For those with the Leica Q or Q2 already and a mirrorless system, how do you feel about the size of the camera? Can you take it more places than say a Sony 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 and Sony A7R V (this is my current "small" setup) or not really? I've gotten tired of the size of my Sony camera system and want something more compact for travel but with the same top notch image quality and AF capability (I'm realistic that the Q3 might be a downgrade on this front even with phase detect). I was set on ordering the Q3 but I unexpectedly got off the waitlist today for a X100V (will give it a try at a minimum) so I wonder if I'm better served with that camera. I prefer 35mm and full frame but can live with 28mm and/or APS-C and need good AF (Ricoh GR III and IIIx did not AF fast enough for my needs). Also, I did not like the colors and ergonomics coming out of the RX1R II compared to more recent Sony cameras before someone suggests that....Show more →
For street photography the X100V is better than anything else - it is fast, high quality and slips into a jacket or cargo pocket easily. The Q2 is a real lump in comparison - the lens sticks out far enough to make it unpractical to fit in any but the largest pockets. The Q3 will probably autofocus faster, and produce superbly detailed images, but do you need that for even very high quality street photography? I don’t think so. The X100V is plenty.
^
@wolfloid@@ for mirrorless yes. I think there’s no better cameras for that than Fuji cameras. I would choose the XE to be able to change lenses.
The megapixels aren’t an issue. You can print enormous clear detailed prints with 24MP cameras. The higher megapixels help when cropping. But that’s about it really.
tzhang4284 wrote:
For those with the Leica Q or Q2 already and a mirrorless system, how do you feel about the size of the camera? Can you take it more places than say a Sony 24mm f1.4 or 35mm f1.4 and Sony A7R V (this is my current "small" setup) or not really? I've gotten tired of the size of my Sony camera system and want something more compact for travel but with the same top notch image quality and AF capability (I'm realistic that the Q3 might be a downgrade on this front even with phase detect).
I was set on ordering the Q3 but I unexpectedly got off the waitlist today for a X100V (will give it a try at a minimum) so I wonder if I'm better served with that camera. I prefer 35mm and full frame but can live with 28mm and/or APS-C and need good AF (Ricoh GR III and IIIx did not AF fast enough for my needs).
Also, I did not like the colors and ergonomics coming out of the RX1R II compared to more recent Sony cameras before someone suggests that.
You need some bag for either, so size does not really matter, IMHO. Get a smaller f/2.0 or f/2.8 fixed lens for your Sony, and you don't even need a different-size bag for them.
You will not be happy with x100v autofocus after Sony.
wolfloid wrote:
For street photography the X100V is better than anything else - it is fast, high quality and slips into a jacket or cargo pocket easily. The Q2 is a real lump in comparison - the lens sticks out far enough to make it unpractical to fit in any but the largest pockets. The Q3 will probably autofocus faster, and produce superbly detailed images, but do you need that for even very high quality street photography? I don’t think so. The X100V is plenty.
Why do you need to be able to put your street photography camera into a pocket? That's what my iPhone is for. I can't imagine putting the X100V into my shorts pocket. It would look like a ridiculous lump and be added weight I don't want. It fits well into a jacket pocket, but that's less than half the year in most places.
The Q2 is smaller than a Sony A7RV with a 24 or 35mm f1.4 lens but it is not a pocket camera. I have the smallest bag possible for theQ2 and it has a belt loop attachment but not practical to wear on a belt. When I bought the Q2 it came with a leather cloth to wrap the camera and when I had a large enough coat --- could wrap it and fit in pocket but again that was only when wearing a large coat.
olegkin wrote:
You need some bag for either, so size does not really matter, IMHO. Get a smaller f/2.0 or f/2.8 fixed lens for your Sony, and you don't even need a different-size bag for them.
You will not be happy with x100v autofocus after Sony.
wolfloid wrote:
For street photography the X100V is better than anything else - it is fast, high quality and slips into a jacket or cargo pocket easily. The Q2 is a real lump in comparison - the lens sticks out far enough to make it unpractical to fit in any but the largest pockets. The Q3 will probably autofocus faster, and produce superbly detailed images, but do you need that for even very high quality street photography? I don’t think so. The X100V is plenty.
Thanks for all the responses - yeah I agree with your assessment on the X100V form factor and I think it's a nice little bring everywhere camera but I'm not sure I love the image quality compared to the Leica Q2 or what the Sony 24/35mm GM can deliver, which is why the Q2/Q3 has strong appeal for me.
I'll give it a try at least since I'll get it soon and see how I like it in regular use - mainly family photos and travel are my two main use cases.
---------------------------------------------
olegkin wrote:
You need some bag for either, so size does not really matter, IMHO. Get a smaller f/2.0 or f/2.8 fixed lens for your Sony, and you don't even need a different-size bag for them.
You will not be happy with x100v autofocus after Sony.
I tried all the Sony and 3rd party options and didn't love any of them for image quality reasons hence why I went back to the 35mm GM. My favorite was the 40mm f2.5 but I wish it was a true 35mm. Similar issue with the 24mm f2.8 - wish it was a 28mm.
Good to know re: AF on the X100V, hence why the Q3 is interesting to me but who knows how good that AF is. Considering a used Q2 as well but I think I want to see how the early reviews on the Q3 are before making a decision.
There is, of course, the possibility of using the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. It is a very good lens, and it will make the A7r5 about as handy as the Q3. Unfortunately, though, there is the very real compromise between size and speed.
If you mostly like to shoot 35mm, then it is only a little slower than the Q cameras; at 35mm the Q3 will be an f2.1 lens, I believe - so the Q will be a little faster, but will have reduced megapixels.
We need a 35mm f2 pancake for Sony. Something like the lens on their RX1rii. Please.
wolfloid wrote:
There is, of course, the possibility of using the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. It is a very good lens, and it will make the A7r5 about as handy as the Q3. Unfortunately, though, there is the very real compromise between size and speed.
If you mostly like to shoot 35mm, then it is only a little slower than the Q cameras; at 35mm the Q3 will be an f2.1 lens, I believe - so the Q will be a little faster, but will have reduced megapixels.
We need a 35mm f2 pancake for Sony. Something like the lens on their RX1rii. Please.
There is the Sigma i series 35mm f2.0 lens. It is a bit bigger than the Zony 35/2.8 and it is heavier, being made mostly of metal. But it is still fairly small and fairly light compared to most other lenses. Good image quality and f2.0.
wolfloid wrote:
There is, of course, the possibility of using the Sony Zeiss 35/2.8. It is a very good lens, and it will make the A7r5 about as handy as the Q3. Unfortunately, though, there is the very real compromise between size and speed.
If you mostly like to shoot 35mm, then it is only a little slower than the Q cameras; at 35mm the Q3 will be an f2.1 lens, I believe - so the Q will be a little faster, but will have reduced megapixels.
We need a 35mm f2 pancake for Sony. Something like the lens on their RX1rii. Please.
I recently tried that again and bought a Sony Zeiss 35mm f2.8 to use on the R5 however I always felt the center sharpness acuity was significantly worse than more recent Sony lenses and the Leica Q2 - pop and subject separation is noticeably better on the Q2. I think the Sony 40mm f2.5 is a significantly better lens but again, don't like 40mm vs 35mm after trying that a couple of times.
I prefer 35mm but I think I can make 28mm work. The more I think about it the more I think the X100V doesn't make sense for me since I'm a sucker for sharp lenses . The rational thing is probably for me to keep my current Sony kit and add a used Leica Q2 if prices fall between $3500 to $4k but I'm wondering if I can just make the Q3 work as my primary camera (will help cut down a lot on future GAS since it will eat up most of my gear budget!) since I've been generally downsizing my kit.
And +1 on RX1R III but not holding my breath for it hence the Leica Q2/Q3 as the next best option.
---------------------------------------------
chiron wrote:
There is the Sigma i series 35mm f2.0 lens. It is a bit bigger than the Zony 35/2.8 and it is heavier, being made mostly of metal. But it is still fairly small and fairly light compared to most other lenses. Good image quality and f2.0.
I concluded with the size of the Sigma 35mm f2, I might as well as just go to the 35mm f1.4 GM. Loxia 25mm and Voigtlander 35mm APO are high on my list too but I think I strongly prefer having AF these days hence the Q3.
If I had to choose a compact camera for street photography, the Ricoh GR would be my top pick. It's small and sneaky, making it the perfect choice for capturing moments without drawing too much attention. The Fuji X-Pro with a pancake lens or the Leica M would also be fantastic options, but the choice really depends on your personal shooting technique (AF vs MF) and style.
Going back to the Q3 (), I think it could work very well but it's slightly wider than 28mm if that's one's preference.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Going back to the Q3 (), I think it could work very well but it's slightly wider than 28mm if that's one's preference.
No wonder I always thought that Q1 photos seem wider than the 28mm that I am used to.
I've read that Q lens is wider than 28mm a few times already, some even claim that it's more like 25-26mm.
What is a good testing method to determine its true focal length?
For Q3 though, it won't matter to me, as I plan on shooting it primarily in 35mm mode to get ~40MP. It's a bit of a waste to put money on a 60MP camera and not shoot at its native 28mm (60MP) but this is the lightest way to get to 60MP and 35mm.
This is a modest bump up from the 30MP and 15MP of the Q2.
Is there an online calculator for this formula?
Yes, it'd be expensive to get Q3 just to shoot 35mm (38.4MP) but I can't find a better camera and lens combo as sharp and compact RX1R2. Plus there is the advantage of stabilization and weather sealing which may not be available on some camera and lens combos.
FMTopFan wrote:
Yes, it'd be expensive to get Q3 just to shoot 35mm (38.4MP) but I can't find a better camera and lens combo as sharp and compact RX1R2. Plus there is the advantage of stabilization and weather sealing which may not be available on some camera and lens combos.
I like the idea of a Q3 Monochrom, that should follow the Q3 in a year or so.
But as I find 35mm ideal 70% of the time, I am first waiting to see what Fuji do with the X100VI. If fitted, the 40 Mpixel sensor from the X-T5, would significantly degrade the value proposition of a standard bayer Q3, even more so if the Fuji gets IBIS. Sony is another wild card, with the demise of the laughable Zeiss ZX1, it would seem any non-compete agreement ends and a RX1R3 should emerge.
FMTopFan wrote:
Is there an online calculator for this formula?
Yes, it'd be expensive to get Q3 just to shoot 35mm (38.4MP) but I can't find a better camera and lens combo as sharp and compact RX1R2. Plus there is the advantage of stabilization and weather sealing which may not be available on some camera and lens combos.
Sorry, I’m not sure. It would be pretty easy to make one, so I imagine one exists but I’m not sure which search terms would find it.
I like 24-28mm range for overseas travels. Locally I use longer lengths like GR IIIx or 45/50mm, but I can crop with Q2/Q3 for that. Camera wise smaller is better, but it depends also eg some people noticed my RX100 vs not the Q2. Other times Q2 got more attention. Last vacation I had the GR III/IIIx for family photos as I was not traveling much. Also I used Batis 25mm for street as well, but the combo is not that small as Q2. I guess cell phones might be the best with everybody carrying one. Q2 will give some layers to the shot without killing the background:
One of my favorite photographer Alan Shaller is shooting the streets with 24mm 1.4...
So I traded my mint Q2 for the new Q3 at Adorama. Hopefully little plus MP will help on the crops for portraits, but I think Sony sensor might give better dynamic range that lagged with Q2 compared to RX1R II sensor and maybe a better af plus the tilting lcd... RX1R II had the pdf also but it didn't help with the big lens and small battery. Q2 lens is chunky also. That might be the reason Leica is updating the battery, but it still get less shots maybe also due to higher resolution screens. We'll see the af improvements.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If I had to choose a compact camera for street photography, the Ricoh GR would be my top pick. It's small and sneaky, making it the perfect choice for capturing moments without drawing too much attention. The Fuji X-Pro with a pancake lens or the Leica M would also be fantastic options, but the choice really depends on your personal shooting technique (AF vs MF) and style.
Going back to the Q3 (), I think it could work very well but it's slightly wider than 28mm if that's one's preference.
An RX1riii would be so welcome, especially if it had a better battery and viewfinder, and updated AF. I’m not really sure why Sony doesn’t make this as a priority, since so many well-heeled Sony A7 users would get one as an extra camera. They’d sell a ton if it is not overpriced.
wolfloid wrote:
An RX1riii would be so welcome, especially if it had a better battery and viewfinder, and updated AF. I’m not really sure why Sony doesn’t make this as a priority, since so many well-heeled Sony A7 users would get one as an extra camera. They’d sell a ton if it is not overpriced.
Even if it's overpriced, I would get one, because knowing Sony they usually put their latest tech in new cameras.
I am not asking for much, just the features available on the little RX100v7 would be good enough, ie. stacked sensor, blackout free, 20fps, EyeAF, AI.
But that might push the price to A1 territory.
On the other hand, despite Q3 price entering Sony A1 territory but due to its 28mm (or 25mm?) lens, there is added flexibility to shoot at 28mm when needed compared to the 35mm on RX1 series.
Sigh, now that I wrote the above, I am thinking, if Q3 does end up being more expensive than A1, maybe it does make sense to get the A1 and use it with 35mm/2.8 instead. This combo is way more flexible than Q3 in terms of lens selection.
FMTopFan wrote:
Even if it's overpriced, I would get one, because knowing Sony they usually put their latest tech in new cameras.
I am not asking for much, just the features available on the little RX100v7 would be good enough, ie. stacked sensor, blackout free, 20fps, EyeAF, AI.
But that might push the price to A1 territory.
On the other hand, despite Q3 price entering Sony A1 territory but due to its 28mm (or 25mm?) lens, there is added flexibility to shoot at 28mm when needed compared to the 35mm on RX1 series.
Sigh, now that I wrote the above, I am thinking, if Q3 does end up being more expensive than A1, maybe it does make sense to get the A1 and use it with 35mm/2.8 instead. This combo is way more flexible than Q3 in terms of lens selection. ...Show more →
), I think it could work very well but it's slightly wider than 28mm if that's one's preference.
