A left handed question to prompt different viewpoints / perspectives ... maybe unearthing something I'd not though of.
Scenario ... shooting to create a monochrome image with approximately a 45mm - 50mm focal length / FOV.
The Q3 43 presents a closer focal length, more MP and requires conversion, with the CFA eating some light (and affording some creativity).
The Q2M presents the DR / Tonal continuity of native monochrome, requires cropping to achieve the subject FOV starts with a few less MP than either Q3. Also, relies on CD AF only vs. Hybrid +PD (data point).
The Q3 presents a need for both cropping and conversion.
None are a Q3 43 Mono ... so, each has their compromise(s), relative to that baseline (scenario above).
What do you see as pro / con for choosing ONE of those cameras ... pre- Q3 43 Mono release > secondary market avail?
Q3M seems like it could be in the mix, but $$$ is a bit tall with the new release.
RustyBug wrote:
A left handed question to prompt different viewpoints / perspectives ... maybe unearthing something I'd not though of.
Scenario ... shooting to create a monochrome image with approximately a 45mm - 50mm focal length / FOV.
The Q3 43 presents a closer focal length, more MP and requires conversion, with the CFA eating some light (and affording some creativity).
The Q2M presents the DR / Tonal continuity of native monochrome, requires cropping to achieve the subject FOV starts with a few less MP than either Q3. Also, relies on CD AF only vs. Hybrid +PD (data point).
The Q3 presents a need for both cropping and conversion.
None are a Q3 43 Mono ... so, each has their compromise(s), relative to that baseline (scenario above).
What do you see as pro / con for choosing ONE of those cameras ... pre- Q3 43 Mono release > secondary market avail?
Q3M seems like it could be in the mix, but $$$ is a bit tall with the new release. ...Show more →
I guess a question on my mind is whether shooting monochrome is occasional or focused. Then, my mind says that if I want to focus on monochrome shooting, I should have the setup that produces the best monochrome image. So, my mind goes to the Q2M or Q3M to get the best tonality. Field of view can be cropped.
If I'm only shooting monochrome once in a while, it may not be worth having a monochrome camera regardless of focal length. But if I'm going to shoot monochrome all the time, give me the best set up to deliver that monochrome . . . Q2M.
I've been battling that question in my own mind a lot. I love the idea of picking up a monochrome camera but does my use case justify it or can I be satisfied using a non-monochrome camera and converting in post.
I can only speak to my decision process, but I far prefer the 28mm focal length for a camera like this (which I consider something you travel with, use for more opportunistic shooting etc.), especially given the high MP affords you more than comfortable crop ability)
I love monochrome, and having a dedicated camera (a M-Monochrom or a Q-Monochrom) really is more of a mindset change and intentionality around picking that up to go shooting. So I think the Q3M is perfect (unless one had a Q2M and was happy with it).
Really comes down to how and what you want to shoot. The only consideration with a potential Q43M (which seems unlikely anytime soon IMO) would be the APO lens on it and if they would do anything more with the AF on the current Q3M which has some limitations.
I do 95% B&W work with my Q43, I don’t really see what the big deal is with conversion myself. I use Leica B&W HC look when shooting and composing, and have a preset in Lightroom I made that matches it pretty well I use when importing the RAW photos. Although more and more lately I find myself using the jpegs with the baked in B&W look if I don’t need to do a lot of editing, it really is nice looking for the style I like. And at 60MP still has enough flexibility for light editing.
Personally I love the 43 APO lens, so I’d rather start with that as my base even if it means converting later. If Leica ever did a Q43M, I’d have a really hard time deciding if I wanted to go with that over my regular Q43. It’s nice having the regular version for the few times I want to shoot in color.
You leave out that not only would you have to crop to get the ~40-50mm FOV but you also are missing out on the far superior lens that the Q3 43 has. It is so sharp, it could cut diamonds, and it is so well corrected that you can shoot virtually distortion free at any distance. The latter is certainly not true of the 28 "lux" in the Q2/3, and its sharpness is well behind as well.
I rented a Q2M some years ago, wanting to test drive before buying. While I indeed found the noise levels modest and flattering...rather than looking like noise...at higher ISOs, I did not find the images any cleaner at low to medium ISO (eg, up through say 3200) than my Sony a7Riii at the time. The monochrome effect was nice and rich in tonality, but I really like the flexibility of interpreting the colors to BW in post. To be fair, I did not play around with color filters, which would have generated an image much closer to what I desired for an end point, SOOC. I was also not in love with the lens, but the rest of the camera was fantastic. I was glad that I rented, because it helped me see that the camera was not for me.
Fast forward to the Q3 43, and the lens is now spectacular, truly on par with the best quality lens on any camera body, and you still get all of the wonderful ergonomics and quality. I just love this camera!
Would I get a Q3 43M, if money were not a major factor? I don't know. I really like the idea of such a camera, and I should force myself to shoot and think more about BW, but would I miss the color...probably yes. If I had more shooting time, or if I were deliberate in its use, I could see taking a Q3 43M plus a camera for color shooting, on the same outing and have the best of both worlds. But financially, there is no way I would sell my color 43, and then there is the rub.
Agreed on the quality of the APO 43 (the numbers back it up), but I will say that those razor sharp details are more prevalent from the center out, and so aesthetics also matter in terms of how that drop off in sharpness contributes to the image. That said Jim, I agree with everything you posted. These types of posts are hard because the decision is so personal.
I've come to terms with taking another compact out to shoot color (in this case it's not a Leica at all but a Sony with vastly different trade-offs given the AF strengths), and when I do go shoot in B&W it's clearly why I pick up that camera.
I'm sure if Leica do decide a Q3 43M is worth the effort there will be a lot of people trying to convince themselves that it's time to move off a Q2M/Q3M :-)
Me? The Q3-43. I don’t like cropping and I prefer the lens in the 43mm version. I’d also choose the Q3M over the Q2M because I like the camera better. I also shoot both colour and b&w.
I prefer the mono files from the mono camera but the usage is too important to me and so I swing to the Q3-43, my preferred Q camera.
Lots of good / different perspective ... which of course was the reason for asking.
The point about the "quality" of the Q2 optic is a point I didn't discount as hard as some. Sure, the 43 APO is reference (or in the neighborhood) level optic ... but the matter of focal length may weigh differently for some than others.
That said, this wouldn't be an "only" camera, so the strategic carry could be either on the wider side (cropped into normal) or the normal side (cropped into portrait) in application. Either way, a Q can only cover a certain portion of focal lengths. Deciding which portion / range that will be, is subjective ... but, I really didn't go to the aspect of the Summilux (also known for its corrected distortion) being a poor performer, per se. APO is well recognized as APO, of course, but the Lux has been around a while.
I do have a question about the 43 APO though ... relative to its AF performance vs. the Lux's AF performance. Same, better, different, worse, etc.
Both the 43 and 28 auto focus are worse… than anything from Sony ;-)
I will say the new v4.0 update for the Q series has drastically improved the autofocus though, it’s a lot better than it was before. Though they also added some weird quirks with the autofocus in the new firmware. Mainly that if you have person/eye/animal detect on, the autofocus won’t lock on to anything else unless you disable those. Kinda weird, but that’s Leica for you.
RustyBug wrote:
Lots of good / different perspective ... which of course was the reason for asking.
The point about the "quality" of the Q2 optic is a point I didn't discount as hard as some. Sure, the 43 APO is reference (or in the neighborhood) level optic ... but the matter of focal length may weigh differently for some than others.
That said, this wouldn't be an "only" camera, so the strategic carry could be either on the wider side (cropped into normal) or the normal side (cropped into portrait) in application. Either way, a Q can only cover a certain portion of focal lengths. Deciding which portion / range that will be, is subjective ... but, I really didn't go to the aspect of the Summilux (also known for its corrected distortion) being a poor performer, per se. APO is well recognized as APO, of course, but the Lux has been around a while.
I do have a question about the 43 APO though ... relative to its AF performance vs. the Lux's AF performance. Same, better, different, worse, etc. ...Show more →
Basically any difference in AF speed is un-noticeable. However the Monochrom versions don’t have PDAF pixels so the y focus slower than the colour cameras for dynamic subjects.
The 28mm Summilux is NOT a poor performer. The BS around its lens corrections is wildly overblown. The Summilux is a very good lens. If your thing is to zoom in on the last 10% of the corners wide open then all power. But people actually shooting the Q3 aren’t bitching about the lens.
Objectively an APO is going to score higher on test charts and the like but you aren’t taking better actual photographs with the 43mm. Everything matters more than the MTF charts when you compare them.
flash wrote:
The 28mm Summilux is NOT a poor performer. The BS around its lens corrections is wildly overblown. The Summilux is a very good lens. If your thing is to zoom in on the last 10% of the corners wide open then all power. But people actually shooting the Q3 aren’t bitching about the lens.
I hear ya. Although, I'd not call it the best WA for architectural work ... unless you're cropped in a bit.
Which, then begs a question regarding quid pro quo aspects. If the Q2 / Q3 Mono are using computation corrections for the distortion optics in the Lux ... that is certainly one kind of trade-off / concession. OTOH, if the 43 APO is all color, and conversions to mono are computational ... that is a different kind of trade-off / concession.
Discounting the focal length difference ... either approach has an element of trade-off concession. I reckon it'll boil down to the matter of "pick your poison(s)". The main poison(s) then being ...
26mm distortion in the Lux (Q2M / Q3M / Q3) computation correction
Mono Conversion criteria in the APO (Q3 / Q3 43)
Also the Q2M has the omission of the latest Q3 advancements, (e.g. tilt screen , USB-C, etc.) for concession, but that also comes at a $$$ benefit by comparison.
So, as it pertains to the mono vs. conversion (not applicable to an available 43 APO Mono, yet), in the Lux ... distortion vs. mono conversion.
As to the 26/28 vs. 43 ... I could go either way ... realizing I have my SL and / or M to contend with the alternate focal range not covered by the Q. With that in mind, I think the M's are better served for the shorter range < 50, so it might be the pairing of the Q3 43 and an M with something like the Voigt APO 28, M 24 Elmarit or ... (or SL with zoom)
Just some cob-web's knockin' around in the grey matter to think through which one makes sense in the kit schema.
RustyBug wrote:
... maybe unearthing something I'd not though of ...
A Sony body of your choice + full spectrum + monochrome conversion? I guess the main disadvantage is that while AF lenses will work in contrast AF mode, those lenses are likely matched to the original thick Sony sensor stack, so I suspect they will not have the best IQ with the thinner sensor stack after the modification. Perhaps there is a monochrome conversion with a thicker sensor stack?
At any rate, I've had mine for a few weeks now and it shreds, but I only use MF lenses, and I admit that the Q2M is still the stronger travel camera.
theHUN wrote:
A Sony body of your choice + full spectrum + monochrome conversion? I guess the main disadvantage is that while AF lenses will work in contrast AF mode, those lenses are likely matched to the original thick Sony sensor stack, so I suspect they will not have the best IQ with the thinner sensor stack after the modification. Perhaps there is a monochrome conversion with a thicker sensor stack?
At any rate, I've had mine for a few weeks now and it shreds, but I only use MF lenses, and I admit that the Q2M is still the stronger travel camera.
Sony and I don't get along very well, but I appreciate the thoughts about a conversion.
RustyBug wrote:
Sony and I don't get along very well, but I appreciate the thoughts about a conversion.
Understood. In that case I would argue that taking any of the options that are available now and using them would be more fruitful than arguing over the subtle differences between the options or waiting for the Q3 43 M.
Case in point, I have two prints at home, and both are spectacular not because of some technical aspect of the image but because they bring back memories of unique trips. One is from a vanilla Bayer sensor that was converted to B/W in post, and the other came from a native B/W sensor. While I respect anyone who can tell which one is which (when viewed either in this thread, or when standing in front of the prints), I would argue that dissecting the print is not the point of the print.
1. Do I assume correctly that you're not looking to shoot color, or at least not with the cameras you listed (perhaps you have another color cam, film or digital, that scratches the color itch)? If that's the case then why not get a monochrome cam to start with which has better dynamic range as well as low light performance as compared to the Q3 or Q3 43?
2. Yes I've got the Q3M, absolutely love it, and recommend it highly despite its high price tag which I don't see coming down any time soon Even the Q2M's are holding up pretty well price wise. I watched the whole, lengthy review of it by the Red Dot guys who made clear that the Q2M has NOT seen its best days, and that it's still a very capable, formidable monochrome cam. So if price is a factor then yes I wouldn't rule it out.
3. The Q3 43: this goes back to the original assumption that you're only looking to create b/w images. But also what are you looking to shoot? Landscapes, street? My personal opinion (based on playing with the Voigt 40/2 that I picked up for $300, and total gem) is that the 43 length is too confining especially when I'm looking to include more of the environment in my images that I can then crop as needed. Also it's still somewhat pricey, so I'd exclude it from your contenders for producing b/w images.
Again, if you don't have need for color then I think the choice is simple: get the Q2M assuming you're only looking at the models you listed. And further advice: if you can, try out the Q3M and see if you can somehow make the budget stretch to accommodate it.
At the end of the day, clearly from the images you post that I always enjoy seeing, you have the photo chops and can make any of those cameras work. IMO it's really the skill of the photographer and very little about gear.
further thoughts being someone who also has the Q3, M11M and M11P, and who has regularly and often converted color images to b/w.
1. If you're shooting color with an effective ISO (including ISO the picture was taken at coupled with post process lifting of shadows) in the 12500 range, when you convert those images to b/w, I'd be hard pressed to say whether they were created with a monochrome or color cam.
2. But shooting high ISO at night/indoors, that's where the monochrome cameras shine - both the Q2M as well as Q3M. The "noise" in my ISO 50000 and higher images looks like beautiful film grain, evenly spaced and consistent throughout, very filmic, whereas noise in my color images at those ISO values looks smeary and not so pretty. And yes on certain images even at low ISO values, such as clouds in the sky, I do see a difference and improvement in tonality in my monochrome camera images as opposed to conversions from my color cameras.
3. Just curious why you're only listing Q cams. Are you opposed to any of the excellent M monochromes out there? I'm very fortunate that I've got the Q3M for those times I'm just in the mood for auto focus - such as walking around crowded streets of Key West at night. However shooting with my M11M and putting a lens on it that creates a vintage vibe I crave (such as my 35 steel rim reissue or lux 50/1.4 pre asph), or having the utterly fun 21mm focal length with the quirky perspectives it creates (with my 21 super elmar) is something my Q3M can't touch. And of course the fun and pure photographic experience of manual focus with a rangefinder I enjoy much more than using auto focus cams.
theHUN wrote:
A Sony body of your choice + full spectrum + monochrome conversion? I guess the main disadvantage is that while AF lenses will work in contrast AF mode, those lenses are likely matched to the original thick Sony sensor stack, so I suspect they will not have the best IQ with the thinner sensor stack after the modification. Perhaps there is a monochrome conversion with a thicker sensor stack?
At any rate, I've had mine for a few weeks now and it shreds, but I only use MF lenses, and I admit that the Q2M is still the stronger travel camera.
I have the Sony A7RV which I only use once a year to shoot the Asheville professional ballet's dress rehearsal. Big honker with the GM lenses attached, i don't like it but it gets the job done with it's unbeatable AF that tracks the dancers without missing a beat as they leap across the stage.
Several months ago I bought a used A7CR, had it Kolari modified so the sensor stack is perfect for M lenses, and also got the E-M techart adapter that will allow M lenses to auto focus. Yes the images it produces with M glass are almost indistinguishable from images from my M11P (slight white balance differences that can easily be adjusted in post), however the AF function is meh, and again I found myself not enjoying the Sony shooting experience. When I get back to Asheville in the spring I'm going to sell it. It was a fun experiment but it failed for m.
RustyBug wrote:
I hear ya. Although, I'd not call it the best WA for architectural work ... unless you're cropped in a bit.
Which, then begs a question regarding quid pro quo aspects. If the Q2 / Q3 Mono are using computation corrections for the distortion optics in the Lux ... that is certainly one kind of trade-off / concession. OTOH, if the 43 APO is all color, and conversions to mono are computational ... that is a different kind of trade-off / concession.
Discounting the focal length difference ... either approach has an element of trade-off concession. I reckon it'll boil down to the matter of "pick your poison(s)". The main poison(s) then being ...
26mm distortion in the Lux (Q2M / Q3M / Q3) computation correction
Mono Conversion criteria in the APO (Q3 / Q3 43)
Also the Q2M has the omission of the latest Q3 advancements, (e.g. tilt screen , USB-C, etc.) for concession, but that also comes at a $$$ benefit by comparison.
So, as it pertains to the mono vs. conversion (not applicable to an available 43 APO Mono, yet), in the Lux ... distortion vs. mono conversion.
As to the 26/28 vs. 43 ... I could go either way ... realizing I have my SL and / or M to contend with the alternate focal range not covered by the Q. With that in mind, I think the M's are better served for the shorter range < 50, so it might be the pairing of the Q3 43 and an M with something like the Voigt APO 28, M 24 Elmarit or ... (or SL with zoom)
Just some cob-web's knockin' around in the grey matter to think through which one makes sense in the kit schema.
I doubt anyone is using a Q3 Monochrom for architectural work. You could use a Q3 and its perspective control, which both crops and stretches the file at the same time. And really unless it was actually shot for *work* who cares? I’d also argue that most *casual* shots of architecture either have a bunch of blue sky or a white wall in the corner. Most of us aren’t shooting European church interiors as a job. The only people who’d even notice shoot nothing but test charts. And if you stop down a bit most of it goes away.
I believe Fred measured the lens at 26.7mm at infinity, so it’s not that far off at all. The Leica M 50mm Summilux isn’t 50mm. It’s further away from 50mm than the Q3 is from 28mm. People go on and on about the Q lens when hundreds of lenses use corrections now. Even some M lenses. Basically unless you’re actually strapping a PC lens on front most wide lenses have corrections built in. Possibly the best 28mm of all time, the SL APO 28mm Summicron, has software corrections. The discussions around the Q3 doing this are frankly, bizarre.
The 26mm distortion thing is complete BS. Once cropped to 26.7mm it behaves like a 26.7mm. And a 26mm doesn’t have inherently more distortion than a 28mm. Focal length isn’t relevant. You’re talking about the spherical distortion of the lens design which is eliminated by the software corrections.
The vast majority of the time no one will notice any issues with any lens on any camera unless they know already what they’re supposed to be looking for. If I put up a dozen shots, exif free, from different 28mm lenses I absolutely guarantee no one would get them correctly identified based on their corner performance. Same for colour vs mono.
The only reason to choose a mono camera is from the photographers point of view. My wife LOVES her mono cameras. She shoots colour and sometimes converts. But she LOVES shooting with a Monochrom. I got her the Q3M to go along with her Q3. She knows she can convert. But that’s not what she wants to shoot like. She exhibits its and sells regularly off her Q2M at A0 and larger. No ones talking about the corners. No one.
flash wrote:
I doubt anyone is using a Q3 Monochrom for architectural work. You could use a Q3 and its perspective control, which both crops and stretches the file at the same time. And really unless it was actually shot for *work* who cares? I’d also argue that most *casual* shots of architecture either have a bunch of blue sky or a white wall in the corner. Most of us aren’t shooting European church interiors as a job. The only people who’d even notice shoot nothing but test charts. And if you stop down a bit most of it goes away.
I believe Fred measured the lens at 26.7mm at infinity, so it’s not that far off at all. The Leica M 50mm Summilux isn’t 50mm. It’s further away from 50mm than the Q3 is from 28mm. People go on and on about the Q lens when hundreds of lenses use corrections now. Even some M lenses. Basically unless you’re actually strapping a PC lens on front most wide lenses have corrections built in. Possibly the best 28mm of all time, the SL APO 28mm Summicron, has software corrections. The discussions around the Q3 doing this are frankly, bizarre.
The 26mm distortion thing is complete BS. Once cropped to 26.7mm it behaves like a 26.7mm. And a 26mm doesn’t have inherently more distortion than a 28mm. Focal length isn’t relevant. You’re talking about the spherical distortion of the lens design which is eliminated by the software corrections.
The vast majority of the time no one will notice any issues with any lens on any camera unless they know already what they’re supposed to be looking for. If I put up a dozen shots, exif free, from different 28mm lenses I absolutely guarantee no one would get them correctly identified based on their corner performance. Same for colour vs mono.
The only reason to choose a mono camera is from the photographers point of view. My wife LOVES her mono cameras. She shoots colour and sometimes converts. But she LOVES shooting with a Monochrom. I got her the Q3M to go along with her Q3. She knows she can convert. But that’s not what she wants to shoot like. She exhibits its and sells regularly off her Q2M at A0 and larger. No ones talking about the corners. No one.
Hey Gordon ... I hear ya. I understand your point, and won't belabor a lengthy counterpoint, except to say that I've had my own personal experiences with my Q2 Summilux that were less than ideal. To your point, many are of no consequence to others, just to me. Some were correctable, labors of love. Others, I never could get it quite how I wanted it. I'm an outlier, sure why not.
1. Do I assume correctly that you're not looking to shoot color
Not particularly. The crux of the premise is that I can't afford (real estate in my bag / $$$ budget / organizational streamlining / etc.) to have each of a Q3, Q3M, Q2M, Q3 43. In that regard, I'm looking for differentiating prospects that I might glean a decision / future path.
I currently have a Q2 and an M246 ... I anticipate them going away at a future point. Does that take me into Q mono territory, or Q color territory or Q3 43 territory, etc. I'll still have other bodies, so the differentiation regarding the Q decision(s), may be niche, moreover than mainstream. Just pondering the differentiation possibilities ... relative to its place in my broader kit.
