It’s a shame they didn’t go with the partially stacked sensor from the s1ii. Having used a Sony a1 and Nikon z6iii in the past, this is still not a true fast action camera. Guess that will be the next release.
petersm59 wrote:
It would be good if someone made an M adapter to whatever mount, L would be a good place to start, that used the lens cam with a roller, like an M body to read the distance and transmit it to the body. Leica can read the 6 bit coding and send it to L mount cameras, why not distance too?
The 6-bit code reader only reads the marked code on the lens mount. There’s no data being sent from M lenses or read by the 6-bit reader other than the painted markings.
flash wrote:
Well Sigma lenses are on special here. Picked up an L mount 300-600 for usd 5k, new. Should have that and my SL3P when I get home in a week. I have the E mount version so will test against my A1ii. And S1Rii
What I expect isn’t the sensor read out speed to be an issue most of the time. It’s that the lack of a blackout free viewfinder will make tracking a moving subject more difficult. There’s no pre capture. And for f**** sake still no EFCS!!!! for mechanical mode.
I think it’ll be more than fine most of the time but I also ordered a 100-400 f4.5 GM because I know that’ll be spectacular on safari next year.
It’ll be nice to have native TCs on the Sigma though.
highdesertmesa wrote:
I read someone saying the 40 fps 12-bit mode is blackout free.
In one reviewer shooting the race cars, they were complaining about the blackout ... not sure if they were in 14 bit or 12 bit, as I was just scanning through (not watching all) a few of them. I'll see if I can find it again (later) to verify 12 vs. 14.
RustyBug wrote:
In one reviewer shooting the race cars, they were complaining about the blackout ... not sure if they were in 14 bit or 12 bit, as I was just scanning through (not watching all) a few of them. I'll see if I can find it again (later) to verify 12 vs. 14.
Google says the S1R II is blackout free at 40 fps. I think it also has precapture, so maybe that will come to the SL3-P with a firmware update.
SrMi wrote:
I keep testing with 14 and 16-bit on MF sensors and see no meaningful difference when the files are still usable. Earlier versions of Ligtroom had some issues, but I cannot see any difference anymore.
However, with the FF sensor, I expect to see a difference at base ISO when shooting 12 vs 14-bit.
I ran a test with SL3, 12 vs 14 bits, 4 stops underexposed and lifted in LrC. At ISO 100, there is a noticeable difference between 12 and 14-bit. At ISO 400, there is no difference.
At ISO 100 and 2 stops underexposure and lifting, no difference is noticeable. ...Show more →
Agreed ... use case and incremental diff ... nothing that is an earth shattering, OMG deal breaker. Where one is looking for MAX IQ, there can be a difference (diff use cases). Where one is looking for "get the shot" ... use the 12 bit and "GET THE SHOT" without worry or concern, if the processing speed benefits (fps / rolling shutter / blackout / whatever) you by reducing the amount of processing required for each shot.
When I shoot handball (M / SL / Q bodies) ... I have some shots that I maintain the 14 bit files, and when I wanna "let er rip" a bit more, I shoot 12 bit files. When shooting landscape / architectural ... 14 bit (or 16 bit) only. Color faithfulness when pushing hard seems to be the area that I find the extra bits is noticeable, but that takes a very discerning comparison.
For many folks, the skinny of the use cases that are "meaningful" differences will be low. Technically, there can be a diff, real world the diff is not a limiter to being able to get the shot. More meaningful in instances of extreme "make the shot" applications. Again, use case ... and incremental (noting that staying above 8 bit is more than acceptable, so a 12 bit file with a 3 bit push, still lands you in 9 bit territory). Although with the advent of 10 bit displays, etc. ... that bar might be moved a bit for some. The general world still functions in 8 bit territory to an acceptable degree.
LBJ2 wrote:
I can only imagine the internal discussions on this topic!
Yes! It basically confirms what a lot of us were already thinking, i.e. the fear of cannibalizing itself is real. I really believe a smaller and lighter rangefinder styled 60MP SL would do really well on the market. I also don't believe it will actually cut into other sales. If you get new people on the SL system it is highly likely that they eventually will buy into the M (or Q) as well. In my opinion it will be very hard to make the SL truly successful if you deliberately cut off that segment of the market. And for all clarity, I am talking about a new and additional body, I am not talking about replacing the existing bodies. About other premium cameras, the Canon EOS R5ii weights 670g (with battery), still a significant 180g difference with the 850g of the SL... so I am not sure what he means there, unless he is only comparing with Hasselblad perhaps... All in all, I believe Leica did a real good job with the SL3-P, after the original SL I personally was not very impressed with the SL2 and the SL3, I had a feeling Leica was asleep at the wheel and did not even try to catch up with the others...the SL3-P is definitely a step forward in my opinion...
Folks at companies that worry about cannibalism of existing sales don’t understand additive marketing. New products bring in new users, and existing users don’t exit unless your competitor is the one that beat you to it.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Folks at companies that worry about cannibalism of existing sales don’t understand additive marketing. New products bring in new users, and existing users don’t exit unless your competitor is the one that beat you to it.
Yep. Especially when your products are already unreliable, buggy "luxury" items that are actively dissuading new buyers on their own.
I had to laugh at this video and the resulting photos...now, I've never seen particularly compelling work out of Leigh, but to tout the SL3-P as a wildlife camera, while bolting a Sigma lens onto it and getting blurry bird portraits is...a choice.
Then again, those photos would probably be the best photos some dentist Leica shooter has ever gotten, so...
SlowDriver wrote:
Yes! It basically confirms what a lot of us were already thinking, i.e. the fear of cannibalizing itself is real. I really believe a smaller and lighter rangefinder styled 60MP SL would do really well on the market. I also don't believe it will actually cut into other sales. If you get new people on the SL system it is highly likely that they eventually will buy into the M (or Q) as well. In my opinion it will be very hard to make the SL truly successful if you deliberately cut off that segment of the market. And for all clarity, I am talking about a new and additional body, I am not talking about replacing the existing bodies. About other premium cameras, the Canon EOS R5ii weights 670g (with battery), still a significant 180g difference with the 850g of the SL... so I am not sure what he means there, unless he is only comparing with Hasselblad perhaps... All in all, I believe Leica did a real good job with the SL3-P, after the original SL I personally was not very impressed with the SL2 and the SL3, I had a feeling Leica was asleep at the wheel and did not even try to catch up with the others...the SL3-P is definitely a step forward in my opinion... ...Show more →
I doubt that unless Leica drops prices substantially, the SL series will ever be more than a niche product. Rationally, the series doesn't make much sense to anyone who is not somehow enthralled with Leica.
RoamingScott wrote:
I had to laugh at this video and the resulting photos...now, I've never seen particularly compelling work out of Leigh, but to tout the SL3-P as a wildlife camera, while bolting a Sigma lens onto it and getting blurry bird portraits is...a choice.
Then again, those photos would probably be the best photos some dentist Leica shooter has ever gotten, so...
My dentist uses a Fuji Instax. Seriously she showed it to me.
RoamingScott wrote:
Yep. Especially when your products are already unreliable, buggy "luxury" items that are actively dissuading new buyers on their own.
There's a pretty big kink out there for that
Funny, though, the SLs I've owned: SL 601 at launch, SL2-S, SL3 – never had a single issue, freeze, malfunction, or needed warranty repair. Now the M11... that's another story.
johnvanr wrote:
I doubt that unless Leica drops prices substantially, the SL series will ever be more than a niche product. Rationally, the series doesn't make much sense to anyone who is not somehow enthralled with Leica.
I agree. But the M and the Q are niche products as well, and they are nevertheless extremely lucrative for Leica. I doubt the SL makes much money at present.
SlowDriver wrote:
Yes! It basically confirms what a lot of us were already thinking, i.e. the fear of cannibalizing itself is real. I really believe a smaller and lighter rangefinder styled 60MP SL would do really well on the market. I also don't believe it will actually cut into other sales. If you get new people on the SL system it is highly likely that they eventually will buy into the M (or Q) as well. In my opinion it will be very hard to make the SL truly successful if you deliberately cut off that segment of the market. And for all clarity, I am talking about a new and additional body, I am not talking about replacing the existing bodies. About other premium cameras, the Canon EOS R5ii weights 670g (with battery), still a significant 180g difference with the 850g of the SL... so I am not sure what he means there, unless he is only comparing with Hasselblad perhaps... All in all, I believe Leica did a real good job with the SL3-P, after the original SL I personally was not very impressed with the SL2 and the SL3, I had a feeling Leica was asleep at the wheel and did not even try to catch up with the others...the SL3-P is definitely a step forward in my opinion... ...Show more →
I never bought any Leica camera or lens for size, technical performance, or price as a priority, to include the SL system which I enjoy very much with the large SL2 and slightly smaller SL3 and the gorgeous SL APO primes and one day perhaps the SL3P. But I do see Leica is solidly chasing better mirrorless performance and smaller size for their SL system these last few years. However, a much smaller SL camera size will probably not come soon enough if at all for those that prioritize a small FF mirrorless system. Unless of course Leica decides to pull a M-EV1 type move among the SL system variants which could be very interesting.
RoamingScott wrote:
Yep. Especially when your products are already unreliable, buggy "luxury" items that are actively dissuading new buyers on their own.
My friends tell me all the time... "She [Leica] just wants me for my money" Giddy up! 😜
LBJ2 wrote:
But I do see Leica is solidly chasing better mirrorless performance and smaller size for their SL system these last few years. However, a much smaller SL camera size will probably not come soon enough if at all for those that prioritize a small FF mirrorless system.
I believe you are right. There will eventually be a smaller and lighter SL system but it will be a slow process and it will take an even longer time that I expected. I am guessing 10-15 years now.
The reduced weight of the Summilux-SL initially gave me some hope... but then the MFD of 50cm gave me pause again, an M lens that focuses closer than a mirrorless lens, really?
Leica made an AF SL lens available but they really still want you to buy the M lens... in my opinion...
So yes, I have a small SL footprint (og SL, APO 35mm, 24-90) but I will probably be looking at something else to better complement my X2Dii.
SlowDriver wrote:
I agree. But the M and the Q are niche products as well, and they are nevertheless extremely lucrative for Leica. I doubt the SL makes much money at present.
They are unique niche products, with little or no real competition. They are the benchmarks for their segment and thus have real staying power, esp. since that segment is still too small for the larger camera manufacturers to care about. So, it's actually more a niche segment in which they are king. A pond no one else wants to swim in.
The SL, on the other hand, is a niche within an overall very large segment and it will never be more than a niche because it's not as good as the competition and it's more expensive. Any other brand but Leica would not be able to play in that field in that way and Leica can only do it because they are believed to be a premium brand, whether that's based on reality or on the fact that Cartier-Bresson and his buddies used Leica eons ago.
And the fact that Leica can't pull off the same trick in the S medium format line is that there the competition includes Hasselblad, which has the same historical reputation as Leica and thus Leica can't pull off its 'we're special' trick without having to match Hasselblad prices. And those are most likely only possible because DJI owns Hasselblad and is an aggressive company that actually wants to build marketshare and gladly does that by giving away $10,000 camera kits to any YouTuber with more followers than his friends and family (I'm kidding, but you get the gist...).
