nobody about accuracy, whilst it is well known that PDAF is faster and CDAF more accurate and that most present systems are hybrid, necessitating a compromise between the two. 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 10 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

My guess is that this speciality, which is dominated by professionals, is completely locked in and near-impenetrable for outside brands. If your business and that of the competition starts out with investing heavily in one specific brand, you are not going to waste money by switching, especially if the guy next to you in the huddle is not doing so either. 

One huge advantage of Canon and Nikon is that if you are a pro you have a fast track customer service with instant replacement of the camera if any problem occurs. Not 100% sure if this is provided by Canon/Nikon dorectly or by the dealer, but as far i remember it was the brand itself.
there is a substantial difference between studio or any other repeatable shooting and any kind of non repeatable event photography where specialized photographers rely that their gear works also under the worst conditions and at a given date and time. Many of those photographers work either freelance or for a magazine/newspaper and upload every shot immediately to AP or similar photo distributors and who's first having a great shot of a goal makes the deal, and shooting and uploading is a question of matters. I know some of them and one of my best friend is chief editor for sports and printed and online newspaper and this is what they say regarding marked dominance.

Leica would be technically capable to develop a pro grade sports camera but would need to set up the surrounding services and both is not cheap and would be very hard to penetrate that marked as it's saturated with certainly awesome cameras.

Chris