p.5 #1 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
1bwana1 wrote:
My guess is that neither one of you has spent time shooting the D-Lux 8. I have, and Huss is correct. The D-Lux 8 is a full fledged Leica camera now. It offers the same owner, and shooting experience that all the current Leica cameras do. Same materials, same buttons, same communication protocols, same integration with FOTOS, same workflow, same menus, same DNG files (now 12 bit) . Everything. Hold one in your hand. Shoot one. You will see that Huss is correct. The D-Lux 8 has been upgraded from the original shared Panasonic version. Yes, this includes the sensor. The images the D-Lux 8 produces are excellent for most use cases. For sure sharing digitally, and even printing to a larger size than most of us do most often. I have posted many D-Lux images here on FM. You would likely find it impossible to recognize any difference from the M11 images I have posted.
You will never get this kind of shooting experience, nor image quality using any current smart phone.
The zoom lens is very good for a zoom. I believe that Leica has done similar computational optimizations with the lens as the have with the Q. They even crop the resolution and FL bit doing this like the Q(x). The lens was designed for use on this one sensor by Leica, with all the advantages that that implies. Yes, it is manufactured by Panasonic. Did you know that Panasonic's Yamagata lens manufacturing facility is possibly the most advanced small aspherical lens manufacturing facilities in the World? They are capable of making ASPH lenses with multiple times less tolerances than other facilities. They make these type of lenses for many of the big "prestige" companies.
Although it has Panasonic roots in its lineage, Panasonic has never made a version like the current D-Lux 8. No other manufacturer has either.
Huss fully understands this, and is 100% correct in his statement. I shoot it regularly alongside my M11, and current collection of latest generation of Leica M lenses. The D-Lux 8 is much closer in experience to the Q family of cameras than it is to the M. I would buy the new Q3 43 if I didn't already own the D-Lux 8. But for my use case, and in most circumstances (there are exceptions) it is as good as a Q(x) . Form Factor is often preferable to the Q(x) or M cameras.
No I am not trolling, and not being sarcastic. Neither is Huss. Try one before judging so harshly.
I don’t see the point in making the good enough argument with the d lux 8 on a thread about the leica q3 43 which is literally about best in class image quality in a reasonable size. My point is if you want to go deep on good enough, there is a whole logical extent where the d lux 8 looks really foolish as the point of comparison.
As for shooting experience im sure you enjoy the d lux 8 but if gear isn’t the main point over taking photos, then the iPhone is certainly good enough but again pointless comparison when it’s about the q3.
p.5 #2 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=247&t=7021876
Chromatic aberration:
Because the Q3 43 is equipped with APO, I have more expectations for it in the test. First of all, I saw the central part of the image. Although you can still see a slight purple fringe at f/2, it has been controlled quite well. Stopping down the aperture one stop to f/2.8 is almost unnoticeable; as for the lateral chromatic aberration at the edge of the image, although it is visible at f/2, it can almost be ignored. After f/4, it is completely clean.
p.5 #3 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Agree on all fronts. Apologies again for taking things negative for a second :-)
RustyBug wrote:
That said, everyone has to find the place where technical capability and form factor makes sense for them and their use case(s). A multitude of options abound ... and, I'd suggest that there are plenty of folks here that will "rock" whatever gear you put in their hand, be that $14K or $1,400 worth of gear.
p.5 #4 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
tzhang4284 wrote:
I don’t see the point in making the good enough argument with the d lux 8 on a thread about the leica q3 43 which is literally about best in class image quality in a reasonable size. My point is if you want to go deep on good enough, there is a whole logical extent where the d lux 8 looks really foolish as the point of comparison.
As for shooting experience im sure you enjoy the d lux 8 but if gear isn’t the main point over taking photos, then the iPhone is certainly good enough but again pointless comparison when it’s about the q3....Show more →
Actually I take photos almost every day. I never use my phone for that. I hate the phone photography experience. Everyone has their own preferences.
Every camera is a compromise. Gear is never the main point of the image. Gear does have a huge impact on the experience however.
p.5 #5 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
I downloaded the raw files posted by DPReview and pixel-peeped on LR. The IQ looks great. I ordered mine from PopFlash and shipment tracker says I'll get it next week. I'm looking forward to using it!
p.5 #6 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Erich6_ wrote:
I downloaded the raw files posted by DPReview and pixel-peeped on LR. The IQ looks great. I ordered mine from PopFlash and shipment tracker says I'll get it next week. I'm looking forward to using it!
p.5 #8 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Understand each of us in the forum has personal preference about photographic gears, the 28mm and 43mm lenses of Q needs more software correction than other lenses is a deal breaker for me. Q moreover is good concept and for those buy / enjoy using Q3 28 or Q3 43 may you enjoy the cameras with pictures these cameras produced.
p.5 #9 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
I have nothing against the idea of software corrections but there are some downsides.
1. You camera is limited to software that supports it. You rely on both manufacturer and software to keep it working indefinitely.
2. New OEM lenses appear better than old or third party because the former is reviewed with software corrections. Despite all lenses benefiting.
3. It has a shrinkflation like tendency. The cost savings are probably going straight to profit rather than consumers. It makes the whole value assessment difficult.
4. Your camera manufacturer is in a way in control of your lens. The purchase gets subscription like qualities.
p.5 #10 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
Nushi wrote:
I have nothing against the idea of software corrections but there are some downsides.
1. You camera is limited to software that supports it. You rely on both manufacturer and software to keep it working indefinitely.
2. New OEM lenses appear better than old or third party because the former is reviewed with software corrections. Despite all lenses benefiting.
3. It has a shrinkflation like tendency. The cost savings are probably going straight to profit rather than consumers. It makes the whole value assessment difficult.
4. Your camera manufacturer is in a way in control of your lens. The purchase gets subscription like qualities.
Have you seen ANY camera support removed from LRC in the last 10 years? The reality is potential file quality of older cameras has improved with software updates. And for God's sake NASA still communicates to Voyager. Your camer wiil be alive long after you are,
As for the financial thing. Leica don't give a shit about you. they're in it for the money. The more profitable they are the more likely they are to release new toys. Prices are what the market can bear. Not what's good value. Not for any brand, ever.
Manufacturers have always been in control of your lens. You think you can substantially change how a Zeiss M Sonner 50mm renders? Or a Leica Summilux? This is part of modern lens design. You get on board or go Amish. M6's are a thing now. Have fun.
p.5 #11 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
These days the term “modern lens design” is mentioned a lot. If this is modern lens design I will pass. The final output of the Q3 43 does not even match the Nikon Z7II on Dpreview’s test chart. And that one is 45MP.
This “modern lens design” significantly drops resolution and only seems interesting for lens makers to cut cost and expertise.
For this Q3 43 I can imagine it works for Leica because the targeted buyers are problaby more interested in the looks and numbers (60MP) and a pleasing overall image than the best image quality. Which is perfectly fine.
flash wrote:
Have you seen ANY camera support removed from LRC in the last 10 years? The reality is potential file quality of older cameras has improved with software updates. And for God's sake NASA still communicates to Voyager. Your camer wiil be alive long after you are,
As for the financial thing. Leica don't give a shit about you. they're in it for the money. The more profitable they are the more likely they are to release new toys. Prices are what the market can bear. Not what's good value. Not for any brand, ever.
Manufacturers have always been in control of your lens. You think you can substantially change how a Zeiss M Sonner 50mm renders? Or a Leica Summilux? This is part of modern lens design. You get on board or go Amish. M6's are a thing now. Have fun.
p.5 #12 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
ustjwenew wrote:
These days the term “modern lens design” is mentioned a lot. If this is modern lens design I will pass. The final output of the Q3 43 does not even match the Nikon Z7II on Dpreview’s test chart. And that one is 45MP.
This “modern lens design” significantly drops resolution and only seems interesting for lens makers to cut cost and expertise.
For this Q3 43 I can imagine it works for Leica because the targeted buyers are problaby more interested in the looks and numbers (60MP) and a pleasing overall image than the best image quality. Which is perfectly fine.
And yet every review is saying how good the lens is.....
There are those that look at charts, MTF curves and P2P and those that take photos. Have a look at a comparison of the Z7II you cite and a Leica M50 Summilux. You think the Nikon makes better files? Charts will always favour edge to edge sharpness. Photographers don't always see that as a bonus.
Perfect lenses do not make perfect photographs. Never have and never will.
Chromatic aberration:
Because the Q3 43 is equipped with APO, I have more expectations for it in the test. First of all, I saw the central part of the image. Although you can still see a slight purple fringe at f/2, it has been controlled quite well. Stopping down the aperture one stop to f/2.8 is almost unnoticeable; as for the lateral chromatic aberration at the edge of the image, although it is visible at f/2, it can almost be ignored. After f/4, it is completely clean.
p.5 #15 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
ustjwenew wrote:
These days the term “modern lens design” is mentioned a lot. If this is modern lens design I will pass. The final output of the Q3 43 does not even match the Nikon Z7II on Dpreview’s test chart. And that one is 45MP.
At this level of optical performance ... I think we can get into the aspect where we can't see the forest for the trees.
I know that I'm disappointed by the amount of optical distortion (similar, but more surprised by) like I am not keen on the distortion of my Q2. But ,I also know that my Q2 has been with me to produce some images that I'll hang on to.
As to the "modern lens design" ... I really am not in the camp of comparing it to "beating" other lenses. Rather, I' more of whether or not I like its drawing style. The (very, very early) early images I've seen so far ... they seem to make a lot of use of the highly complex lens configuration, and the multitude of aspheric surfaces, taking me to a place of "Karbe on steroids". Not quite sure how I like that. Again, time will tell.
As I was looking at the images (not test charts), I was watching for the effects of the distortion and didn't seem to notice a tremendous amount (i.e. correction was doing its thing). But, not a lot of architectural oriented images were part of the sample images.
As I got past that little ditty ... I then turned my attention to how the lens rendered. It seemed to be certainly sharp enough, but the transitions left me a bit, "meh" ... not sure how I feel about this.
To which I reminded myself, I can always "soften" things in post with different editing profiling, etc., if I'd prefer something different.
I guess my point is ... the proof is in the pudding as folks learn to use this new tool. Test charts are great for splittin' hairs (yeah, I dig on them, too), but I also know that at the end of the day, they don't mean a whole lot wrt to the images we can make with our tools. I mean, my gut check, right now is that I'll keep on using my 50 year old 40/2 Summicron-C, despite the MTF charts saying there are "better" lenses out there. Will that change ... I dunno, maybe.
Time (and images) will tell me that answer ... not the test charts.
p.5 #16 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
ustjwenew wrote:
These days the term “modern lens design” is mentioned a lot. If this is modern lens design I will pass. The final output of the Q3 43 does not even match the Nikon Z7II on Dpreview’s test chart. And that one is 45MP.
This “modern lens design” significantly drops resolution and only seems interesting for lens makers to cut cost and expertise.
Are you looking at the comparison set to 24p or 60p, because the default of 24p the Q3 43 looks much sharper than the Z7ii to me. In addition, you're comparing a smaller fixed lens built into a camera that is sharper across the frame compared to a larger interchangeable lens, of course the fixed lens is going to have compromise. When you have an interchangeable lens you can make it as big or small as you want to have the performance you want.
p.5 #18 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
BPsmith511 wrote:
When you have an interchangeable lens you can make it as big or small as you want to have the performance you want.
Kinda like comparing Leica's SL APO glass to Leica's M APO glass.
The size / amount of light you can gather to bring down to the film plane (for a given format) is effected by size of the optic. The SL's trump the M's on the test charts. But, if you want the form factor of the M, instead of the SL ... that % of reduction is viable, and still in excellent performance territory.
Being the BEST on the TEST ... is kinda like Olympic Sprinters. Someone WILL come in first, but dang ... they're ALL really FAST.
You don't have to be the FASTEST, to still be really FAST.
p.5 #19 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
RustyBug wrote:
Kinda like comparing Leica's SL APO glass to Leica's M APO glass.
The size / amount of light you can gather to bring down to the film plane (for a given format) is effected by size of the optic. The SL's trump the M's on the test charts. But, if you want the form factor of the M, instead of the SL ... that % of reduction is viable, and still in excellent performance territory.
Being the BEST on the TEST ... is kinda like Olympic Sprinters. Someone WILL come in first, but dang ... they're ALL really FAST.
You don't have to be the FASTEST, to still be really FAST. ...Show more →
Yeh, but who remembers the runner that comes in second?
p.5 #20 · Official Announcement: Leica Q3 43 Digital Camera Released!
RustyBug wrote:
At this level of optical performance ... I think we can get into the aspect where we can't see the forest for the trees.
I know that I'm disappointed by the amount of optical distortion (similar, but more surprised by) like I am not keen on the distortion of my Q2. But ,I also know that my Q2 has been with me to produce some images that I'll hang on to.
As to the "modern lens design" ... I really am not in the camp of comparing it to "beating" other lenses. Rather, I' more of whether or not I like its drawing style. The (very, very early) early images I've seen so far ... they seem to make a lot of use of the highly complex lens configuration, and the multitude of aspheric surfaces, taking me to a place of "Karbe on steroids". Not quite sure how I like that. Again, time will tell.
As I was looking at the images (not test charts), I was watching for the effects of the distortion and didn't seem to notice a tremendous amount (i.e. correction was doing its thing). But, not a lot of architectural oriented images were part of the sample images.
As I got past that little ditty ... I then turned my attention to how the lens rendered. It seemed to be certainly sharp enough, but the transitions left me a bit, "meh" ... not sure how I feel about this.
To which I reminded myself, I can always "soften" things in post with different editing profiling, etc., if I'd prefer something different.
I guess my point is ... the proof is in the pudding as folks learn to use this new tool. Test charts are great for splittin' hairs (yeah, I dig on them, too), but I also know that at the end of the day, they don't mean a whole lot wrt to the images we can make with our tools. I mean, my gut check, right now is that I'll keep on using my 50 year old 40/2 Summicron-C, despite the MTF charts saying there are "better" lenses out there. Will that change ... I dunno, maybe.
Time (and images) will tell me that answer ... not the test charts.
