"The lens is stabilized, so I managed to get sharp handheld exposures at speeds as long as 1/4-second, and stretched as far as 1/2-second with hit or miss results."
p.1 #4 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
I think this could get me to finally go to the Q3, and maybe, MAYBE, even away from the Q2M that I absolutely love. There is a lot of things to love about this release. Except probably the price.
p.1 #5 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
It’s a smart move by Leica to offer the same camera with different focal lengths. For those who prefer shooting with a 28mm, the choice is clear. Now, there’s an alternative for those who prefer a more standard focal length and a more clinically correct look to their images.
I’m in the 28mm camp for the Q series, but I can see the 43mm becoming quite popular.
If someone comes across a DNG file from the new 43, post the link here. I'm curious to check if there is any baked-in distortion correction applied to the DNG files shot from this lens. (We all know there is a big in-camera correction for the 28)
Fred Miranda wrote:
If someone comes across a DNG file from the new 43, post the link here. I'm curious to check if there is any baked-in distortion correction applied to the DNG files shot from this lens. (We all know there is a big in-camera correction for the 28)
p.1 #8 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Fred Miranda wrote:
It’s a smart move by Leica to offer the same camera with different focal lengths. For those who prefer shooting with a 28mm, the choice is clear. Now, there’s an alternative for those who prefer a more standard focal length and a more clinically correct look to their images.
I’m in the 28mm camp for the Q series, but I can see the 43mm becoming quite popular.
If someone comes across a DNG file from the new 43, post the link here. I'm curious to check if there is any baked-in distortion correction applied to the DNG files shot from this lens. (We all know there is a big in-camera correction for the 28)...Show more →
The files on DPreview show a ton software correction- This thing looks much wider than it really is- probably a 38mm lens ish-
Thanks for posting this! That was the same strategy used for the Q 28 to keep the lens smaller: minimize optical distortion correction and apply corrections in-camera with OP codes. This approach isn’t bad if the final image is still great with minimal vignetting.
p.1 #17 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
As someone who has wanted a camera like this for more than a decade at this point, I feel like everything about the macro mode is a bit of a letdown. More than I was expecting, honestly. It starts at 60(!!)cm, you lose control of your aperture below 2.8 from 60cm to ~26.5cm, and even though it focuses closer than my 35 GM it has a ~20% lower maximum reproduction.
Everything else about the camera and lens combo looks more than good enough to consider selling off the remainder of my kit for and just downsizing. In many ways, this seems to be 95% the performance of my 35 GM at ~50% the size/weight for the lens & camera combo. Perhaps AF could wait for a Q4 43, but everything else is great.
But that macro seems worse than everything I went through with the 40 CF. Hard pass from me if this is going to be my only piece of kit.
p.1 #18 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
On dpreview I see samples of uncorrected raw prictures from this camera that show an enormous distortion. Is it so difficult to make a lens in this size without distortion? To me it looks like a cheap lens from the previous century.
p.1 #19 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
ustjwenew wrote:
On dpreview I see samples of uncorrected raw prictures from this camera that show an enormous distortion. Is it so difficult to make a lens in this size without distortion? To me it looks like a cheap lens from the previous century.
I’d say that if the lens can maintain the resolution and contrast shown in the released MTF graphs after software correction, I don’t mind it at all. What matters is the final output image. Correcting it in software rather than optically is just a different approach.
Most people won’t see the images without the baked-in corrections, so it’s likely not to be an issue, just as it wasn’t for the Leica Q with the 28mm lens: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1830361
p.1 #20 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
ustjwenew wrote:
On dpreview I see samples of uncorrected raw prictures from this camera that show an enormous distortion. Is it so difficult to make a lens in this size without distortion? To me it looks like a cheap lens from the previous century.
That’s the beauty of a fixed sensor-
You build the lens to match the sensor size- so you only have to correct out to a certain point. I would say this give lens designers way more latitude to get the best possible output.
If I think about this logically- Imagine designing an ASP-C lens with a full frame sensor- Extremely easy to get the best part of the image in the center.
With a fixed lens and you control the lens placement with no mount, you can build the best properties around that, make the crop in software for the 60M image circle etc.
I am sure there are people way smarter than me that can talk about it but why not use the technology we have and use everything at your fingertips. Someone correct me if this is wrong-
