p.2 #1 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
RAG_landscapes wrote:
Definitely agree; with the M, 21mm SEM is the most often used; although have learned that panorama stitching is quite good in Lightroom when using the Q…;-)
Many landscapes cannot be stitched. I shoot a lot of seascapes and love getting closeup rocks as the waves crash. Cannot see how I’d stitch that scene.
If you say 21mm is your most often used focal length…why are you even considering hampering yourself with a 28mm?
p.2 #2 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
chez wrote:
Many landscapes cannot be stitched. I shoot a lot of seascapes and love getting closeup rocks as the waves crash. Cannot see how I’d stitch that scene.
If you say 21mm is your most often used focal length…why are you even considering hampering yourself with a 28mm?
Sometimes the weather and Mother Nature just aren’t on your side!
p.2 #3 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
I've had the Q, Q2, and the Q3-43 and seriously considered limiting myself to a Q3-28/43 combo, but those cameras aren't meant for studio images among other things, so I sold the Q43 to fund a another SL lens and 2nd SL body. I see the appeal, but it has to make sense to you. If you have the means, try it via renting them for a trip. It's cheaper than an "ownership lease."
p.2 #4 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
chez wrote:
Many landscapes cannot be stitched. I shoot a lot of seascapes and love getting closeup rocks as the waves crash. Cannot see how I’d stitch that scene.
If you say 21mm is your most often used focal length…why are you even considering hampering yourself with a 28mm?
The Q is closer to 25mm for horizontal FOV and even wider if you remove the edge crop on the left and right from the RAW in C1. It's not 21mm, but it's not as restrictive as a true 28mm on full frame FOV.
p.2 #5 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
I've used Nikon, Canon, and Sony systems over the past 50 years. And I'm ready for a change. This started with the D-Lux 8. I wanted a camera to fill the gap between the RX100 VII and my A7CR. Then I started looking at the Q3, Q3 43, and Q2 Mono. I've always liked Leica color and B&W photos. But, I'm still trying to work out how to proceed. In any event, it's sparked a renewed interest in photography that's been missing lately.
p.2 #6 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
RAG_landscapes wrote:
Certainly a M and lenses are the smallest and lightest carry; but looking for even not needing to swap lenses.
Thank you for your input!
Then you can choose any camera that appeals to you, since none of them require you to change lenses. You can do so, but you don't have to. The major downside of a camera with a fixed lens is that you cannot choose the single lens you want to use exclusively for all your future photography. And, precisely because you might not want to or be able to switch lenses, that is the crucial point, in my view. If you are lucky enough to find one of the Q models where the focal length, aperture, lens rendering, and body design all perfectly match your personal taste, then the choice should be clear.
p.2 #7 · Anyone using Q2/Q3 28 + 43 as only system for travel landscapes?
I can't be arsed to do the math here but why not a GFX100RF? 102 mp at 28mm and probably around 60-65 at 43mm equivalent. Then you just have one single body. If the Q3 image stabilisation is similar to the Q2 it's barely worth it anyway so the lack of IBIS in the GFX100RF may not be a big deal.
