Raptor_Fan76 wrote:
At the moment, I have a Q3 43 and a Zf with an assortment of MF and AF lenses.
For a few weeks now, I’ve been debating whether to sell my Nikon gear to fund the purchase of a Q3 28.
The allure of having two camera bodies with the same controls and settings, with relatively similar raw files, with the same great ergonomics and shooting experience, is difficult to resist…
What has given me pause is the material gap between the Zf’s focusing system and that of the Q3 43, which has been hit and miss for me… increasingly so, as I’ve had more opportunities to shoot moving subjects.
I worry that I will regret not having at least one camera in my kit capable of capturing fast moving action… even dynamic portraits can be a challenge with the 43… especially relative to how easy it is with the Zf.
I’m still not sure what my best move is… I don’t think a less-than-full frame sensor would be enough for me… I love having the ability to shoot creatively using a shallow depth of field and the m4/3 and 1 inch sensors can’t produce what I’m looking for.
And the thing is… I really, really love the Zf’s sensor’s output. There is a little magic in there and I’ve found that I can get skin tones that are as good as I’ve ever seen out of a digital camera.
If the Zf’s sensor was 40mp and the camera body was as compact and balanced as the Qi’s, it would be a no-brainer to keep it… heck, I probably wouldn’t have purchased the 43 in the first place.
Dear Nikon… please produce an updated version of the Zf with a non-stacked 40ish megapixels sensor with zero video capability and instead reducing the weight by 15-20%. Thanks 🙂
Why not keep the ZF, wait a bit and pick up a good used Q3-28? Or a Sony A7CR if you like the colours enough.
A few stops of DoF is a slider in Lightroom nowadays. Mind you a bit of re-framing and mostly you won't need uber thin DoF 99% of the time.
If and only if, you really could live with just a 28 and 43mm lens then you will find ways around the other issues. All you're really doing is trading one set of compromises for another. It's which set you can live with the easiest that counts.
Finally, you need to decide if you want a swiss army knife or a set of scalpels. It'll make it easier to move forward.
---------------------------------------------
johnvanr wrote:
That’s the thing. You take a Leica (or a Hasselblad) and you get that premium feel, but when you also own the top consumer or pro range of more pedestrian brands, you realize your Veblen goods in many instances actually underperform.
Correct. At the same time a Ferrari makes for a lousy pick up truck. There's no reason that a Hasselblad or Leica needs to perform in the same way as any other brand. That's actually part of the appeal for some. Some of us just see that as bloat or not needed to get the files we want.
flash wrote:
No I didn't. I just said if I had a Q3 then I think a DLux 8 is redundant. If I thought the things you mention were important I'd have a DLux8 and likely not a Q3. I see them as either or. Not both. I'm not dissing your fav for now camera.
Gordon
The D-Lux 8 is far from my favorite camera. Depending on subject that would be either my M11 or my Sony A1. The D-Lux8 is a fun convenience camera. Nothing more.
flash wrote:
If you have a q3-28 then a dlux8 makes no sense. The Q3 crop modes better the dlux resolution to 50mm anyway. So just use the Q3.
Actually I don't see them as a team at all.
Gordon
Understood that the crop is excellent ... to a point. My Q2 is solid to 50mm, as you mention ... beyond that, I'd think the lens on the D-Lux would make for preference vs. cropping into the 75+ range on the 28mm lens of the Q.
I reckon the question is rooted in what the limitations of the Q are, and whether you'd want the D-Lux to shore up that gap on the wide end of a Q3 43 (where you'd have to pano stitch, instead to get wider than 43mm), or on the long end, where you'd have to go deep cropping of the Q3 28.
I realize that the Q (whichever one) is going to have a gap either on the wide or long end, and to get additional coverage, something has to pair with it. There are more options for doing so than the D-Lux (i.e. M, 2nd Q, or other), just wondering if the D-Lux users could shed some light on which end of the focal range they found to be its stronger vs. weaker suited use. Anything from IQ to effectiveness of IBIS to focusing speed / accuracy, etc. that might "tip the scales" in one direction or the other.
RustyBug wrote:
And the Q90 will make it eternity.
Or it'll make Leica finally realise that a Q sized body is really what people want. I am sure a SL3 sized body is better for the bigger lenses but a Q sized body with anything up to the APO Summicrons would be a bit epic, although I might go the non APO's or a set of Sigmas. I wish Leica would make a set of those weathersealed rather than all the zooms.
They'd be looking into it already. It takes years from concept to release, so somewhere there's drawings. Or prototypes.
flash wrote:
Or it'll make Leica finally realise that a Q sized body is really what people want. I am sure a SL3 sized body is better for the bigger lenses but a Q sized body with anything up to the APO Summicrons would be a bit epic, although I might go the non APO's or a set of Sigmas. I wish Leica would make a set of those weathersealed rather than all the zooms.
They'd be looking into it already. It takes years from concept to release, so somewhere there's drawings. Or prototypes.
Gordon
It has been rumored since Leica discontinued the CL. The latest rumors were this year but with the release of the Q43 I really don't see that happening, not this year but also not next year. They really should never have discontinued the CL without an adequate replacement. It is just very poor planning.
flash wrote:
Or it'll make Leica finally realise that a Q sized body is really what people want. I am sure a SL3 sized body is better for the bigger lenses but a Q sized body with anything up to the APO Summicrons would be a bit epic, although I might go the non APO's or a set of Sigmas. I wish Leica would make a set of those weathersealed rather than all the zooms.
They'd be looking into it already. It takes years from concept to release, so somewhere there's drawings. Or prototypes.
Gordon
There's basically a proof of concept of this already with the Panasonic S9 and Sigma contemporary primes. You basically have a Q sized camera but I don't think it's selling well. Similarly, the Leica CL wasn't a strong seller in its day - I think the real demand for this is lower than you'd think since there's poor differentiation and value proposition vs the mainstream options.
Leica does well when it can offer a differentiated value proposition - either aesthetics, size, heritage, and/or extreme image quality performance. When it can't differentiate, it doesn't seem to sell well vs the mainstream brands.
tzhang4284 wrote:
Similarly, the Leica CL wasn't a strong seller in its day - I think the real demand for this is lower than you'd think since there's poor differentiation and value proposition vs the mainstream options.
Main causes for the demise of the CL was a technical and a marketing reason. Technically, the APS-C sensor was not seen as long hanging fruit in Leica's line where the market moved more towards full-frame sensors. Marketing pushed at the time Leica's luxury brand image which made several product lines no longer fitting well in there - the CL was one of them since it was more affordable also with its lenses. I don't believe it was a dramatically low demand which caused the CL demise. To this day people are still using it and like it for its compactness.
retrofocus wrote:
Main causes for the demise of the CL was a technical and a marketing reason. Technically, the APS-C sensor was not seen as long hanging fruit in Leica's line where the market moved more towards full-frame sensors. Marketing pushed at the time Leica's luxury brand image which made several product lines no longer fitting well in there - the CL was one of them since it was more affordable also with its lenses. I don't believe it was a dramatically low demand which caused the CL demise. To this day people are still using it and like it for its compactness. ...Show more →
I sold my CL in anticipation of the CL2. My luck being such as it is ... only a few weeks later, they announced CL is dead. It was a very nice setup ... both with TL glass and adapted M glass. But, that thrust me into my M-P, and subsequent bodies. Fast forward to today's BSI-CMOS sensors, and the APS-C output of the CLx could be a sweet proposition with M glass, still.
The user experience with M adapted lenses was very nice, and the fact that the viewfinder was in the top left corner (unlike middle position of SL), made it nice. The shutter release was crisp, also.
All, in all ... it's a nice setup. Scale that sucker into FF and you'll have plenty of folks liking it. The "rub" for Leica though, is they have no FF glass for it. By that, I mean if you want something that isn't Medium Format level size / IQ ... you have to get something other than SL glass (meaning Sigma or Panny), or adapt your M glass. The M glass adapted approach is valid, but the Q glass sits between M glass (size / IQ) and SL glass.
As much as I'd advocate for a FF version of the CL ... I just don't see it coming to fruition any time soon.
I owned the original Q, a Q2, Q2 Monochrom, Q3 and a Q3 43.
My favorite:
Number 1 Q2 Monochrom, fabulous landscape and low light camera
Number 2 Q3 43, eliminated the cropping i was doing on the majority of my 28mm images
How about this for a pipe dream:
A Q body with removable lenses - first with the 28 and 43 available, and then later maybe a 21 and a 75 later?
What's wrong with this idea?
I have been trying wide and tele converters... It may not be the best solution but it works... Other solution is getting S9/A7CR and with Sigma dg dn prime lenses... Leica killed cl line and Panasonic killed gx line, but Q and X100 series are still selling good...
Ricoh GW4 0.75x ~21mm with O3
Sigma FT-1201 1.2x (made for Sigma dp3) covers 100% except corners on Q3 43, need to cut the long lens front to see if it helps...
Ricoh TC-200M / Olympus A-200 1.5x (old film converters) covers 1.4X crop makes it 90mm f2 lens at 30MP...
Olympus B-300/TCON-17 1.7x covers mostly 1.4x makes it 102mm f2 lens at 30MP...
geoffreyg wrote:
How about this for a pipe dream:
A Q body with removable lenses - first with the 28 and 43 available, and then later maybe a 21 and a 75 later?
What's wrong with this idea?
geoffreyg wrote:
How about this for a pipe dream:
A Q body with removable lenses - first with the 28 and 43 available, and then later maybe a 21 and a 75 later?
What's wrong with this idea?
geoffreyg wrote:
How about this for a pipe dream:
A Q body with removable lenses - first with the 28 and 43 available, and then later maybe a 21 and a 75 later?
What's wrong with this idea?
A Q body with interchangeable lenses has always been a good idea.
personally I think it's more likely Leica will release a Q 21 and a Q 65 at some point rather than cannibalizing their SL or M lines with a rangefinder-style EVF L-mount ILC.
