KLaban wrote:
I've always used wrist straps on all of my cameras but I understand your desire to keep the camera accessory free and that was my initial aim. Unfortunately, in practice, that didn't last long. Being used to cameras with secure grips meant I found the Q3 43 to be less than stable in my hand. I've now added a LIMs half case with a wonderfully secure grip. I've also added a thumbs up and together with the grip it makes handling the camera so much easier, particularly when shooting speedily, discretely and one-handed using the rear screen.
Everything on the camera is now black apart from a tiny amount of the grey and even that now looks virtually black. My wife says it now looks like a stealth bomber rather than bling bling.
Loving the camera and lens. My other cameras feel rather abandoned.
I've had several Q's. So, I know I'll be fine naked. K loves the grip on her Q3 but I never felt the need, unlike my M's which all have a Thumbie on them. Everyone id different but I've never had a half case I liked using.
As I didn't have my *normal* lens the Q has only ever been an occasional use camera. The Q3-43 will be close to my primary daily carry so we'll see how we go. But I'm thinking that if I need a bit more I'll just use some Siguru to create a bit more of a thumb grip. I should check to see if Steve Bennet makes a Thumbie for the Q series.
I really do find most of the big thumb grips quite ugly and I like my hotshoe clear. Does removing the hotshoe cover on a Q affect the IP rating? I think it does which is another issue. Of course, Leica could have put an integrated thumb grip on all their small camera like the M10D.......
I've had several Q's. So, I know I'll be fine naked. K loves the grip on her Q3 but I never felt the need, unlike my M's which all have a Thumbie on them. Everyone id different but I've never had a half case I liked using.
As I didn't have my *normal* lens the Q has only ever been an occasional use camera. The Q3-43 will be close to my primary daily carry so we'll see how we go. But I'm thinking that if I need a bit more I'll just use some Siguru to create a bit more of a thumb grip. I should check to see if Steve Bennet makes a Thumbie for the Q series.
I really do find most of the big thumb grips quite ugly and I like my hotshoe clear. Does removing the hotshoe cover on a Q affect the IP rating? I think it does which is another issue. Of course, Leica could have put an integrated thumb grip on all their small camera like the M10D.......
I've always had grips and thumbies on my M cameras for practical reasons and never worried about how they look. I would think a naked hotshoe would affect the IP rating, but hell, I don't like getting wet. 40-50mm has always been my preferred range and so the 43 is a natural for my walk-around. I have Z bodies for longer and shorter lenses.
After a couple of weeks with this camera, I'm overall very happy and impressed with its image quality as many have mentioned and it's a keeper for me. I do think the lens is a bit over corrected on vignetting to the point where it makes the images feel a bit unnatural to me and would prefer some more nature fall off - not sure if this is a digital correction or a real one.
I also think the AF is prone to hunting, more so than Sony or Nikon but about comparable to Fuji - wish it were better but oh well, that's Leica.
Lastly, on the size, as a Leica M11 owner, it's a bit big as all Q cameras are which defeats a lot of its value as a companion camera for me but I think the 43mm APO lens is so good I'll be using it more of a main camera when I don't want to bring my M kit along. I'll probably give in at some point and give the D-Lux 8 a try or just stick with my iPhone when I want a companion camera along either my Q3 43mm or M kit.
I feel that are spot on with the comparison to the 50 APO/35 APO m-
I have never used the SL primes but this lens is really really nice. I want to try it for long exposure night shots with the sky to get a real feel for it. The 50 APO was great in that regard.
Perhaps the Leica 50/2 APO isnt a reference lens, but I was surprised by how soft the Leica 35/2 APOs corners appeared in comparison. Many claim its one of the best 35mm lenses on the market. This result left me puzzled, making me wonder if there was an issue with the test, the lens copy, or if the Voigtlander 35/2 APO-Lanthar significantly outperforms it in the corners. The comparison with the SL 35/2 APO made sense to me, and I believe it *is* the best 35mm on the market. However, Ive never tried the Leica 35/2 APO myself to offer any input here.
After about 2 weeks, this poll shows that FM members prefer the 28mm and 43mm lenses almost equally. Also among those who favor the 28mm lens, the preference for the Q2 and Q3 is also balanced. This could be due to pricing considerations, sensor output, as well as body aesthetic changes.
Re the video at p.2 #14, I recall pointing out that the M 35/2 APO was designed for a strong center at the expense of the outer frames and corners - it loses fully 50% of fine detail lens contrast across the frame. The CV VM 35/2 is much more even, and is a little stronger (maybe 5%, which can be seen) in the corners.
The SL APO 35/2 stands clear above both. But these are all infinity readings, lenses will fall away at different rates when used at 2-3m. In the video, they used a tripod mounted camera to photograph the nearby wall. (all comments re f2 results).
It shows an f2 curve near-identical to the SL 50/2 APO, which is a very small amount lower than the SL 35/2 APO, as you see personally. These results are all correlated with lens complexity (elements): SL 35/2 (13); SL 50/2 (12); Q3 43 (11); M 35/2 (10); VM 35/2 (10). (All are APOs).
I thought the Q3 43 did very well indeed, more 'relaxed' imaging and better color performance/discrimination on the wheel. The moire pattern was also revealing, as was the fade character. Let's see a bokeh/focus fade comparison now.
Fred Miranda wrote:
After about 2 weeks, this poll shows that FM members prefer the 28mm and 43mm lenses almost equally. Also among those who favor the 28mm lens, the preference for the Q2 and Q3 is also balanced. This could be due to pricing considerations, sensor output, as well as body aesthetic changes.
Yup, I noticed how evenly split / sub-split that was, too.
philip_pj wrote:
Re the video at p.2 #14, I recall pointing out that the M 35/2 APO was designed for a strong center at the expense of the outer frames and corners - it loses fully 50% of fine detail lens contrast across the frame. The CV VM 35/2 is much more even, and is a little stronger (maybe 5%, which can be seen) in the corners.
The SL APO 35/2 stands clear above both. But these are all infinity readings, lenses will fall away at different rates when used at 2-3m. In the video, they used a tripod mounted camera to photograph the nearby wall. (all comments re f2 results).
It shows an f2 curve near-identical to the SL 50/2 APO, which is a very small amount lower than the SL 35/2 APO, as you see personally. These results are all correlated with lens complexity (elements): SL 35/2 (13); SL 50/2 (12); Q3 43 (11); M 35/2 (10); VM 35/2 (10). (All are APOs).
I thought the Q3 43 did very well indeed, more 'relaxed' imaging and better color performance/discrimination on the wheel. The moire pattern was also revealing, as was the fade character. Let's see a bokeh/focus fade comparison now. ...Show more →
I thought the comps pretty much revealed the "more glass" (i.e. light collection capacity) was correlated to performance reasonably so. No real surprise there ... M > Q > SL in terms of size / performance. I guess the compelling piece is then left to the preference of the Form Factor, accepting that "Dang Good" is in all packages, just not always in equal measure, depending on the Form Factor size.
Design intentions (project briefs) and optical correction. One day, Cosina might decide to flex its musculature. But they want to stay a small company. I think they know what they could be. Their stated corporate philosophy is:
"Through top quality optics
Create true value,
Continue to grow with customers,
Contribute to the development of society
Aim for a great *small* business." (my asterisks)
Fred Miranda wrote:
After about 2 weeks, this poll shows that FM members prefer the 28mm and 43mm lenses almost equally. Also among those who favor the 28mm lens, the preference for the Q2 and Q3 is also balanced. This could be due to pricing considerations, sensor output, as well as body aesthetic changes.
In this case wouldn't it be better to have an EVF-M (or Q) with exchangeable lens mount allowing different focal-lengths to be mounted (like 28 and 40 mm for example)? I suspect Leica could make such camera quite easily but doesn't want to interfere with the decent sales of the fixed-lens Q-series. Leica users have only choices between in-camera OVF-based M-series, fixed lens EVF-based Q-series, and much more bulky EVF-based SL-series with L-mount. An EVF-based camera with M (or Q) form factor and exchangeable lens mount is missing (and using the external EVF viewfinder box on the M camera is by far not the same and more like a crutch).
retrofocus wrote:
In this case wouldn't it be better to have an EVF-M (or Q) with exchangeable lens mount allowing different focal-lengths to be mounted (like 28 and 40 mm for example)? I suspect Leica could make such camera quite easily but doesn't want to interfere with the decent sales of the fixed-lens Q-series. Leica users have only choices between in-camera OVF-based M-series, fixed lens EVF-based Q-series, and much more bulky EVF-based SL-series with L-mount. An EVF-based camera with M (or Q) form factor and exchangeable lens mount is missing (and using the external EVF viewfinder box on the M camera is by far not the same and more like a crutch). ...Show more →
I believe that cameras with built-in lenses can be much smaller overall since the lens can be positioned very close to the sensor, almost touching it. This proximity allows for the design of high-performing and compact lenses like 28mm f/1.7 and 43mm f/2 APO with AF and OIS.
However, if a camera is designed for interchangeable AF lenses, the lenses will be much larger, resulting in a bulkier overall setup. The smallest I've seen is the Sony A7CR, but I'm unsure if Leica can design a robust compact camera of this type, especially since they may not want to compromise EVF resolution or magnification to achieve a smaller size.
Personally, I value compactness, so I converted my A7CR to UT and use compact M lenses on it. This setup doesn't have AF unless I use the EA9 AF adapter.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe that cameras with built-in lenses can be much smaller overall since the lens can be positioned very close to the sensor, almost touching it. This proximity allows for the design of high-performing and compact lenses like 28mm f/1.7 and 43mm f/2 APO with AF and OIS.
However, if a camera is designed for interchangeable AF lenses, the lenses will be much larger, resulting in a bulkier overall setup. The smallest I've seen is the Sony A7CR, but I'm unsure if Leica can design a robust compact camera of this type, especially since they may not want to compromise EVF resolution or magnification to achieve a smaller size.
Personally, I value compactness, so I converted my A7CR to UT and use compact M lenses on it. This setup doesn't have AF unless I use the EA9 AF adapter....Show more →
Agree that AF-based lenses are bigger - therefore I always suggested to make an EVF-M /Q with exchangeable lens mount with M- instead of L-mount. Not only would it make the camera/lens arrangement more compact, it would allow M-users to use all kind of M- and LTM lenses (the latter with thin LTM/M adapter obviously), and it would Leica avoid in-house competition with the SL- and Q-series which are AF-based. I would see such camera as addition to my existing M-based film and digital cameras with rangefinder. Also coming from Sony in the past, I see situations where EVF is better than OVF and vice-versa.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe that cameras with built-in lenses can be much smaller overall since the lens can be positioned very close to the sensor, almost touching it. This proximity allows for the design of high-performing and compact lenses like 28mm f/1.7 and 43mm f/2 APO with AF and OIS.
However, if a camera is designed for interchangeable AF lenses, the lenses will be much larger, resulting in a bulkier overall setup. The smallest I've seen is the Sony A7CR, but I'm unsure if Leica can design a robust compact camera of this type, especially since they may not want to compromise EVF resolution or magnification to achieve a smaller size.
Personally, I value compactness, so I converted my A7CR to UT and use compact M lenses on it. This setup doesn't have AF unless I use the EA9 AF adapter....Show more →
How do you like the MF experience on the Sony bodies?
I really struggled on the Nikon bodies with it. I thought I liked it at first, then more use and it just got sort of complicated and boring. It felt like why not use a damn AF lens with this body.
Then going back to M bodies, you remember how simple and easy the RF patch is and you never have to move a joystick, just twist and shoot.
RustyRus wrote:
You can buy mine I think I am going to stick with the original Q3-
The 28mm focal length is perfect for a camera of this style. 43mm is to tight once in doors. Or I may just kkeep both- I don't know
You know what you really need to supplement your Q3 28 is the D-Lux 8 now. Inexpensive, all the focal lengths you want, and very much like a Q3 in workflow. Image quality is fine for most use cases too.
RustyRus wrote:
How do you like the MF experience on the Sony bodies?
I really struggled on the Nikon bodies with it. I thought I liked it at first, then more use and it just got sort of complicated and boring. It felt like why not use a damn AF lens with this body.
Then going back to M bodies, you remember how simple and easy the RF patch is and you never have to move a joystick, just twist and shoot.
I bought my Sony A7R in 2014 and have used it all the time with either manual lenses or EF-lenses in manual focus mode. Never owned an E-mount lens. I still prefer rangefinder focusing over focus peaking or focus magnification. Rangefinder focusing is the fastest as long as there are no repetitive patterns. But in some situations EVF can be preferred over optical focusing. For close-up and macro I don't want to miss EVF for example.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe that cameras with built-in lenses can be much smaller overall since the lens can be positioned very close to the sensor, almost touching it. This proximity allows for the design of high-performing and compact lenses like 28mm f/1.7 and 43mm f/2 APO with AF and OIS.
However, if a camera is designed for interchangeable AF lenses, the lenses will be much larger, resulting in a bulkier overall setup. The smallest I've seen is the Sony A7CR, but I'm unsure if Leica can design a robust compact camera of this type, especially since they may not want to compromise EVF resolution or magnification to achieve a smaller size.
Personally, I value compactness, so I converted my A7CR to UT and use compact M lenses on it. This setup doesn't have AF unless I use the EA9 AF adapter....Show more →
The A7CR proves that not only can it be done. It has been done. Throw a Sigma DGDN prime on it and you can have a camera smaller and lighter than a Q, with IBIS etc. Now the Sony build is poor next to the Leica and the EVF is sub par. Those are financial decisions, not impossible and I think the next one will have a better EVF,
You'll lose the leaf shutter, so more noise, physically. And you'll lose the focus ring, unless the lenses become larger and Leica completely change tack on the SL lens design. But what you really lose is the soul of the Q system. Simplicity. And it'll need to be bigger to balance the bigger SL lenses. You can make smaller ones but someone will put a 60 to 600 on it. I think a RF style L camera is inevitable. But a bit bigger with a small grip. Partly for the SL lenses and partly to protect the Q line. Currently the only AF lenses that suit aren't mainly Leicas.
The Q is the ultimate Leica one camera one lens system. It's designed as a complimentary camera. The one you sling over your shoulder on a day out. Most of us also have a SL or a M as well. But then it got caught up in the compact camera hype like the X100 cameras and now it's the biggest thing Leica has and everyone wants one in a system camera because they think the SL is too big (it isn't as soon as you put a SL lens on it).
Even though I got the A7CR because I didn't enjoy the 28 as my daily carry, I immediately got a Q3-43 when it came out. It's a different thing. I'd love a Q styled L mount body. But it's not really a replacement for the Q. More a sidekick to the SL3.
In the case of a Q with interchangeable lenses, Leica faces a conundrum: L-mount, M-mount, or a new mount?
If they choose M-mount, there will be no autofocus.
If they choose L-mount, their lenses are a bit too large for a more compact Q. (Especially the APO ones)
A new mount for compact autofocus lenses is very unlikely.
Because of this, I believe Leica chose the fixed lens design to maintain portability. Also, loyal Leica shooters may own both the fixed lens Q cameras (28/43) and perhaps even a future Q3 90/2 APO (Portrait edition). Why sell just lenses when they can sell a camera and lens combo!
I think I am going to stick with the original Q3- 
