Fred Miranda wrote:
Let me guess without seeing the review. Best to worse: SL2-S, SL3, SL2, SL 601. Is this right?
The person who created this file and test images wrote:
"My impression is (as expected) that the SL3 is between the SL2 and the SL2-S, which is good here but feels closer to the SL2. Here is a collection of shots in the same setup SL 601, SL2, SL2-S and SL3 in all ISO settings for comparison. Thanks to the impressive AI noise reduction in Lightroom, this topic has become much less important." –Thomas Walter
There are tradeoffs everywhere. I still need to shoot them side by side, but the SL2-S still seems to have the low light advantage. Whether it's enough for me to keep and carry both bodies remains to be seen (I'd love to partially fund another APO SL lens with the sale of the SL2-S).
There is one area, and I've said this before and stand by it having had the SL2 and now seeing some images from the SL3, that the SL3 will be way ahead of the SL2-S - black and white images, especially high contrast black and white.
Black and white images, especially those taken with one of Leica's APO Summicron-SL lenses, render differently with the SL2 and SL3. With the APO lenses, I'm assuming it's because they resolve so well and have so much microcontrast that the high resolution sensor is able to capture it better - but I've seen it with other lenses, too. There is a sense of more realism. It's one thing I missed after selling My SL2 in favor of the SL2-S (I do a lot of low light photography).
Unfortunately I think the A7RV is a closer competitor to the SL3 than the A1... the same 61MP sensor, the slower readout speeds, limited video features and slow burst rates make it a much more direct competitor.
Initial Impressions:
1. Familiar - feels smaller but solid.
2. On/Off button better than I expected. Feels responsive (FW 1.1)
3. Rear panel great color, brightness and resolution
4. EVF same as SL2. I don't really notice a resolution drop during AFC. If it's there, it's minor.
5. Burst rate with AF - limited to 2fps with old 1860mAh battery. 4fps with new battery.
6. Shutter button has more travel. Slight preference toward the SL2 button but perhaps this will grow on me.
7. Shutter is louder, not a dampened as the SL2
8. L-log video is more like SL2S when grading. Takes less tweaking to get pleasing colors than SL2 L-log files.
9. Rolling shutter, yeah just like A7R5 and the other implementations of this sensor. No panning!
10. Autofocus is more accurate not necessarily in detection but in executing the shot. The SL2 is really good at detecting subjects and finding eyes, just not always good at getting the eyes sharp if you or the subject moves. I fired off a 58 frame sequence of a moving toddler indoors with the SL 50/1.4 wide open. 54 were in focus - sharp eyes. 2 were soft but usable. 2 were OOF. What's changed is when the SL2 misses there are multiple OOF shots in a row. Sometime it never recovers. When the SL3 missed, the previous frame was in focus and the following frame was in focus. That is a very nice improvement.
11. While the AF is noticeably improved, the camera feels sluggish in burst shooting relative to the SL2. But once it detects the subject it rarely misses. I have OM1 and R5 for burst shooting so for how I use the SL2 and SL3, it is perfectly adequate.
12. Less pulsing and hunting with the F2 APO primes and I am happy to say that the SL 50/1.4 Lux is a much improved experience. Faster and quieter. I actually prefer it to the RF 50/1.2 on the R5.
13. IBIS doesn't feel any better/worse. I can consistently shoot 1.6s at 35mm with both cameras (between 5 and 6 stops). At 2s the images show some motion blur. The X2D I can shoot 2s with the 45/4 (35mm equivalent) consistently which is frankly mind boggling for a sensor that large.
14. Video presets are nice - allows you to quickly switch between commonly used settings. They take a bit of stumbling to set up though as some settings will change other settings. A little trial and error involved to figure out what works.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Leica made a smart move by using Sony sensors! There's been a big improvement in Dynamic Range and Signal-to-Noise Ratio compared to the SL2.
Yes I love the Sony sensor - I just prefer it in non-Sony cameras
I am thrilled Leica used this sensor in the M11 and Q3 as rolling shutter isn't quite an issue with the way I use those cameras. However, I was hoping the SL3 received the stacked sensor from the A1 but it was a long shot I realize. I will say the IQ with the SL3 + SL APO primes is jaw dropping even when shooting in crop APS-C mode.
I also wish the SL3 had native ISO64 like the M11. The DR is 2/3 stop higher than at ISO100.
“ I was worried a smaller camera body might result in some balance issue with the SL APO prime lenses.”
As far as I can see the SL3 has grown in size, contradicting Leica’s own claims.
Leica SL. 147x104x39. 847g plus battery.
Leica SL II. 146x107x42. 835g plus battery
Leica SL3. 151 x 108 x 85 m 850g with battery.
wolfloid wrote:
“ I was worried a smaller camera body might result in some balance issue with the SL APO prime lenses.”
As far as I can see the SL3 has grown in size, contradicting Leica’s own claims.
Leica SL. 147x104x39. 847g plus battery.
Leica SL II. 146x107x42. 835g plus battery
Leica SL3. 151 x 108 x 85 m 850g with battery.
They’ve gone in the wrong direction.
I have both the SL2-S (same body as the SL2) and the SL3 here. The SL3 is definitely smaller in the hand.
wolfloid wrote:
“ I was worried a smaller camera body might result in some balance issue with the SL APO prime lenses.”
As far as I can see the SL3 has grown in size, contradicting Leica’s own claims.
Leica SL. 147x104x39. 847g plus battery.
Leica SL II. 146x107x42. 835g plus battery
Leica SL3. 151 x 108 x 85 m 850g with battery.
They’ve gone in the wrong direction.
Seems like a repeat from about 10 years ago what happened with Sony and the A7-based MLC generations. The cameras became bulkier every generation forward. But this was also caused by Sony listening to many customers suggesting such change to bulkier handgrip etc to balance out bulkier lenses. One reason why I still have the original A7R to this day. Impossible to get such compact Sony FF MLC now.
In case of Leica, they seem to stick to the original bulkier built style of the SL series - likely also due to bulkier L-lenses used (even if the length is 142 mm, the height and width are still a bit larger than the predecessor models).
The SL3 will be bought - but by far not to the extent a hypothetical "EVF-M" camera as formerly discussed would be purchased if available.
retrofocus wrote:
Seems like a repeat from about 10 years ago what happened with Sony and the A7-based MLC generations. The cameras became bulkier every generation forward. But this was also caused by Sony listening to many customers suggesting such change to bulkier handgrip etc to balance out bulkier lenses. One reason why I still have the original A7R to this day. Impossible to get such compact Sony FF MLC now.
In case of Leica, they seem to stick to the original bulkier built style of the SL series - likely also due to bulkier L-lenses used (even if the length is 142 mm, the height and width are still a bit larger than the predecessor models).
The SL3 will be bought - but by far not to the extent a hypothetical "EVF-M" camera as formerly discussed would be purchased if available. ...Show more →
Again, I have both cameras right now. The SL3 is smaller without a doubt.
I posted pictures on the previous page.
Mar 12, 2024 at 02:57 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Here are the number from the Leica Technical specifications:
SL2:
weight without battery: 840g
weight with battery: 920g
width at its widest (lugs for strap): 157mm
width not including the lugs: 146.4mm
height at its tallest: 107.5mm
height to top plate rather than top of viewfinder: 86.9mm
depth at its deepest: 82.3mm
depth of eyecup to mount: 60.4mm
depth of back screen to front of mount (leaving out grip and eyecup): 42.2mm
SL3:
weight without battery, SD card, or body cap: 769.7g
weight with battery: not listed
width at its widest(lugs for strap): 151.45mm
width not including the lugs: 141.2mm
height at its tallest: 108.05mm
height to top plate rather than top of viewfinder: 82.7mm
depth at its deepest: 84.6mm
depth of eyecup to mount: 63.1mm
depth of back screen to front of mount (leaving out grip and eyecup): 50mm
So the new camera is obviously a bit lighter, not as wide, not quite as tall if you don't count the EVF bump, but just a little thicker no doubt because of the new screen.
Leica provides detailed measurements of the cameras if you download the technical specifications for each camera from their website.
Because the grip has moved closer to the centre of gravity the SL3 feels lighter and smaller than the new numbers suggest. It's quite noticeable next to the SL2.
Spent yesterday comparing the SL3 w' APO Summicrons against X2D w' XCD-V glass. It's close. Very close.
X2D is lighter and quieter. SL3 is faster and AF is more certain. Both completely usable for this type of shooting. Pick your poison. File size over versatility.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Here are the number from the Leica Technical specifications:
SL2:
weight without battery: 840g
weight with battery: 920g
width at its widest (lugs for strap): 157mm
width not including the lugs: 146.4mm
height at its tallest: 107.5mm
height to top plate rather than top of viewfinder: 86.9mm
depth at its deepest: 82.3mm
depth of eyecup to mount: 60.4mm
depth of back screen to front of mount (leaving out grip and eyecup): 42.2mm
SL3:
weight without battery, SD card, or body cap: 769.7g
weight with battery: not listed
width at its widest(lugs for strap): 151.45mm
width not including the lugs: 141.2mm
height at its tallest: 108.05mm
height to top plate rather than top of viewfinder: 82.7mm
depth at its deepest: 84.6mm
depth of eyecup to mount: 63.1mm
depth of back screen to front of mount (leaving out grip and eyecup): 50mm
So the new camera is obviously a bit lighter, not as wide, not quite as tall if you don't count the EVF bump, but just a little thicker no doubt because of the new screen.
Leica provides detailed measurements of the cameras if you download the technical specifications for each camera from their website....Show more →
Just adding to this that the weight of the original SL was 771g without battery and 847g with battery.
So the weight went up around 70g with the SL2 (IBIS) and now it is back where it was.
I have a feeling Leica might think that this is the ideal weight for the body given the size of the lenses...
flash wrote:
Spent yesterday comparing the SL3 w' APO Summicrons against X2D w' XCD-V glass. It's close. Very close.
X2D is lighter and quieter. SL2 is faster and AF is more certain. Both completely usable for this type of shooting. Pick your poison. File size over versatility.
SL3 first.
Gordon
Great! Thank you! Also great pictures!
If you have more comparison shoots between these two cameras, I'm very interested in them.
