p.3 #2 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
I don't know why other manufacturers don't have minimalist, "purist" camera like Leica. I like M series, the small CL2, SL2, Q3 bodies. Hasselblad X2D is my other favourite. Also I loved my DP2 Quattro despite the strange form.
I'd like own a Q3 43, but it's insane that my A7RIV, 20 1.8G, 35GM, 50 1.2GM worth less despite the better sharpness, better AF, and three extremly good lens, the minimalism just can't justify this price for me.
p.3 #3 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Lukacs wrote:
I don't know why other manufacturers don't have minimalist, "purist" camera like Leica.
Probably because most of photographers don't need and don't buy minimalist/purist cameras.
P.S.: Fuji X100VI and Ricoh GR III could be considered minimalist cameras.
p.3 #4 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
rob_ww wrote:
I have been tempted by the Q series many times and I agree this new focal length is tempting once again. That is, until Chris Niccols reminds readers that the body is the same, with the same drawbacks. A friend of mine purchased a Q3 recently and the poor AF has been driving him nuts -- around 10% of pictures are just plain out of focus, it is that bad.
It's hard to see how the Q3 43 can be better in any respect than an A7CR with any similar FL lens. Size, weight, AF, IQ, IBIS ... price ... where does the Q3 43 win out?...Show more →
Ignoring the simple fact Leica don't play in the same sandpit as Sony. People who want a Leica aren't looking at an A7CR (although I have both).
Better EVF. VASTLY better build quality. Actual IP rating. Leaf shutter lens. Better UI. Better menus, And a red dot.
The A7CR is a fab camera. I almost never use mine, however. Same as I much prefer the SL3 over the A7R5. Absolute performance is always nice on paper but in real life we just like pretty things. Like people who prefer a mechanical watch over the Apple one.
And the A7CR IBIS is poor compared to the Q3 (OIS) (and pretty much anything else, actually). It's fine but hardly class leading.
And focus doesn't seem to be an issue on my Q3. Or K's. She loves that damn camera. Almost as much as her Q2M.
p.3 #5 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
highdesertmesa wrote:
I've always wondered if in addition to the upsizing if they're also applying baked-in sharpening using a distortion map such that corrected areas at the edges get a little more sharpening than the center.
I have no idea about the 43, but there are other minor corrections going on with the 28 aside from distortion. I don't see a lot of extra sharpening involved, though. It'd probably have perfect corners in every shooting situation if it did, and it doesn't.
p.3 #6 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Just to be clear, I don't want anyone to see my participation is this discussion as trying to dissuade anyone from wanting the new Q. It's hard enough to wade through the sea of same-same we're being offered and find a camera that excites you enough to put it to good use, and how any camera achieves results is, in the end, totally academic.
p.3 #7 · 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.
The demand has been there since Day 1. You can only wonder why it took Leica 9 years. I guess fear of cannibalizing themselves once more till Ricoh led the way and showed that that is a non-issue?
p.3 #9 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
SlowDriver wrote:
The demand has been there since Day 1. You can only wonder why it took Leica 9 years. I guess fear of cannibalizing themselves once more till Ricoh led the way and showed that that is a non-issue?
Maybe it’s like the classic rock band that has a comeback #1 hit song, but it’s a pop song and not rock. A begrudging success until one day they finally come to terms with it.
p.3 #10 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Am I the only one who would prefer a Q3-43 with lower MP, e.g. 40-45 MP, but a quick reading sensor? And perhaps one could hope for better AF (then again, the Sony a7RV with 60mp has stellar AF, but again, horrible rolling shutter)
p.3 #11 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
patotts wrote:
Am I the only one who would prefer a Q3-43 with lower MP, e.g. 40-45 MP, but a quick reading sensor? And perhaps one could hope for better AF (then again, the Sony a7RV with 60mp has stellar AF, but again, horrible rolling shutter)
Sure I would like much faster sensor scan too. Many of us forum dwellers love that feature 😎 Regardless, and based on the huge success of previous Q cameras, I think the Q3 43 might become Leica's most sold camera ever.
We aren't shooting on film anymore with the Q3 43-
If we were shooting film with this 43mm lens, we would either ask the lab to correct our prints or return the lens.
If that much of software correction for a lens is accepted, then I guess we can accept AI to create a picture and put down our camera and lenses.
Manufacturers give reasons for optical+software design method which I interpret them as excuse. Check out APO-Lanthar 50mm f/3.5 from Voigtlander which do not has / need lens profile for digital correction at a very affordable price and compact in size.
p.3 #13 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
^ You're entitled to your opinion.
It's highly possible that an optically corrected equivalent lens would still not be as sharp as the high distortion version after software correction and could introduce other less desirable aberrations. And it might be larger and more costly to manufacture, which might negatively affect other areas of consideration that Leica established when they designed the Q3 43. It's always compromises. I'm not saying correction of strong distortion in software is ideal, but here it might be the 'lesser evil' compromise.
Lukacs wrote:
I don't know why other manufacturers don't have minimalist, "purist" camera like Leica. I like M series, the small CL2, SL2, Q3 bodies. Hasselblad X2D is my other favourite. Also I loved my DP2 Quattro despite the strange form.
I'd like own a Q3 43, but it's insane that my A7RIV, 20 1.8G, 35GM, 50 1.2GM worth less despite the better sharpness, better AF, and three extremly good lens, the minimalism just can't justify this price for me.
You have to look beyond the technical performance capabilities and comparisons and be primarily concerned with the image creation experience itself. And ignore the price/cost difference.
The mainstream brands try to cater to everyone and are potentially roasted if they offer a premium niche product (Canon's R1 low MP sports-centric flagship body). Leica can't compete this way and has to work niches. They've built their brand in such a way that with low production volume they have to target customers willing to pay more for something 'different.' And that difference is often 'less for more,' meaning a simplified, 'purer,' user experience at a higher price. Worth and cost should also be clarified. Yes, Leica products cost more than the equivalents (as close as those can be, if they exist) from other brands. Worth or value, is what each user extracts/benefits/experiences from a given product. And it is precisely this that Leica targets in their marketing and product design: a user experience that does not exist with other brands. Whether photos with the same (or better) subjective and technical qualities can also be made with other brands is less the point; it's the user experience while making those photos where Leica wants its products to stand above the general photographic market. IMO it's not all marketing BS. When you enjoy using your equipment, rather than fighting with it, you're in a different mindset while visually exploring the world around you.
---------------------------------------------
SlowDriver wrote:
The demand has been there since Day 1. You can only wonder why it took Leica 9 years. I guess fear of cannibalizing themselves once more till Ricoh led the way and showed that that is a non-issue?
I've kind of wondered too... a Q trio of 28, 50 and 90 at the original Q's price point would have been around the price of buying each of those lenses for the M system, but you would have received a camera with each as well. In a way it would be an interesting alternative to the M system if you don't mind having a camera for each lens. Maybe there were also technical reasons. I feel like Leica's software capabilities have greatly improved over the past ~5 years, plus they now finally have access to PDAF, which IMO makes a bigger difference the longer the lens, compared to CDAF. Maybe in ~9 years we'll see a Q '90' but I feel like it would be the most niche of the Qs. The dilemma would be lens speed vs. size. The w/o bokeh fetishists will want a fast lens but that would make a Q 90 massive compared to the 28 and 43 (which already lost half a stop compared to the 28). Realistically to maintain the form/design I'd expect a Q 90 to be f/2.8 and collapsible when not in use. Maybe 90/2.8 will be too unsexy for many?
p.3 #14 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Luca101 wrote:
If we were shooting film with this 43mm lens, we would either ask the lab to correct our prints or return the lens.
We're not though and there is no opportunity to do with this lens.
If that much of software correction for a lens is accepted, then I guess we can accept AI to create a picture and put down our camera and lenses.
What does one thing have to do with another? AI images are imaginary creations. Software corrections for this lens are part of the end-to-end imaging process, no more or less than the electronics, AF unit and even the metal housing. The same software corrections won't work for another lens and this lens won't work without the software.
p.3 #16 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
rscheffler wrote:
I've kind of wondered too... a Q trio of 28, 50 and 90 at the original Q's price point would have been around the price of buying each of those lenses for the M system, but you would have received a camera with each as well. In a way it would be an interesting alternative to the M system if you don't mind having a camera for each lens. Maybe there were also technical reasons. I feel like Leica's software capabilities have greatly improved over the past ~5 years, plus they now finally have access to PDAF, which IMO makes a bigger difference the longer the lens, compared to CDAF. Maybe in ~9 years we'll see a Q '90' but I feel like it would be the most niche of the Qs. The dilemma would be lens speed vs. size. The w/o bokeh fetishists will want a fast lens but that would make a Q 90 massive compared to the 28 and 43 (which already lost half a stop compared to the 28). Realistically to maintain the form/design I'd expect a Q 90 to be f/2.8 and collapsible when not in use. Maybe 90/2.8 will be too unsexy for many?...Show more →
A Q 90 would definitely be more niche and it is probably unlikely we will ever see one but who knows?
I also wonder what this means for the SL. The SL I feel was already playing second fiddle and an undoubtedly very successful Q3 43 will in my opinion only reinforce that.
p.3 #17 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
panos.v wrote:
We're not though and there is no opportunity to do with this lens.
What does one thing have to do with another? AI images are imaginary creations. Software corrections for this lens are part of the end-to-end imaging process, no more or less than the electronics, AF unit and even the metal housing. The same software corrections won't work for another lens and this lens won't work without the software.
AI can be totally imaginary from zero base and also partially alter of an existing image, it just depends on from which point AI take place.
My point is optical challenge can be overcome even take long time and therefore we now have floating elements, asph elements, ED elements etc. Once we easily accept software correction, optical advancements will be slower or stopped.
p.3 #18 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
patotts wrote:
Am I the only one who would prefer a Q3-43 with lower MP, e.g. 40-45 MP, but a quick reading sensor? And perhaps one could hope for better AF (then again, the Sony a7RV with 60mp has stellar AF, but again, horrible rolling shutter)
You are in luck! Q3-28 can shoot 35mm with a lower resolution, around 40MP. And you can even get a "rangefinder" like benefit of seeing outside of frame lines as far as I understand it!
p.3 #19 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
highdesertmesa wrote:
Maybe it’s like the classic rock band that has a comeback #1 hit song, but it’s a pop song and not rock. A begrudging success until one day they finally come to terms with it.
The camera version of We Built This City.
I never understood the weather report in the middle of that song.
p.3 #20 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Lukacs wrote:
I don't know why other manufacturers don't have minimalist, "purist" camera like Leica. I like M series, the small CL2, SL2, Q3 bodies. Hasselblad X2D is my other favourite. Also I loved my DP2 Quattro despite the strange form.
I'd like own a Q3 43, but it's insane that my A7RIV, 20 1.8G, 35GM, 50 1.2GM worth less despite the better sharpness, better AF, and three extremly good lens, the minimalism just can't justify this price for me.
The Fuji Xpro series was kinda minimalist.
I like my Xpro3, it was sorta like a Leica Q except you didn’t need to buy another camera if you wanted a different lens.
