Malabito wrote:
I believe this is mostly marketing, same for the amazing autofocus in all previous models. The SL2S was also IP54, and I had to send mine for a cleanup due to sticky buttons. I really took care of mine, never used it in extreme conditions, and yet Leica told me that they would clean it in goodwill, but only once, and that the issue was due to dirt.
I had a Canon EOS 1-n completely disabled because a single grain of sand wedged under one of the function buttons. Took two weeks and a paid repair to clean it. It happens.
OTOH I have regularly washed my SL cameras under a tap or beach shower. When I was shooting weddings covering a camera in sand or salt spray was pretty normal. They did the Australian launch of the SL (601) and Leica reps were pouring bottles of water over the camera at the event so I figures it’d be OK. And it was. It’s the only reason I bought the Leica 100-400 when I had the Sigma one. The Leica was weather sealed and the Sigma not. Leica SL’s are incredibly robust.
Note that for weather sealing most lenses need a front filter to be fitted to achieve their rating.
OwlsEyes wrote:
That's really impressive!
For those using the Sigma telephotos, specifically the 500 f5.6 and/or 300-600 f/4, will the SL3 series hold up to rain or snow with those lenses attached?
bruce
Yes. I used the 300-600 in pouring rain in Kenya last year. No issues. This was on a Sony body, which was also fine.
RustyBug wrote:
Hey Gordon, excellent insight for everyone as always.
Curious about your two copies of the 1.4X. You say you got the one that is the Leica version made by Sigma ... are BOTH of your TC's the Leica version, or one Sigma vs. one Leica (Sigma made)? I'm a bit confused by the point of diff IQ at excellence vs. being fussy and the inference of IQ QC variance. Can you expand / clarify a bit?
And, if you already addressed this, apologies for a re-ask ... the AF vs. Sony / Canon is good info ... what about the SL3-P AF vs. Panny's S1R II. Any insights with reference to the Panny AF?...Show more →
Sorry. I replied to this but it obviously didn’t take….
The Leica 1.4x is made by Sigma in Japan. I got a Sigma branded one and it wasn’t good. Later I tried a Leica badged one and it was excellent so I bought it (the actual one I tested). I am NOT saying the Leica branded ones are better. Just that there’s some sample variation and I’d be testing it carefully regardless if it’s Sigma or Leica. I had the same thing with the 100-400 but this time the Sigma was excellent and the Leica needed to be exchanged. The 2nd Leica 100-400 is great. It’s a production issue not a design one.
Also my bad TC and bad lens were very early samples. Maybe tolerances improve over time? That’s generally normal.
As for the S1Rii, I’ve done some basics and they seem pretty close. They feel operationally VERY different but speed wise they’re *close*, I think. My issue is it’s wet and rainy here so I’m not overly confident I’m comparing apples to apples. I will spend some time with the S1Rii today. Mostly I’ve just been trying to see how much better my A1ii’s are. I only got the L mount 300-600 a few days ago and the weather is not co-operating.
I want to spend some time setting up the S1Rii as I haven’t used it in a bit and I need to re-familiarise myself with it. Whereas I’m fluent in Leica SL and Sony A1ii. To be fair to the Panasonic I’ll spend some time today (it’s Sunday here and finally not raining) to see what it can do with Sigmas best strapped to it.
1bwana1 wrote:
Another possible difference between the Sr1ii and the Leica SL3-P?
When was the last time you washed your camera and lens under running water in a sink?
I've washed off my Pentax DSLRs on a number of occasions, but in each case I was washing off salt water rather than mud, and I was using a water bottle rather than a sink. Pentax is my camera of choice when sea kayaking. It can take a licking and keep on clicking. :-)
So far my S1Rii has only been exposed to the rain, but it has suffered no ill effects.
It's good to instill confidence in our gear, even if it's a stunt. It's for sure not a Leica exclusive though. I've used eight Sony cameras over a 20 year period, never a problem either in the Himal dust or monsoon moisture. At Phugtal Gompa this May, the dust from recent rockfall damage was so intense it took an hour to clean just my boots.
Sony’s are the only system I’ve seen have issues in rain. I’ve had a few fogged evf’s over the years and one (someone else on our trip) stopped completely for a few hours on a rainy day in Iceland. It came good after an hour next to a heater. I do know they’ve slowly improved but I trust my Sonys about as much as my Hasselblads. I’ll actively and stuff to protect the camera. And for sure given the option I’ll take out a Leica when it gets bad.
I don’t baby my cameras. I expect them to work in most conditions. Luckily my Canon lock up was the only time in 40 years it’s happened. I will tape a camera if it’s really lousy with dust.
The amount of stuff I’ve broken through my own stupidity though…………
rscheffler wrote:
Gordon, slightly OT: you mentioned somewhere you also have the Sony 600/4. I've read some comments that the Sigma 300-600 is slightly less good at 600mm than at wider settings of its zoom range. How do you think it compares at 600 with the likes of the Sony? Does it benefit from stopping down 1/3, 2/3, etc.? It seems like such a win at its price point, but if one is chasing ultimate image quality, it sounds like it's not quite there. True, false, irrelevant?
Spent some time comparing the 600GM with the Sigma zoom today. It’s a nice cool winter day here so no heat haze. testing on a tripod at 10, 20 and 30 meters. A1ii.
Generally, I think the Sigma is at least the equal of my 600GM. Occasionally I think the zoom might actually be a hair better but that could be AF point being slightly different. Basically I can’t tell them apart.
The Sigma doesn’t take a 1.4x. Major win for the Sony. The Sigma is literally a bag of primes. Win for the Sigma. With the 2x (I have the Sony and Viltrox but only the Viltrox works on the Sigma), I am confident the Sigma is slightly better. *Slightly*. Both suffer a bit though. And my Viltrox 2x is better than my Sony 2x.
I’m also testing the new 100-400GM. I’ve heard varying reports around it, especially with TC’s. I must have gotten a good one. It’s stunning. Some said the 200-600 matches it when used with a 1.4x. Not mine. It’s still better than the 200-600. Or the 400-800 @600mm. I’ll test later with the 2x. For today I’m comparing the S1Rii and the SL3-P.
RustyBug wrote:
And, if you already addressed this, apologies for a re-ask ... the AF vs. Sony / Canon is good info ... what about the SL3-P AF vs. Panny's S1R II. Any insights with reference to the Panny AF?
Having a play with them today.
1. Af seems about the same. The EFV view is slightly different but the performance is close. Maybe a hair to the Leica?
2. I don’t know for sure yet but the Leica seems to show more detail than the S1Rii. Different cover glass, although at 600mm I wouldn’t think that’d be a thing. But reliably, so far the SL3-P is slightly better. Could just be my S1Rii?? Same lens, of course. Does the S1Rii have an AA filter on it?
3. The S1Rii seems to have a button for a quick setting. I’m still playing around but this is a big benefit over the SL3-P.
4. The EVF is better on the Leica.
5. I’m not super keen on the S1Rii button layout. Maybe I’ll get used to it. I’m going to re-map most of them. Who thought putting the menu button in the middle of the rear wheel was a good idea? Or play in the top left corner so you have to lower the camera from your ey to start playback? Good news is almost every button can be remapped.
You mentioned button layouts ... curious if you have any M lenses to adapt on them, and how to get the S1R II joystick to function more like the SL series (my SL2-S / your SL3-P, etc.) when shooting manual focus (M or otherwise).
I’m not entirely sure where my M-L adaptors are. I’ve kind of given up adapting lenses for the last few years. I’m drowning in M lenses but they all go on M cameras now.
Probably attached to my CV 50mm 1.0. That’s the kind of lens I was interested in adapting to the SL. Nowadays I mostly use Summicrons or equivalent on my M’s. For my travel work I’m trying to get rid of a habit of using aperture to hide poor compositions. I’m a bit more f8 and be there for the travel stuff right now. I’ve realised I’ve been a bit lazy, photographically.
flash wrote:
I had a Canon EOS 1-n completely disabled because a single grain of sand wedged under one of the function buttons. Took two weeks and a paid repair to clean it. It happens.
OTOH I have regularly washed my SL cameras under a tap or beach shower. When I was shooting weddings covering a camera in sand or salt spray was pretty normal. They did the Australian launch of the SL (601) and Leica reps were pouring bottles of water over the camera at the event so I figures it’d be OK. And it was. It’s the only reason I bought the Leica 100-400 when I had the Sigma one. The Leica was weather sealed and the Sigma not. Leica SL’s are incredibly robust.
Note that for weather sealing most lenses need a front filter to be fitted to achieve their rating.
Perhaps I've been unlucky, but I would never trust Leica as my main system if photography were putting food on my table. Given I shoot mostly for myself, I can live with the risk, and it's actually my main system. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it, too many cons.
I do have to highlight that all my experiences with Leica support have been positive, a bit on the slow side, but very positive.
Malabito wrote:
Perhaps I've been unlucky, but I would never trust Leica as my main system if photography were putting food on my table. Given I shoot mostly for myself, I can live with the risk, and it's actually my main system. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it, too many cons.
I do have to highlight that all my experiences with Leica support have been positive, a bit on the slow side, but very positive.
I think that if you are going to shoot critical assignments professionally you are going to have redundant camera bodies no matter which system you are using. Any of the Leica bodies are reliable enough for that.
1. Af seems about the same. The EFV view is slightly different but the performance is close. Maybe a hair to the Leica?
2. I don’t know for sure yet but the Leica seems to show more detail than the S1Rii. Different cover glass, although at 600mm I wouldn’t think that’d be a thing. But reliably, so far the SL3-P is slightly better. Could just be my S1Rii?? Same lens, of course. Does the S1Rii have an AA filter on it?
3. The S1Rii seems to have a button for a quick setting. I’m still playing around but this is a big benefit over the SL3-P.
4. The EVF is better on the Leica.
5. I’m not super keen on the S1Rii button layout. Maybe I’ll get used to it. I’m going to re-map most of them. Who thought putting the menu button in the middle of the rear wheel was a good idea? Or play in the top left corner so you have to lower the camera from your ey to start playback? Good news is almost every button can be remapped.
I think your lens addiction is worse than mine
All kidding aside, we are fortunate that you are willing to invest the time, energy, and money to do these comparisons.
Malabito wrote:
Perhaps I've been unlucky, but I would never trust Leica as my main system if photography were putting food on my table. Given I shoot mostly for myself, I can live with the risk, and it's actually my main system. Otherwise, I wouldn't do it, too many cons.
I do have to highlight that all my experiences with Leica support have been positive, a bit on the slow side, but very positive.
I was a Canon CPS member for 20 years, well before anyone could pay to have the service. You needed to apply and be approved as an actual working photographer. It was fine getting 48 hour repairs but you needed to get the gear there and back and if you broke a camera on Friday you still had possibly two weddings to shoot over the weekend. We all learned quickly that *2 is 1 and 1 is none*. And I lived outside Sydney so I had to ship my gear in. Often when I did need a loaner it was on the weekend of some major sporting event and so I’d end up with MUCH lesser loan gear. Basically I couldn't rely on CPS to get me through.
As a result I bought my cameras in 2’s or 3’s. I’d keep one of the old model until I had 3 of the new one. Plus redundant lenses and lighting. It didn’t have to be the same as my main kit but it had to do the job. I was entirely self sufficient. At one point I had 4 M9’s and 2x M8.2’s on the shelf. They are somewhat delicate and did need a regular visit to Melbourne for re-calibration. It was easier with later models as you could do it yourself with a 2mm allen key. Yes Leica is slow as molasses, especially from Australia where months was the norm. But I was always prepared to have two bodies down. I also wasn’t particularly cheap. I was selling a prestige service. I could afford to shoot Leica. It was part of what made me different.
For me, I’ve never had a SL camera fail, except ones I broke. I’ve had some firmware punch ups with the original, which basically came with beta firmware. But hardware wise they’ve been the most reliable cameras I’ve ever used. Eventually I shrunk my kit to two current bodies and a Panasonic backup. By that time I’d switched to mostly commercial work and then the X1D was released. I shot a mix of M, SL and X1D for many years. It was a revelation compared to the Phase Kits I’d even using for my bigger corporate clients. I rented the Phase so never got as comfortable as I’d like and it was a pain because I wasn’t that close to them. I much preferred having all the gear I needed close by.
After 100’s of thousands of frames on Sl cameras I haven’t had a camera down unless I dropped it. So far 5 continents with dust and salt spray and cameras rolling down stairs (survived just fine). I trust my SL cameras more than anything else I’ve ever owned. I’d only put an OM System or Pentax through some of the stuff I’ve put my SL’s through.
I wouldn’t recommend other shoot SL cameras as a pro system because on ROI there’s ore sensible systems out there. And I expect a Z9 or R1 can take plenty of abuse. But I made Leica work for me and if I were to go full time again the SL3 would definitively be my camera of choice, with my X2D2’s.
This might be of interest: A German war photographer (Till Mayer), who has been documenting the war in Ukraine since 2017, previously shot with the Leica SL2 and has now switched to the new SL3-P. In case anyone happens to be in Nuremberg in 2027, his photos will be on display at the Leica Store there from January to March.
flash wrote:
I was a Canon CPS member for 20 years, well before anyone could pay to have the service. You needed to apply and be approved as an actual working photographer. It was fine getting 48 hour repairs but you needed to get the gear there and back and if you broke a camera on Friday you still had possibly two weddings to shoot over the weekend. We all learned quickly that *2 is 1 and 1 is none*. And I lived outside Sydney so I had to ship my gear in. Often when I did need a loaner it was on the weekend of some major sporting event and so I’d end up with MUCH lesser loan gear. Basically I couldn't rely on CPS to get me through.
As a result I bought my cameras in 2’s or 3’s. I’d keep one of the old model until I had 3 of the new one. Plus redundant lenses and lighting. It didn’t have to be the same as my main kit but it had to do the job. I was entirely self sufficient. At one point I had 4 M9’s and 2x M8.2’s on the shelf. They are somewhat delicate and did need a regular visit to Melbourne for re-calibration. It was easier with later models as you could do it yourself with a 2mm allen key. Yes Leica is slow as molasses, especially from Australia where months was the norm. But I was always prepared to have two bodies down. I also wasn’t particularly cheap. I was selling a prestige service. I could afford to shoot Leica. It was part of what made me different.
For me, I’ve never had a SL camera fail, except ones I broke. I’ve had some firmware punch ups with the original, which basically came with beta firmware. But hardware wise they’ve been the most reliable cameras I’ve ever used. Eventually I shrunk my kit to two current bodies and a Panasonic backup. By that time I’d switched to mostly commercial work and then the X1D was released. I shot a mix of M, SL and X1D for many years. It was a revelation compared to the Phase Kits I’d even using for my bigger corporate clients. I rented the Phase so never got as comfortable as I’d like and it was a pain because I wasn’t that close to them. I much preferred having all the gear I needed close by.
After 100’s of thousands of frames on Sl cameras I haven’t had a camera down unless I dropped it. So far 5 continents with dust and salt spray and cameras rolling down stairs (survived just fine). I trust my SL cameras more than anything else I’ve ever owned. I’d only put an OM System or Pentax through some of the stuff I’ve put my SL’s through.
I wouldn’t recommend other shoot SL cameras as a pro system because on ROI there’s ore sensible systems out there. And I expect a Z9 or R1 can take plenty of abuse. But I made Leica work for me and if I were to go full time again the SL3 would definitively be my camera of choice, with my X2D2’s.
I would be very interested to hear your experiences regarding the color rendering of the Leica SL3 compared directly with the Leica SL3-P.
The reason I am asking is that I have noticed a clear difference between my Leica SL2 and the Leica SL3. In my experience, the SL2 has a very neutral and realistic color rendering, especially with natural greens, browns, and overall color balance. With the SL3, however, I personally perceive a different color signature, with a slight red/magenta tendency, and I find that some green and brown tones are not rendered in the same natural way as with the SL2.
Leica has also indirectly acknowledged that there are differences in image rendering between the SL2 and SL3, which is why I am interested in hearing other users’ experiences.
My main question, however, is specifically about the SL3 versus the SL3-P:
Do you see any differences in color rendering, white balance behavior, skin tones, or overall image character between these two cameras?
Pictures?
If you have done a direct comparison, I would really appreciate seeing sample images — ideally RAW/DNG files or identical shots taken under the same conditions — to better understand whether there are visible differences.
I would be very interested to hear your experiences regarding the color rendering of the Leica SL3 compared directly with the Leica SL3-P.
The reason I am asking is that I have noticed a clear difference between my Leica SL2 and the Leica SL3. In my experience, the SL2 has a very neutral and realistic color rendering, especially with natural greens, browns, and overall color balance. With the SL3, however, I personally perceive a different color signature, with a slight red/magenta tendency, and I find that some green and brown tones are not rendered in the same natural way as with the SL2.
Leica has also indirectly acknowledged that there are differences in image rendering between the SL2 and SL3, which is why I am interested in hearing other users’ experiences.
My main question, however, is specifically about the SL3 versus the SL3-P:
Do you see any differences in color rendering, white balance behavior, skin tones, or overall image character between these two cameras?
Pictures?
If you have done a direct comparison, I would really appreciate seeing sample images — ideally RAW/DNG files or identical shots taken under the same conditions — to better understand whether there are visible differences.
No. Nothing yet. I’m not sure I’ll bother pulling out the colour charts.
So far I like what I see. It’s not the exact same as the SL3, which is to be expected. Someone said it’s a bit more like the M10R, but I can’t confirm as my M10R is boxed for sale.
I personally prefer the M11 and SL3 colours to the M10R and SL2. None are accurate. But I like the reds more in the latter cameras.
