Many of us already own a Q series camera with the 28mm f/1.7 Summilux lens. However, with the release of the new Q3 43, preferences might be shifting.
I’m curious to see how many people prefer 28mm over 43mm for a digital camera body with a built-in lens.
Personally, I much prefer the 28mm, especially since cropping the image to 35mm or 43mm doesn’t significantly impact the resolution (similar to a full-frame to APS-C crop). The new 43mm lens is more corrected and has its own advantages as well.
Fred Miranda wrote:
It's impressive how well the new "43" has been received, especially since it's not a common focal length in many photographers' bags.
9 years of pent up demand for a Q with a longer lens.
I much prefer the rendering at close distances wide open from the 28. It's surprising to me that the 43 doesn't have a much higher magnification in macro mode compared to the 28.
43mm is my actual preferred focal length, especially after a couple of years with the X2D and 55mm (44 equiv). So this is kind of my ideal daily carry camera.
I will be keeping my Q3-28, though. K, instinctively short strapped her Q2M and carries that with her Q3 like a 1970's journalist. I might try the same for some things with the 43 and 28.
I may retire my Q2 and Q2M though, and I'm thinking of exiting the M system, except for my M11M. That'll cover my monochrom and M itch. I like the SL3 enough that I really have stopped using my M11. It's a bonus the SL and Q systems share batteries.
Now what to do for a 90-100mm? I may throw a Sigma 85 on my A7CR and see how that goes. Or do I just carry my SL3 with a 90 APO on it?
I am coming from Sigma dp1/2 combo to Ricoh GR III/IIIX combo... I prefer Q2/3 for travel and Q3 43 for local dog walks by the beach or even longer reach... It is similar with the pets as they turn their heads when they see a camera.
I really like the X100VI plus the teleconverter which has similar lens size to Q3 43... So the other option is getting 2 X100VI's with the converters per one wedding photographer, 28mm vs 35mm vs 50mm:
I ordered the Q3 43 because I really like the idea of a longer focal length Q, but I'm actually quite skeptical I'll get along with it.
The things I love about my Q2 are the IQ, ergonomics, durability, and that it was ~$3500. I don't like 28mm all that much and prefer 50mm (but 28mm is quite versatile which I'm often thankful for). I want a flip out screen. I wish the OIS was a bit more effective. And I wish the AF was better but really leaps and bounds better to where I can fully trust it. Even if the AF were improved, if it's not on the level of Sony or Canon I'll continue to shoot AF-S spot with a full press squeeze to minimize the time between focus and capture.
So when I looked at the Q3, I see improved AF, but not improved enough to change my shooting style or keeper rate. Better IQ, but not enough to really make a difference for me. I see a flip out screen but a pretty kludgy one that lessen the durable feeling and ergonomics. I feel like the OIS is going to even less effective at 43mm. And most of all I see double the replacement cost @ $7K which change how I treat the camera and make me think twice about even taking it out if I'm going to juggling other priorities and want a camera on me just in case (about 70% of my usage).
Is the 43mm focal length compelling enough to dethrone my Q2? Are the other improvements worth more than I think? Are the perceived issues of durability and cost overblown? It seems unlikely. But it could be the perfect camera and deserves a chance. If it doesn't work out then I'll chalk the depreciation up as a rental fee and sell it on after a month or two trying to gel with it.
I have the Q2M. I generally just can’t get over the prices of new Qs. They’re beautiful cameras and all, but they offer no flexibility in lens choice, unlike for example a Sony A7Rc. Pair that with a nice lens and you have flexibility at half the price and probably a generally more capable camera as well (I don’t know, since I don’t shoot Sony and don’t know how much faster and better the Q3 is than my Q2). I said ‘probably’ based on what I’ve read.
Just rationally, I find it extremely hard to justify the Q when new. But I’m still drawn to it, because it offers the no-nonsense approach to the body. I find that is nowadays my main draw to Leica and Hasselblad. But I also think that’s not completely rational, because at the same time I quite enjoy my OM System OM-1 II with its numerous controls and buttons (I just ignore most of them most of the time).
Anyway, my answer to your poll: none. But if $7,000 was spare change to me, both Q3s. But then I wouldn’t know which kit/camera to pick when I go out (like both of my GRIIIs, 28mm and 43mm generally stay home). Oh, well.
mrdan86 wrote:
I ordered the Q3 43 because I really like the idea of a longer focal length Q, but I'm actually quite skeptical I'll get along with it.
The things I love about my Q2 are the IQ, ergonomics, durability, and that it was ~$3500. I don't like 28mm all that much and prefer 50mm (but 28mm is quite versatile which I'm often thankful for). I want a flip out screen. I wish the OIS was a bit more effective. And I wish the AF was better but really leaps and bounds better to where I can fully trust it. Even if the AF were improved, if it's not on the level of Sony or Canon I'll continue to shoot AF-S spot with a full press squeeze to minimize the time between focus and capture.
So when I looked at the Q3, I see improved AF, but not improved enough to change my shooting style or keeper rate. Better IQ, but not enough to really make a difference for me. I see a flip out screen but a pretty kludgy one that lessen the durable feeling and ergonomics. I feel like the OIS is going to even less effective at 43mm. And most of all I see double the replacement cost @ $7K which change how I treat the camera and make me think twice about even taking it out if I'm going to juggling other priorities and want a camera on me just in case (about 70% of my usage).
Is the 43mm focal length compelling enough to dethrone my Q2? Are the other improvements worth more than I think? Are the perceived issues of durability and cost overblown? It seems unlikely. But it could be the perfect camera and deserves a chance. If it doesn't work out then I'll chalk the depreciation up as a rental fee and sell it on after a month or two trying to gel with it....Show more →
As you might know about the Q3-either model. The EVF is 5.7 and is very clear and much better for my eye. The LCD is about 60% better than yours. The buffer is 8GB and of course the 60MP sensor. This buffer lets me shoot continuously without worry about block up transferring images to the SD card. Sure I wish they had put an internal memory in it as an advancement, but I guess it would have caused some manufacturing hurdles they were not willing to handle right now.
The new IV processor is faster and that in turn helps with AF. Sure AF could be faster, etc. etc, but I have never had trouble shooting on the street with me and my subject moving simultaneously and even in opposite directions. That's with the 28. I know the 43 will be different in those regards, but got to try it as I like the FL and since I have found myself cropping Q 28 images since the first model came out around 9 years ago. It might minimize that.
The added FN buttons are less important to me but they are there over previous models. Sometimes we tend to forget that many things double every 10 years so the $7k now is about $3500 when the Q first started, but with many, many improvements over the original 116 model, which I loved 9 years ago. Just my 2cents.
retrofocus wrote:
My vote/hope is for an EVF-M with exchangeable lens M-mount.... *shrug*
mudlake wrote:
This! ^^^
That, or an SL3-C (i.e. compact), shaped and sized like an M.
Or, a FF CL. Actually, I really liked the CL. It's form factor (while APS-C sensor) was very similar (and even smaller) to the M, with the EVF in the top left corner position like a rangefinder. Scaling that up to the size of FF, would seem viable. Even if they kept it an L mount, it took the adapter for the M lenses very well, and the experience was great.
The only reason I sold my CL, was in anticipation of the CL2 (which, of course got killed off after I sold mine). So, yeah ... a FF CL (oxymoron, since the C is for compact L, and we already have the not-so compact SL) would be very much to my liking, too.
They could just name it "L" (not sure what the "S" stands for in the SL model), or even ML, or whatever ... but, just make the darn thing. I'm quite certain it would sell, well.
Q3 43 all day for me. I've had every other Q and sold them all because I end up cropping 90% of my images to around 40-50mm. After having the Q3 43 for a few days I know this is the best EDC for me.
That being said, if I were traveling or shooting an event I may rent a Q3 for some wider shots, but would still shoot the majority with the 43.
RustyBug wrote:
That, or an SL3-C (i.e. compact), shaped and sized like an M.
Or, a FF CL. Actually, I really liked the CL. It's form factor (while APS-C sensor) was very similar (and even smaller) to the M, with the EVF in the top left corner position like a rangefinder. Scaling that up to the size of FF, would seem viable. Even if they kept it an L mount, it took the adapter for the M lenses very well, and the experience was great.
The only reason I sold my CL, was in anticipation of the CL2 (which, of course got killed off after I sold mine). So, yeah ... a FF CL (oxymoron, since the C is for compact L, and we already have the not-so compact SL) would be very much to my liking, too.
They could just name it "L" (not sure what the "S" stands for in the SL model), or even ML, or whatever ... but, just make the darn thing. I'm quite certain it would sell, well....Show more →
+1. Just with M-mount instead of L-mount please. I don't want to use L-lenses on a smaller camera body, and I want such camera in parallel to be used with any of my other rangefinder M cameras. If an EVF-M (or whatever name it might be) comes with L-mount, I need to use an L/M adapter all the time! Then I am back to my Sony A7R days which I also only used with adapters since I didn't buy into E-mount lenses.
43 is the first one I've been interested in. 40mm is my favorite focal length for general photography and there are many times when I've just left the house with the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 and been happy.
What I want is a small body that can take the small M mount lenses and offers a seamless way to focus using my old eyes without having to resort to a separate diopter lens (so, simple diopter correction built in), which nowadays seems to be either what Canon does for MF with compatible lenses and what Nikon does even better in the Zf and Z6III. Plus the zoom function to not be convoluted, unlike Canon and most other brands I know.
It’s crazy to me that the Nikon Zf with the 6-bit adapter or the Techart AF adapter currently seems the best body to use M lenses on, with the exception of the wider angle lenses probably. As someone who mostly cares about the size of the lenses and less about the rangefinder experience or so-called Leica colors, I’d say Leica better catch up.
