Total $4,700 with lets you buy an extra battery and a nice strap
That is a pretty classic and high performing kit.
For $7,500 you can upgrade the camera to an M10 and maybe add a nice wide angle like the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4. The point is that you can now get a very capable Leica M kit and it doesn't have to break the bank....Show more →
Let's be honest here, though - you're suggesting how affordable a Leica M kit is by proposing an 11 year old camera body and then all lenses NOT made by Leica...showing how insanely expensive Leica gear is.
If you bought the equivalent stuff using current production Leica lenses, you're getting an M11 with 28 Summicron, 50 APO Summicron and a 90 (Either summicron or Elmar). Total cost: $9000+$5100+$9100+$4100 (assuming Elmar) = $27,300.
And I'm sorry, there is no way anyone can convince me that a 50 APO Summicron is worth 9x what a Voigtlander 50/2 APO Lanthar is worth. Because the CV 50/2 APO is a near flawless lens optically. If the Leica is better, it's in exceptionally subtle ways.
And, as I said originally - I understand that this stuff is awesome gear, and it's luxury item stuff, but it is also OK to acknowledge the Leica name tax, because that certainly is part of the equation. And for many it may be worth it to pay that name tax to get what is a unique or premium product. The Q3 might be one such product, especially since Sony hasn't updated the RX1 series in so long, so there isn't even a true competitor.
p.4 #2 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
You're paying for the form factor and design choices of any name. Affordable is very subjective and tbh most of us on photography forums are lucky enough to able to afford any camera system over a couple hundred dollars.
The Q3 looks really nice I like the new button layout and with the higher res crop feature more useful. No more charging block needed so one less thing for light travel.
I'll probably wait until marketplace here has one to try it though. By then all the quirks should be sorted out.
p.4 #4 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
It is kind of curious that no one seems to complain about the lack of redundant shooting with the Q's. There is no 2nd card that allows for redundancy. Imagine a Sony, Canon or Nikon MILC shipping without that! :-)
p.4 #5 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
patotts wrote:
It is kind of curious that no one seems to complain about the lack of redundant shooting with the Q's. There is no 2nd card that allows for redundancy. Imagine a Sony, Canon or Nikon MILC shipping without that! :-)
What other fixed lens camera has dual card slots? I can't come up with one off the top of my head.. maybe there's something in the 4/3rds world? ?
p.4 #7 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
There seems to be significantly more distortion in the Q3 images. I would be interested to see if this is an unlevel camera thing, or possibly profile related.
Also interesting is the same settings resulted in such differences in exposure. ISO 200 is base on the M10-P. I am assuming ISO 64 is now base on the Q3 same as M11.
p.4 #8 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
1bwana1 wrote:
There seems to be significantly more distortion in the Q3 images. I would be interested to see if this is an unlevel camera thing, or possibly profile related.
Also interesting is the same settings resulted in such differences in exposure. ISO 200 is base on the M10-P. I am assuming ISO 64 is now base on the Q3 same as M11.
The lens on the Q cameras are known to have substantial distortion. They do an internal software correction with a crop to get the FOV around 26 mm. I knew the lens was the same as the Q2, but kind of wish it wasn't.
May 26, 2023 at 10:52 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #9 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
Jman13 wrote:
Let's be honest here, though - you're suggesting how affordable a Leica M kit is by proposing an 11 year old camera body and then all lenses NOT made by Leica...showing how insanely expensive Leica gear is.
If you bought the equivalent stuff using current production Leica lenses, you're getting an M11 with 28 Summicron, 50 APO Summicron and a 90 (Either summicron or Elmar). Total cost: $9000+$5100+$9100+$4100 (assuming Elmar) = $27,300.
And I'm sorry, there is no way anyone can convince me that a 50 APO Summicron is worth 9x what a Voigtlander 50/2 APO Lanthar is worth. Because the CV 50/2 APO is a near flawless lens optically. If the Leica is better, it's in exceptionally subtle ways.
And, as I said originally - I understand that this stuff is awesome gear, and it's luxury item stuff, but it is also OK to acknowledge the Leica name tax, because that certainly is part of the equation. And for many it may be worth it to pay that name tax to get what is a unique or premium product. The Q3 might be one such product, especially since Sony hasn't updated the RX1 series in so long, so there isn't even a true competitor. ...Show more →
But you are evaluating a Leica M kit based on how you would purchase as Canon/Nikon/Sony kit, and that is a very biased way to evaluate gear. If you want a Leica M kit, then in my view you are buying it to shoot a rangefinder camera. It doesn't have to be all Leica gear. It doesn't have to be a new camera with all the bells and whistles. In fact, you might like a camera with less bells and whistles. You don't need the most expensive lenses either.
Two things have really changed about getting a Leica M kit much cheaper than even 5 years ago: 1) You can get a quite good used camera for a lot less money. These include at this point the Leica M240 for $2500 or so and the Leica M10 for $4,000 or so. Even 5 years ago for $2,500 you could have maybe gotten a crop sensor M8 with a very limited and problematic crop sensor and for $4,000 you maybe could have gotten a M9, but even that camera which is full frame had a sensor with low high ISO capability and prone to problems. Low cost cameras that were used had serious issues even 5 year ago that were hard to ignore. That isn't true today. The M240 and M10 are durable and long lasting cameras. Sure the sensor could be a bit better, but keep in mind if you want to use a rangefinder you shoot in a different way and you often shoot still or slow moving things and when you shoot action you aren't expecting high frames per second or anything either. All of this makes using an older camera a lot easier and it makes a lot more sense to buy an older camera.
2) The Voigtlander lenses for Leica M have gotten a lot better and they are still bargains. I think some Leica M lenses still make sense on a Leica M camera, but you can get some great lenses and very reasonable prices if you go with Voigtlander lenses. I would never buy Leica M lenses new, and they hold their value well, but I regularly buy Voigtlander lenses new as they are such moderate cost even if they do lose some value relatively quickly.
My major point is that you can get a very competent Leica M mount system with very good lenses and you don't have to break the bank to do so. That is a relatively new thing that has evolved over the last five years. Sure you can't add new Leica lenses and not have really high costs, but you can have a Leica M mount camera system and excellent lenses without having to spend a fortune.
p.4 #10 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
Steve -
I agree with you entirely, but since the discussion was really about the Leica name tax, the fact that there are truly outstanding and relatively affordable third party options is sort of beside the point. In fact, it sort of proves the point...the fact is that you pay a TON of money for the Leica name.
Yes, there's definitely a reason the Leica name garners the price premium, due to their outstanding craftsmanship and quality of optics...but as Voigtlander has proven...you can still build exceptionally well constructed lenses with amazing optical performance for 1/5 to 1/10th the price....so the Leica name is the reason for quite a lot of the cost.
The Q3, made to the same tolerances and quality by another manufacturer would almost certainly not top $4,000.
p.4 #11 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
Jman13 wrote:
Steve -
I agree with you entirely, but since the discussion was really about the Leica name tax, the fact that there are truly outstanding and relatively affordable third party options is sort of beside the point. In fact, it sort of proves the point...the fact is that you pay a TON of money for the Leica name.
Yes, there's definitely a reason the Leica name garners the price premium, due to their outstanding craftsmanship and quality of optics...but as Voigtlander has proven...you can still build exceptionally well constructed lenses with amazing optical performance for 1/5 to 1/10th the price....so the Leica name is the reason for quite a lot of the cost.
The Q3, made to the same tolerances and quality by another manufacturer would almost certainly not top $4,000. ...Show more →
We get it, you think Leica is taxed for the name...Cool Moving on!
p.4 #12 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
Going to check out the Q3 locally today.
I guess the dilemma I have is I already own the 28 Lux. Wouldn't get rid of it just because I love it on the M11 so much. I owned the Q2 and didn't fall in love with it but it was mostly the way I had to use it that jammed me up the most.
Charging it, transferring photos etc all where less than ideal. Just like with the M11, these are now fixed. I may end up giving it a shot if they have one locally today. Just don't tell my wife
p.4 #13 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
1bwana1 wrote:
There seems to be significantly more distortion in the Q3 images. I would be interested to see if this is an unlevel camera thing, or possibly profile related.
Also interesting is the same settings resulted in such differences in exposure. ISO 200 is base on the M10-P. I am assuming ISO 64 is now base on the Q3 same as M11.
I'm not seeing much difference in distortion between the M image and the corrected Q image. The exposure difference though is interesting. I think one major aspect is the Summaron was wide open at f/5.6 and therefore vignettes quite strongly (IIRC it probably vignettes strongly in general). I don't believe whatever correction the Summaron profile applies to the file, in respect to vignetting, will entirely remove it. I'd guess the Q3's lens profile will entirely remove vignetting by f/5.6.
p.4 #14 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
The flip out screen is excellent. Another quick comparison (with another lens it could replace) SL2-S & 35 SL (non apo). Same settings with an adjustment to exposure on the Q2.
LEICA SL2-SSUMMICRON-SL 1:2/35 ASPH. lens35mmf/2.01/400s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA Q3SUMMILUX 1:1.7/28 ASPH. lens28mmf/1.71/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA SL2-SSUMMICRON-SL 1:2/35 ASPH. lens35mmf/2.01/400s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA Q3SUMMILUX 1:1.7/28 ASPH. lens28mmf/1.71/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
p.4 #15 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
lifeandmylens wrote:
Q3 arrived. Doing a couple tests to see if it could replace some other lenses.
Here's a quick snapshot with the same settings on the Q3 and M10p with a 28 Summaron at f/5.6.
I appreciate the previous test. Would it be possible for you to conduct another test using a tripod? Additionally, I would like to thank you for providing the uncorrected version, which demonstrates the distortion.
According to online discussions, it is suggested that the Leica 28mm f/1.7 Summilux lens has a focal length of 24mm before distortion correction and 26mm after correction. It does not have the angle of view of a 28mm lens.
p.4 #16 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
rscheffler wrote:
I'm not seeing much difference in distortion between the M image and the corrected Q image. The exposure difference though is interesting. I think one major aspect is the Summaron was wide open at f/5.6 and therefore vignettes quite strongly (IIRC it probably vignettes strongly in general). I don't believe whatever correction the Summaron profile applies to the file, in respect to vignetting, will entirely remove it. I'd guess the Q3's lens profile will entirely remove vignetting by f/5.6.
I think if you look at the third image (Q3) the window top above the "Happy Birthday" sign is badly bowed. I don't see that in the first image from the M10-P.
Interesting thought about the vignette in the slow Summaron. The vignette is obvious, but exposure is still very different in the center.
In the tripod mounted comparison with the SL2-S I am still seeing the distortion in the window frame with the Q3. Maybe its just me.
p.4 #18 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
Fred Miranda wrote:
I appreciate the previous test. Would it be possible for you to conduct another test using a tripod? Additionally, I would like to thank you for providing the uncorrected version, which demonstrates the distortion.
According to online discussions, it is suggested that the Leica 28mm f/1.7 Summilux lens has a focal length of 24mm before distortion correction and 26mm after correction. It does not have the angle of view of a 28mm lens.
Sure here is one better, with lots of vertical and horizontal lines. I didn't use a tripod since it wouldn't technically be an equal FOV since the Summaron is much smaller. So I set them both on a table with the front of each lens lined up with the front edge of the table. Also used an M10-r this time @ ISO 100. Lens corrections are turned off in LR. The Summaron as you can see vignettes a little.
LEICA M10-RSummaron-M 1:5.6/28 lens28mmf/5.61/15s100 ISO0.0 EV
LEICA Q3SUMMILUX 1:1.7/28 ASPH. lens28mmf/5.61/25s100 ISO0.0 EV
Corrections removed
LEICA Q3SUMMILUX 1:1.7/28 ASPH. lens28mmf/5.61/25s100 ISO0.0 EV
p.4 #19 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
Jman13 wrote:
Steve -
I agree with you entirely, but since the discussion was really about the Leica name tax, the fact that there are truly outstanding and relatively affordable third party options is sort of beside the point. In fact, it sort of proves the point...the fact is that you pay a TON of money for the Leica name.
Yes, there's definitely a reason the Leica name garners the price premium, due to their outstanding craftsmanship and quality of optics...but as Voigtlander has proven...you can still build exceptionally well constructed lenses with amazing optical performance for 1/5 to 1/10th the price....so the Leica name is the reason for quite a lot of the cost.
The Q3, made to the same tolerances and quality by another manufacturer would almost certainly not top $4,000. ...Show more →
There is some expense tied to the name, but you can't forget that the cost to make these in Germany is exceedingly more expensive than Japan. If Leica moved it's lens manufacturing to Japan, they could produce lenses at a much more reasonable price – probably still double that of a Voigtlander, but not 10x as much.
There is also a big difference in the cost to produce some Leica lenses simply due to the smaller form factor. It's rumored there's only one person working at Leica with the skill to assemble the new 35 APO.
Supply (low) and demand (high) also plays a role.
The cost of the Leica name is not the only driver of the cost of their products.
p.4 #20 · Official: Leica Q3 Unveiled, Now Open for Pre-Orders
lifeandmylens wrote:
Rolling shutter.
Doesn't this have a leaf shutter anyway? Not sure why electronic shutter would be much of a consideration, since I can't imagine the main shutter is loud.
