Is the SL3 faster autofocus than SL2-s ?

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

the puny battery capacity and the added drain from shunting motors 24/7.

If you are currently using the BP-SCL4 battery, and switch to the BP-SCL6 battery for the SL3, I doubt you'd notice much difference. I have posted elsewhere about taking 2500 shots with about one and a half of the new batteries in the SL3-S over about 5 hours, all with AF (iAF, face); there was a proportion of burst mode in there (7fps, mechanical shutter), but there was also quite a lot of reviewing of results on the LCD as well. 

Edited November 20 by LocalHero1953

[Advertisement]

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

[Photoworks]

5 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Not to sidetrack things too far, but my beat to hell SL2 is thinking about retirement. I hadn't been paying attention at the SL3 intro, but in doing my due diligence for the old girls impending replacement, I was rather surprised by AFs not employing PDAF.  Does the SL3 low light AFs performance provide a noticeable improvement over the SL2 or is it simply that in those situations one uses AFc to see any gain?   Not sure I'd be very happy about that given the amount of event shooting I do, the puny battery capacity and the added drain from shunting motors 24/7.  Starting to think I might be better off just finding a nice, clean SL2 instead. 

I don't like AFc; I like more control over my focus and a clearer viewfinder.

But I have found to appreciate the focus improvements of the AFc on the SL3.  It takes a bit of practice to move and use the right field AF

[jaapv]

12 hours ago, Photoworks said:

If sports or wildlife is your main interest, I would stick with Canon, Nikon, or Sony. They just are much better 

Why wildlife? Nature has other animals than Cheetahs…

In my experience manual focus regularly works better than AF for Wildlife. 

I blame the BBC. Their documentaries often make the Bush appear like some kind of fairground with animals racing about all over the place, which we have to scramble to capture.

What the audience does not know  is that it can take up to five years of patience to produce one hour of footage. Many of us remember a scene of a Scarlet Beeeater colony on the Luangwa River in Zambia with a Fish Eagle in the tree above swatting the Bee-eaters.
I know the place well - and the little corrugated iron shelter in the riverbed that held a couple cameraman all day in the sweltering heat for weeks on end to capture the short clip No need for extremely speedy focus just patience,  skill, and anticipating the action. 
For wildlife the main requirement is that you gear can take a beating. The L system does not fail this requirement.  
So must the photographer. And he or his guide must have a deep knowledge of the subject. And  patience. AF comes a long, long way behind

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Why wildlife? Nature has other animals than Cheetahs…

Yes, sure, but wildlife is not either only sleeping leopards on a tree or walking elephants.
The Leica Af will work great for some animals but subpar for others, same as for sport where not all sports are too fast and confused for Leicas AF.
Yes, many great wildlife and sports photos have been shot with manual focus when AF was not introduced, but quantity of ruined ones because out of focus is higher for moving animals.

For a Safari where one can encounter still, slow, fast and very fast animals i also would prefer a Nikon or Canon.
As much i like my Leicas i find the AF system is Leicas biggest and only flaw for certain situations.

Chris
 

 

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:

Yes, sure, but wildlife is not either only sleeping leopards on a tree or walking elephants.
The Leica Af will work great for some animals but subpar for others, same as for sport where not all sports are too fast and confused for Leicas AF.
Yes, many great wildlife and sports photos have been shot with manual focus when AF was not introduced, but quantity of ruined ones because out of focus is higher for moving animals.

For a Safari where one can encounter still, slow, fast and very fast animals i also would prefer a Nikon or Canon.
As much i like my Leicas i find the AF system is Leicas biggest and only flaw for certain situations.

Chris
 

 

Well, it must be me, but after 36 Safaris ( and not just one tourist drive by a hotel in the bush in Botswana, I disappear into a wilderness area  for a couple of weeks)  over the years, I can only say that AF is low on my list of requirements. Although I will admit as I grow older, that it does add convenience. 
BTW I think that you underestimate the speed at which an Elephant can move. 

[PhotoCruiser]

Photography is mostly "it's me" and everyone is free and it's perfectly fine to use what gear and settings to obtain the photo the shooter is happy with. You are much more experienced than me so i guess you know exactly what you want and need, but others prefer other systems of taking photos and that includes the not mandatory use of AF and for some situations the best working AF.

I saw running elephants and got chased by them during my trip to Gambia and particularly in the 2 weeks camping in the Seregeti including camping inside and on the bottom of the Ngorongoro crater what seems to be forbidden today. Thats why i wrote walking elephants and the Elephant was a example of a big animal what makes focusing in manual or AF easnier than a small one in the middle of a tree.

Chris

 

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes,  but I only object to the ubiquitous lumping together of sports and wildlife photography. Two totally different disciplines  that only have the use of long lenses in common. 

[Tailwagger]

15 hours ago, Photoworks said:

I don't like AFc; I like more control over my focus...

Amen.  I find neutering AFs to be an odd, possibly irritating, decision.  Has there ever been an explanation as to why?   Regardless, after RTFMing this morning, I've had a rather an unhappy revelation... I've never developed sufficient chops to excel at video games.

When you buy a SoCaPaNikon, the camera is festooned with enough buttons run a nuclear power plant.  All those 'excess' controls allow those with sufficient dedication to customize an interface that works in nearly any scenario they might be forced to react to.  For those who grew up button mashing every day, hour after hour after (hopefully) their homework was done, controlling AF modes, EV, ISO values etc. across all those touch points in the moment is a completely familiar playground. I, however, having grown up with a baseball in one hand and a Contaflex super B in the other, learned an entirely different game. Reining all this in via a playstation controller is an utterly foreign notion to my muscle's memories. And given the rabid dedication to a simple physical interface, Leica's as well I expect.  The AF feature demands placed on modern mirrorless cameras wind up  dictating so many options/modes that they ultimately wind up overwhelming the notion of user presets. Particularly so, as the matrix (along with my head) explodes once you account for AF settings in the context of existing presets like EV bracketing, mono, 18mpx vs 60mpx, what have you. So we both seem caught between a rock and AF point.

Despite my craving for a simple camera with a fast, accurate AFs that largely works regardless, it would seem this is a desire likely to go unmet in my lifetime.  Perhaps I should just beat a hasty retreat back to a future M sporting a more sophisticated form of focus confirm.  Thinking about that sadly amplifies my disappointment with the M-EV release.  But there still is some faint hope. I have yet to shoot with the SL3. I made the SL2 work. Ultimately history suggests I should be able to get along well enough with the SL3. Certainly far better than any of the aforementioned Xbox based cameras.  It just thinking about this stuff makes me feel as though its all just passed me by which, of course, it has. Maybe its time to trade in that baseball in for a pickleball after all.

Edited November 21 by Tailwagger

[Photoworks]

15 hours ago, jaapv said:

Why wildlife? Nature has other animals than Cheetahs…

In my experience manual focus regularly works better than AF for Wildlife. 

I blame the BBC. Their documentaries often make the Bush appear like some kind of fairground with animals racing about all over the place, which we have to scramble to capture.

What the audience does not know  is that it can take up to five years of patience to produce one hour of footage. Many of us remember a scene of a Scarlet Beeeater colony on the Luangwa River in Zambia with a Fish Eagle in the tree above swatting the Bee-eaters.
I know the place well - and the little corrugated iron shelter in the riverbed that held a couple cameraman all day in the sweltering heat for weeks on end to capture the short clip No need for extremely speedy focus just patience,  skill, and anticipating the action. 
For wildlife the main requirement is that you gear can take a beating. The L system does not fail this requirement.  
So must the photographer. And he or his guide must have a deep knowledge of the subject. And  patience. AF comes a long, long way behind

You should see does animals in Manhattan, they are too fast for manual focus.

[jaapv]

You mean the ones that survived crossing the road? 

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, Tailwagger said:

Amen.  I find neutering AFs to be an odd, possibly irritating, decision.  Has there ever been an explanation as to why?   Regardless, after RTFMing this morning, I've had a rather an unhappy revelation... I've never developed sufficient chops to excel at video games.

When you buy a SoCaPaNikon, the camera is festooned with enough buttons run a nuclear power plant.  All those 'excess' controls allow those with sufficient dedication to customize an interface that works in nearly any scenario they might be forced to react to.  For those who grew up button mashing every day, hour after hour after (hopefully) their homework was done, controlling AF modes, EV, ISO values etc. across all those touch points in the moment is a completely familiar playground. I, however, having grown up with a baseball in one hand and a Contaflex super B in the other, learned an entirely different game. Reining all this in via a playstation controller is an utterly foreign notion to my muscle's memories. And given the rabid dedication to a simple physical interface, Leica's as well I expect.  The AF feature demands placed on modern mirrorless cameras wind up  dictating so many options/modes that they ultimately wind up overwhelming the notion of user presets. Particularly so, as the matrix (along with my head) explodes once you account for AF settings in the context of existing presets like EV bracketing, mono, 18mpx vs 60mpx, what have you. So we both seem caught between a rock and AF point.

Despite my craving for a simple camera with a fast, accurate AFs that largely works regardless, it would seem this is a desire likely to go unmet in my lifetime.  Perhaps I should just beat a hasty retreat back to a future M sporting a more sophisticated form of focus confirm.  Thinking about that sadly amplifies my disappointment with the M-EV release.  But there still is some faint hope. I have yet to shoot with the SL3. I made the SL2 work. Ultimately history suggests I should be able to get along well enough with the SL3. Certainly far better than any of the aforementioned Xbox based cameras.  It just thinking about this stuff makes me feel as though its all just passed me by which, of course, it has. Maybe its time to trade in that baseball in for a pickleball after all.

A couple points:

- AFc works functionally like AFs if you use back button focus. I’ve done this for years with Leica and Nikon before. I see no real need to use AFs and haven’t for years with this capability.

- I occasionally read here about how SL3/SL3-S use PDAF+CDAF in AFc, but only CDAF in AFs. I have never read anything official to confirm this and to my understanding this is speculation. Perhaps @Photoworks can provide the information I’m missing here since he/she referenced it in a post on this thread. I seem to remember someone asking Leica and Leica remaining silent on this.

- I shot Nikon for a long time prior to Leica M and SL cameras. Yes, there are a lot of buttons. Yes, there are a lot of menu options. No, it’s not complicated to shoot with one of these cameras if you want “fast, accurate AFs that largely works regardless.” It’s nothing like a video game controller and not much different than an SL or similar “simple” camera. You don’t have to press all the buttons for simple functions. You set up the menu once and then all those buttons give you access to all the advanced features missing on simpler cameras.

— Example below with Nikon Z9 vs Leica SL3-S using AFs shows required buttons to activate shutter, activate AFs, change ISO, change shutter speed, change aperture (simple camera options):

Leica SL3-S

1. Joystick selects focus point
2. Shutter button activates shutter and activates AFs (you could de-couple using back button focus via menu if you want to, which would add one more button press)
3. ISO wheel changes ISO
4. Top or rear wheel changes shutter speed
5. Top or rear wheel changes aperture

Nikon Z9:

1. Joystick selects focus point
2. Shutter button activates shutter and activates AFs (you could de-couple using back button focus via menu if you want to, which would add one more button)
3. ISO— hold ISO button
4. ISO— rotate rear wheel while holding ISO button
5. Front or rear wheel changes shutter speed
6. Front or rear wheel changes aperture

What am I missing regarding how complex this is and why you’d need to go back to a manual focus camera? The Leica is fast and accurate and simple. The Nikon is faster, accurate, and simple. The Nikon requires an additional button to change ISO, similar to how Leica did with the SL and SL2/SL2-S, before adding the ISO wheel. 

It’s much easier to remove features to make operation simpler (ie you going to an M instead of an SL, or shooting an SL vs a Nikon) than it is to include features while being simple and intuitive. I do think some cameras are simpler and more intuitive than others. I prefer the Leica SL to the SL3-S button layout. I prefer Nikon to Canon. Many prefer Hasselblad to Fuji, etc.

[michali]

Jumping in here, as a wildlife photographer with 50 years on safaris & still counting & having dragged many cumbersome manual focus tele lenses all over Africa, I feel the need to throw my 10 cents in. 

These recurring discussions about Leica’s “inferior” autofocus compared to Nikon, Canon, or Sony become a bit repetitive & frankly, tedious.

What gets ignored is the human link in the process. If the whole discussion comes down to whether the camera can do all the focusing work for you & how fast, what does that say about the photographer’s own skill? 

What does it say about our craft, if achieving a compelling image hinges almost entirely on the camera & its algorithms doing the work for us?

AF performance has its place, of course, but photography isn’t supposed to be an arms race of algorithms. Speaking for myself, the satisfaction comes from the challenge of having mastered the skills & ability to create the desired image .

To @jaapv 's point, understanding your subject, anticipation, timing, spatial awareness & the ability to recognise the decisive moment. The machine may assist, but it’s the human who creates.

At some point we have to acknowledge that the photographer’s eye, timing & awareness matter far more than whatever brand happens to presently have the fastest AF tracking.

Some of the greatest photographs & some of the most iconic wildlife documentaries ever made, were taken by craftsmen who had to manually guess distance, pull/maintain focus, work out exposure, spending countless hours on their bellies in unrelenting heat, squinting into the sun & yet somehow they managed to create masterpieces without 6,000 AF point tracking controlled by algorithms. 

My close friend Dereck Joubert's 1992 Emmy Award-winning  Eternal Enemies   being one example, probably one of the most definitive wildlife documentaries ever made.  If you haven't got time to watch the whole film, go to the 1 hour mark & watch the final scene, simply mind-blowing!  All manually done, it's the work of a master filmmaker.

So before we declare a camera is inferior or crap because its AF isn't fast enough, we should remember, if one's success or failure depends on the camera babysitting the photographer, it's not a Leica problem it's a user problem.

I'll step off my soapbox for now......

 

 

Edited November 21 by michali

[jaapv]

You don’t have to go as far as Joubert’s brilliant work. Mike’s present successful  Leopard photo on this forum illustrates the point. It could only have been taken with extensive knowledge of the animal, Leopard behaviour in general and the surrounding   The resulting setting was not difficult to capture, wildlife photography is the part that came before. A newbie with a spanking new Nikon would not even have seen it. And the Leopard would have been down and disappeared into the undergrowth. 

[LD_50]

7 minutes ago, michali said:

Jumping in here, as a wildlife photographer with 50 years on safaris & still counting & having dragged many cumbersome manual focus tele lenses all over Africa, I feel the need to throw my 10 cents in. 

These recurring discussions about Leica’s “inferior” autofocus compared to Nikon, Canon, or Sony become a bit repetitive & frankly, tedious.

What gets ignored is the human link in the process. If the whole discussion comes down to whether the camera can do all the focusing work for you & how fast, what does that say about the photographer’s own skill? 

What does it say about our craft, if achieving a compelling image hinges almost entirely on the camera & its algorithms doing the work for us?

AF performance has its place, of course, but photography isn’t supposed to be an arms race of algorithms. Speaking for myself, the satisfaction comes from the challenge of having mastered the skills to create the desired image.

To @jaapv 's point, understanding your subject, anticipation, timing, spatial awareness, and the ability to recognise the decisive moment. The machine may assist, but it’s the human who creates.

At some point we have to acknowledge that the photographer’s eye, timing, and awareness matter far more than whatever brand happens to presently have the fastest AF tracking.

Some of the greatest photographs & some of the most iconic wildlife documentaries ever made, were taken by craftsmen who had to manually guess distance, pull/maintain focus, exposure, spend countless hours on their bellies in unrelenting heat, squinting into the sun & yet somehow they managed to create masterpieces without 6,000 AF point tracking controlled by algorithms. 

My close friend Dereck Joubert's Emmy Award-winning  Eternal Enemies   being one example, probably one of the most definitive wildlife documentaries ever made.  If you haven't got time to watch the whole film, go to the 1 hour mark & watch the final scene, simply mind-blowing!  All manually done, it's the work of a master filmmaker.

So before we declare a camera is inferior or crap because its AF isn't fast enough, we should remember, if one's success or failure depends on the camera babysitting the photographer, it's not a Leica problem it's a user problem.

I'll step off my soapbox for now......

 

 

This is usually pitted as master craftsman with antiquated tools against amateur with no skill with the high-tech AI camera. 

It is possible for the master craftsman to use the best tools. Typically the professionals in any industry use the best tool for the job, not the one that challenges them and validates their skill-set. This goes for photography and many other crafts. Of course there are people who fall in love with a tool they’re familiar with (or where they love the experience or the inspiration, etc) and continue to use it, but that doesn’t make it the best tool for most anyone else.

Of course there are iconic photos shot with film and manual focus but there’s a reason these have been nearly completely abandoned by professionals. I’ve found that something like tracking AF and high fps is so unreliable (and difficult with VF blackout) with Leica that I wouldn’t use it to shoot sports if instead I could shoot a Nikon Z9.

 

[jaapv]

Well,  if you want to argue against someone who spends most of his time in the wild with a camera in his hands… What I see coming from the hands of amateurs toting the latest all singin’ all dancin” gear with the labels still attached is boring repetitive stuff. Sleeping Lions mostly.. Preferably taken in 20 fps bursts. 

[michali]

21 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

This is usually pitted as master craftsman with antiquated tools against amateur with no skill with the high-tech AI camera. 

It is possible for the master craftsman to use the best tools. Typically the professionals in any industry use the best tool for the job, not the one that challenges them and validates their skill-set. This goes for photography and many other crafts. Of course there are people who fall in love with a tool they’re familiar with (or where they love the experience or the inspiration, etc) and continue to use it, but that doesn’t make it the best tool for most anyone else.

Of course there are iconic photos shot with film and manual focus but there’s a reason these have been nearly completely abandoned by professionals. I’ve found that something like tracking AF and high fps is so unreliable (and difficult with VF blackout) with Leica that I wouldn’t use it to shoot sports if instead I could shoot a Nikon Z9.

 

It’s not about rejecting modern tools, it's about the camera that feels most natural in hand & keeps me connected to the scene, even if its AF is fairly "basic". 

Personally, I just don’t rely at all on AFC, anticipation & timing matter more than tracking performance. Simplicity is the key & it suits me fine, hence the reason I've used Leicas since 1975. That doesn’t necessarily make it better for anyone else.

Speaking of simplicity, let’s not even get started on comparing menus & buttons on other cameras; I spent some time with a Sony A7  🤯   The simplicity of the SL system's buttons & menu system is on another level.

I do agree that some would pick whatever tool gets the job done quickly esp. for sports or fast action, something like a Z9 could probably be OK.

At the risk of sounding like a killjoy, IMO the more cameras & their algorithms take over the photographer’s role, the more I’m seeing fewer photographs and seeing more lifeless images being presented as “photography.” AI is only going to exacerbate this.

I suppose, different photographers, different needs & expectations.

[LD_50]

40 minutes ago, michali said:

 

It’s not about rejecting modern tools, it's about the camera that feels most natural in hand & keeps me connected to the scene, even if its AF is fairly "basic". 

Personally, I just don’t rely at all on AFC, anticipation & timing matter more than tracking performance. Simplicity is the key & it suits me fine, hence the reason I've used Leicas since 1975. That doesn’t necessarily make it better for anyone else.

Speaking of simplicity, let’s not even get started on comparing menus & buttons on other cameras; I spent some time with a Sony A7  🤯   The simplicity of the SL system's buttons & menu system is on another level.

I do agree that some would pick whatever tool gets the job done quickly esp. for sports or fast action, something like a Z9 could probably be OK.

At the risk of sounding like a killjoy, IMO the more cameras & their algorithms take over the photographer’s role, the more I’m seeing fewer photographs and seeing more lifeless images being presented as “photography.” AI is only going to exacerbate this.

I suppose, different photographers, different needs & expectations.

Natural in hand and connected to the scene is about shape, haptics, weight, and viewfinder. Lots of modern cameras cover this well. I was more addressing the buttons and video game comment, given you can basically ignore the menus to access a lot of functionality with those buttons, or you can ignore the buttons and operate very simply. 

I agree Leica is much better than Sony with the menus. I have an RX1, which has few buttons but is not pleasant to shoot. The menus, the on screen graphics, it’s all off putting. 

My point on back button focus is that you shoot with AFs but can hold the button for AFc. I don’t use actual continuous focus much with the SL cameras, I press and hold the joystick button and then release when I’m focused where I want to be. I can then wait and anticipate if need be. 

With more cameras available to more people it’s certainly true the percentage of quality photos will drop, but they’re out there. It’s similar to music, what’s most popular and/or common tends to drop in quality as more people can create with less barriers to entry. 

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Well,  if you want to argue against someone who spends most of his time in the wild with a camera in his hands… What I see coming from the hands of amateurs toting the latest all singin’ all dancin” gear with the labels still attached is boring repetitive stuff. Sleeping Lions mostly.. Preferably taken in 20 fps bursts. 

I’m not sure if that’s directed to me but I was making the point that an amateur with a less capable camera should be compared to an amateur with the best camera. The master craftsman similarly can use either and those should be compared.

I’m not sure why in these discussions about gear it always seems to be the amateur who can only shoot sleeping lions has the best gear while the expert who knows exactly where to be chooses to use film and manual focus. In reality the professionals seem to be using the top level gear as well. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

Only those who can afford it. 

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, LD_50 said:

A couple points:

- AFc works functionally like AFs if you use back button focus. I’ve done this for years with Leica and Nikon before. I see no real need to use AFs and haven’t for years with this capability.

- I occasionally read here about how SL3/SL3-S use PDAF+CDAF in AFc, but only CDAF in AFs. I have never read anything official to confirm this and to my understanding this is speculation. Perhaps @Photoworks can provide the information I’m missing here since he/she referenced it in a post on this thread. I seem to remember someone asking Leica and Leica remaining silent on this.

 

A bit of clarification. I have, what a $25K+ investment in SL glass, and even more in M.  Couldn't go back if I wanted to, which I don't for any number of reasons. I came to Leica via Nikon->Canon->Fuji a long time ago.  The M was my first Leica and remains, after over a decade, my primary camera.  The SLs came to the party later. My comment around simple reliable AFs is solely aimed at the SL and its performance in low light.  Let's just agree to disagree about the level of interface complexity in those cameras and the other viable L-mounts ones:

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!

 

Like any long term marriage, its for better or for worse.  If what you're saying, and there seem to be many conflicting opinions on this subject, that the SL3 represents a leap in low light AF performance over the SL2 with little need to fuss about with multiple metering and tracking modes to have a high rate of success, then cool, I'll be happy. But if not, I won't.