Which you use more often/prefer...SL3 vs SL3-S

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I still own both but would like to sell one of them just cant make up my mind.

In the end I dont need 60MP, but sometimes it feels better to have some more room for cropping.

The freedom of low noise and slighty faster AF and speed of the SL3-s is appealing as well. I do have Canon though for sports.

But SL system is my primary vacation and travel camera.

I wondered now long term which one SL3-SL3-s you guys prefer for which usecases and reasons.

 

 

[SrMi]

I have not noticed that my SL3-S has less noise than SL3. I believe SL3-S has better AF and high resolution modes. 

I shoot mostly with SL3 even though I do not crop much. I kind of like the output of higher resolution sensors, but SL3-S provides high enough resolution for my use cases. OTOH, the SL3 is the reporter version, which looks and feels great.

[LD_50]

Noise will be better on SL3-S at certain ISO and exposure levels if you zoom both photos into the same level magnification (ie 100%). It will be closer if you go with same output size for each (print or monitor) where the SL3 is downsampled more than the SL3-S. 

I chose SL3-S because I don’t need the additional resolution and I wanted the AF improvement. I also don’t crop much. 

If I did need to crop a lot, the noise improvement on SL3 from downsampling would start to be lost. 

[RBB]

Why would you sell one of them? If you need money I understand. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and complement each other well. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

SL3. Actually I never bought a SL3-S as it wouldn’t suit me. I print large and use the extra resolution, often. There’s no noise advantage to the SL3-S. Noise should be judged at output size.

The SL3-S has slightly better AFC which I don’t need.

Gordon

[LD_50]

27 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

SL3. Actually I never bought a SL3-S as it wouldn’t suit me. I print large and use the extra resolution, often. There’s no noise advantage to the SL3-S. Noise should be judged at output size.

The SL3-S has slightly better AFC which I don’t need.

Gordon

Reidreviews showed comparisons both at 100% magnifications and matched output size between SL3 and SL3-S. SL3-S looks to start having a noise advantage at matched output size (to my eyes) at ISO 3200. 

At 100% magnification, it was more around ISO 400. 

Whether this is important depends on the end user, but you’re right it should be compared at like output size. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:25 PM by LD_50

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

35 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

Reidreviews showed comparisons both at 100% magnifications and matched output size between SL3 and SL3-S. SL3-S looks to start having a noise advantage at matched output size (to my eyes) at ISO 3200. 

At 100% magnification, it was more around ISO 400. 

Whether this is important depends on the end user, but you’re right it should be compared at like output size. 

If you look at P2P data, you will see that SL3-S applies in-camera noise reduction at ISO 6400 and above. SL3 should have better DR at ISO below 640 (needs to be confirmed in practice, e.g., with heavy lifting of shadows).

[Jon Warwick]

11 hours ago, tom0511 said:

In the end I dont need 60MP, but sometimes it feels better to have some more room for cropping.

….

I wondered now long term which one SL3-SL3-s you guys prefer for which usecases and reasons.

 

 

Perhaps left field, but regarding the need for higher resolution, have you set up both cameras, same lens and taken an identical image? ……and then, specifically

(1) for the SL3-S file, used Adobe “Super Resolution”, which enlarges it to 12,000 pixels wide (40” at 300ppi)? And then

(2) compare that to the SL3 file, with the SL3 not resampled in “Super Resolution” but by using a more traditional resampling method like bicubic (also to 40” wide)?

I use “Super Resolution” on the 24mp cameras, and think it does a very good at providing realistic extra clarity without over sharpening. It was an unexpected observation when I first tried it on 24mp SLs, but I wonder if a mix of its fat pixels and excellent lenses is laying down some really good data for Super Resolution to accurately and sympathetically get its teeth into? 

[SrMi]

10 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

Perhaps left field, but regarding the need for higher resolution, have you set up both cameras, same lens and taken an identical image? ……and then, specifically

(1) for the SL3-S file, used Adobe “Super Resolution”, which enlarges it to 12,000 pixels wide (40” at 300ppi)? And then

(2) compare that to the SL3 file, with the SL3 not resampled in “Super Resolution” but by using a more traditional resampling method like bicubic (also to 40” wide)?

I use “Super Resolution” on the 24mp cameras, and think it does a very good at providing realistic extra clarity without over sharpening. It was an unexpected observation when I first tried it on 24mp SLs, but I wonder if a mix of its fat pixels and excellent lenses is laying down some really good data for Super Resolution to accurately and sympathetically get its teeth into? 

You should use AI upscaling on SL3 image as well and than downsample it to the SL3-S image.

[Jon Warwick]

7 hours ago, SrMi said:

You should use AI upscaling on SL3 image as well and than downsample it to the SL3-S image.

One could do that, of course. But the reason for why I didn’t suggest “Super Resolution” on the 60mp DNG is because - to my eyes- it can sometimes create an output that looks hyper-sharpened and fake (which is why I don’t like using it on those 60mp DNGs) ….. whereas i think it works consistently well and convincingly with the 24mp SL DNGs in creating natural looking output.

[hoolyproductions]

I also have both of these, and a Q3 43 which has slowly but surely become my main camera for more casual or lightweight photography, which sometimes make me question the need to have the SL3. Mainly my point of view is that I really enjoy using all three cameras (most of the cost was covered by selling previous gear) so am not planning to make a change. However as I get older I get a bit more cautious with large expenses because I don't want to end up eating dog food when I retire 

• The Q3 43 is perfect for casual landscape, cityscape, environmental portraits and so on. In these situations I don't really miss the better ergonomics or EVF (although proper IBIS would be nice). And the 43mm APO is a fantastic lens.
• For my music photography and in general for more 'serious' photography the SL3-S is the only option for me. Yes the SL3 could cover this but I prefer the AF and high ISO of the SL3-S and 24mp is more than enough here. Plus I sometimes takes hundreds of shots at a gig and the smaller file size makes things easier.
• I much prefer the SL3 for landscape photography. I don't need to the extra megapixels, but I really really really enjoy using them. As above, the SL3-S could do the same job but I just prefer overall the SL3 for 'daylight' work. However I have been using the Q3 43 more and more and have only used the SL3 a few times this year on trips to scenic locations.

If I would really need to raise some cash I guess the SL3 would be the one to go, but I am not going to sell it, rather just try to minimise any future spending on lenses or bodies because (other than a couple of improvements I would like to see in the firmware) the SL3/-S are both really perfect for me.

WInter is arriving here, with freezing rain and soon snowstorms. I love doing winter landscape photography in fairly extreme conditions so the SL3 will be getting more use than the Q3 43 in the coming months.

[tom0511]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb RBB:

Why would you sell one of them? If you need money I understand. Both cameras have their strengths and weaknesses and complement each other well. 

Good question. I am gear headed guy. I still find the SL system too slow for my sports needs (handball, indoors), and I also believe that medium format (in my case Hassy x2d) delivers an advantage in IQ and "look" over sl system.

BUT: The SL system sits so nice in between, so for casual shooting, vacation and when you want to have one system (family, around the house,...) I still love the SL system.

Overall I want to reduce some gear, I feel I dont need 2 SL bodies. 

[tom0511]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Jon Warwick:

Perhaps left field, but regarding the need for higher resolution, have you set up both cameras, same lens and taken an identical image? ……and then, specifically

(1) for the SL3-S file, used Adobe “Super Resolution”, which enlarges it to 12,000 pixels wide (40” at 300ppi)? And then

(2) compare that to the SL3 file, with the SL3 not resampled in “Super Resolution” but by using a more traditional resampling method like bicubic (also to 40” wide)?

I use “Super Resolution” on the 24mp cameras, and think it does a very good at providing realistic extra clarity without over sharpening. It was an unexpected observation when I first tried it on 24mp SLs, but I wonder if a mix of its fat pixels and excellent lenses is laying down some really good data for Super Resolution to accurately and sympathetically get its teeth into? 

Thank you for the tip. I am a little skeptic about using such tools, I am sure the results will be fine but on the other side I feel there will information added by KI.

[hoolyproductions]

8 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

 medium format (in my case Hassy x2d) delivers an advantage in IQ and "look" over sl system.

 

I rented an X2DII for a weekend recently. I really enjoyed it but, for me, still prefer the SL system overall. If I did get an X2D I would definitely sell the SL3, as for me they would have very similar use cases.

[Jon Warwick]

57 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

Thank you for the tip. I am a little skeptic about using such tools, I am sure the results will be fine but on the other side I feel there will information added by KI.

I was highly sceptical myself, but I found that it seems to work remarkably well for the 24mp SL files  ….. whereas, in contrast, for M11 files, it didn’t look right at all (hyper sharpened, fake, very digital), and I never use it.

[Jon Warwick]

53 minutes ago, hoolyproductions said:

I rented an X2DII for a weekend recently. I really enjoyed it but, for me, still prefer the SL system overall. If I did get an X2D I would definitely sell the SL3, as for me they would have very similar use cases.

What was your take on outright image quality (tonality, resolution etc) between the X2D and SL3?

fwiw, I’ve very closely compared my GFX100S (and GF55 lens) with an SL3 (and 50 APO Summicron), and thought the output far closer than not. Maybe the SL primes narrowed the difference in megapixels to my eyes. I was looking at images to c 50-55” for both. All captured on a tripod, lens at f5.6, etc. 

[tom0511]

What I can say is that the x2d output often needs very little if any postprocessing. WB, Skin color and overall appearance is very rich and good.

IN regards of usability the still relativly long blackout during taking a shot is a small disadvantage of the x2d(ii) compared to the SL bodies.

[Photoworks]

2 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Good question. I am gear headed guy. I still find the SL system too slow for my sports needs (handball, indoors), and I also believe that medium format (in my case Hassy x2d) delivers an advantage in IQ and "look" over sl system.

BUT: The SL system sits so nice in between, so for casual shooting, vacation and when you want to have one system (family, around the house,...) I still love the SL system.

Overall I want to reduce some gear, I feel I dont need 2 SL bodies. 

I feel that I don't need 4 SL bodies.

I am going to contribute with 2 observations on top of what has been said.

The benefit of SL3 in some cases is the lack of moire.
Also, you all talk about High ISO performance, well, I do lots of exposures at 400 iso, f11, and shutter 1-2sec, this often produces the same noise as ISO 6400 or more.
Maybe I should do some tests and find the 2ND iso setting that may be cleaner, maybe 640? Anyway, in does cases I will use DxOPureRaw.

Well, both SL3's are better than SL2's, but I am disappointed that many issues have not been addressed in firmware fixes. What has it been, over a year?

This year I have added some of the Panasonic cameras S1RII and S1II to compensate for the trouble I have been running into with the SL3.
I have been using it much more, even if I hate the menu, the buttons, and the look of the camera. The results at 40MP are amazing, Flash photography actually works, looking at ISO when needed, open gate video with no crop, IBIS cropless. It is a great tool, just not sexy.
I can match the color to the SL3 in post, but the Leica images look better from the start.

[tom0511]

I just read Sean Reids comparison. He mentions the SL3-S blackout and viewfinder delay to be less than the SL3 (about half time). I just realized even with SL3-S there is some delay when shooting handball with it and a couple of times I missed the moment because I pressed the shutter button too late.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hoolyproductions]

1 hour ago, Jon Warwick said:

What was your take on outright image quality (tonality, resolution etc) between the X2D and SL3?

 

I posted some impressions in one of the X2D threads, link below.

I did not have the camera long enough to make any proper conclusions. From the few shots I took I do agree that a little less post processing was needed, on average. I found the 55V a little disappointing and some reviews seem to confirm this. I absolutely adore the APO lenses, appreciate the wider availability of lenses (in particular telephoto) and from an aesthetic point of view I am hopelessly in love with the SL cameras. And the extra weather sealing is a big plus for me. 

EDIT: Oh, and for low light music photography (my main 'jam') it was a no no. AF and EVF could not keep up in very low light.

I'm really glad I rented one because I had recurring GAS for the X2D and X2DII, whereas now it is completely out of my mind; I already have my dream camera(s)

 

Edited yesterday at 12:32 PM by hoolyproductions