p.1 #1 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
I am seriously considering getting a Leica Q3 43. I have always been interested in Leica but wanted autofocus, image stabilization, and a better viewfinder and more accurate focusing than a rangefinder and its linkage often provides. I like how the Q3 43 looks and what it offers. It is not something I need, but it might be fun and stimulating to have. 40-45mm is about my favorite and most often used focal length, so I am not worried about the fixed focal length. I mostly shoot travel, scenics, my grandchildren (ages 3-6), landscapes, street scenes, still lifes, etc. I am often trying to capture shades and tonalities of light.
I like to be able to shoot quickly something that suddenly presents itself, and I also like to work more slowly at getting an image, taking multiple shots over a period of thinking about what I am seeing.
My question is this: I am very used to a Sony A1 II and A7C R. For anyone who has used the Q3 and also some of Sony's cameras, what do you think I might like about the Q3 43 in comparison to the Sonys, and what might I miss or dislike on the Q3 43 that Sony's cameras offer?
p.1 #2 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
i say if you are under 95, getting use to the Leica is pretty easy, the pics wont be any better than the Sony's ; cause the photographer is the same . but its very simple to use and clean menus is what makes it apart. the lens is good too so is also the Sony equitant lenses
p.1 #3 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
I am seriously considering getting a Leica Q3 43. I have always been interested in Leica but wanted autofocus, image stabilization, and a better viewfinder and more accurate focusing than a rangefinder and its linkage often provides. I like how the Q3 43 looks and what it offers. It is not something I need, but it might be fun and stimulating to have. 40-45mm is about my favorite and most often used focal length, so I am not worried about the fixed focal length. I mostly shoot travel, scenics, my grandchildren (ages 3-6), landscapes, street scenes, still lifes, etc. I am often trying to capture shades and tonalities of light.
I like to be able to shoot quickly something that suddenly presents itself, and I also like to work more slowly at getting an image, taking multiple shots over a period of thinking about what I am seeing.
My question is this: I am very used to a Sony A1 II and A7C R. For anyone who has used the Q3 and also some of Sony's cameras, what do you think I might like about the Q3 43 in comparison to the Sonys, and what might I miss or dislike on the Q3 43 that Sony's cameras offer?
I can only speak from personal experience and with the realization that I had and sold my Sony gear and my Q gear.
Like:
- the clean menus
- the no-nonsense approach; it’s a camera foremost and not a computer that takes pictures
Dislike:
- the price, since your pictures most likely won’t be any better
- without the thumbgrip, the ergonomics aren’t great (with thumbgrip, it’s very nice)
- speed compared to your A1
p.1 #4 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
I can only speak from personal experience and with the realization that I had and sold my Sony gear and my Q gear.
Like:
- the clean menus
- the no-nonsense approach; it’s a camera foremost and not a computer that takes pictures
Dislike:
- the price, since your pictures most likely won’t be any better
- without the thumbgrip, the ergonomics aren’t great (with thumbgrip, it’s very nice)
- speed compared to your A1
In what ways is the speed different from the A1 series? That could matter a lot to me since being able to take a picture quickly is important to me. I thought that apart from the issue of focusing that speed was a strength of Leicas.
p.1 #5 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
In what ways is the speed different from the A1 series? That could matter a lot to me since being able to take a picture quickly is important to me. I thought that apart from the issue of focusing that speed was a strength of Leicas.
IMO, you will not find the Leica AF as fast as the Sony A1 series and Sony is tops in AF tracking in continuous AF. That being said, AF on the Q3 series is really good. Just don't expect the level of speed and tracking that the Sony has. As for image quality, there is a 'Leica look' to the Q series that I feel is very different than the Sony. I keep my Sony for it's tracking ability but shoot Leicas for most everything else.
p.1 #6 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
In what ways is the speed different from the A1 series? That could matter a lot to me since being able to take a picture quickly is important to me. I thought that apart from the issue of focusing that speed was a strength of Leicas.
Zone focusing which is a manual and therefor Leica centric skill is faster than any AF system. However no other camera including Leica can do AF as fast or as accurate as Sony A1x/A9x cameras.
p.1 #7 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
Zone focusing which is a manual and therefor Leica centric skill is faster than any AF system. However no other camera including Leica can do AF as fast or as accurate as Sony A1x/A9x cameras.
Zone focus is only accurate if your subject is within the zone. If the subject steps out or is already out of the zone, you either give up or you have to move. In either of those cases, AF tracking is much better. This is especially true with large apertures that have a thin dof.
p.1 #8 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Only Sony I've owned is the RX1R. Long time Canon and Nikon user. Recently acquired a Leica Q3 43 and absolutely love it. Autofocus isn't cutting edge, but it's perfectly adequate for the intended uses for this camera.
p.1 #9 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
bhollis wrote:
Only Sony I've owned is the RX1R. Long time Canon and Nikon user. Recently acquired a Leica Q3 43 and absolutely love it. Autofocus isn't cutting edge, but it's perfectly adequate for the intended uses for this camera.
p.1 #10 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chez wrote:
What’s the intended use of the Q3?
Pretty much anything other than fast action--e.g., sports.
If you want to photograph football or soccer, this isn't the camera for you. But for pretty much everything else that a 43mm lens is suitable for, the AF is great.
p.1 #11 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Leica Q3 43 AF and overall responsiveness is not great (mostly can be said about SL3 really)...not completely horrible...but it definitely feels like a step back in time when compared to my Nikon Z. more often than not i'd take the M11 over it.
its MF and zone focusing feature is overrated IMO and never felt the need to use them. the MF mechanism is not smooth and too tight (think Voigtlander lenses but worse) especially when you're used to M lenses. the Macro mode is irritating to use because you really only use it because in normal mode the MFD is around 0.6m...when you switch to macro mode 9/10 you will forget and then you find yourself fumbling why the AF is borked until you realize it was on macro mode.
that said, the lens is phenomenal...it's sharp with very very little CA (it is APO, after all) but the focus fall off is something i have only seen in SL/M APO lenses ..it is f2 but the falloff is like it's a faster lens ..i put up with the quirks of the camera because of the lens. and the menu system is above anything else which makes it tolerable to use..
p.1 #12 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
bhollis wrote:
Pretty much anything other than fast action--e.g., sports.
If you want to photograph football or soccer, this isn't the camera for you. But for pretty much everything else that a 43mm lens is suitable for, the AF is great.
How’s its eye af tracking say a toddler running around? I heard it’s not that great.
p.1 #13 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
In what ways is the speed different from the A1 series? That could matter a lot to me since being able to take a picture quickly is important to me. I thought that apart from the issue of focusing that speed was a strength of Leicas.
Mostly focusing. Maybe startup. I doubt many cameras are as fast as your A1.
p.1 #14 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chez wrote:
How’s its eye af tracking say a toddler running around? I heard it’s not that great.
Eye AF tracking was substantially improved with the latest firmware update 4.0. But I rarely use tracking on any of my cameras. Instead, I just keep the focus point over my subject while using continuous AF. This works well with the Q3 43 in my experience, but, I no longer have any toddlers around the house to try it out on.
I would say that if one of your primary purposes for buying the Q3 is to shoot running toddlers, it would probably be wise to rent first and see how it works for you.
p.1 #15 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chez wrote:
What’s the intended use of the Q3?
A light & simple carry for a variety of situations. These would include street scenes, traveling, and grandchildren. I was hoping that the Q3 43 would be fast and feel direct and simple in use and not look like I was pointing a big machine at people. But it is sounding like the start-up and resposiveness is not what I would have hoped. My Sody bodies are very powerful cameras and particularly the A1 series are very fast and responsive and the tracking autofocus is nearly ideal.
What I hoped the Q3 43 would offer is a more direct and transparent interface combined with speed. Despite the amount of time I spend with the A1 II and the A7C R, I always feel I am interacting with something complicated as I try to take a picture. But it sounds like the Q3 43 wouldn't have the speediness and responsiveness I am looking for.
p.1 #16 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
dalegaspi wrote:
Leica Q3 43 AF and overall responsiveness is not great (mostly can be said about SL3 really)...not completely horrible...but it definitely feels like a step back in time when compared to my Nikon Z. more often than not i'd take the M11 over it.
its MF and zone focusing feature is overrated IMO and never felt the need to use them. the MF mechanism is not smooth and too tight (think Voigtlander lenses but worse) especially when you're used to M lenses. the Macro mode is irritating to use because you really only use it because in normal mode the MFD is around 0.6m...when you switch to macro mode 9/10 you will forget and then you find yourself fumbling why the AF is borked until you realize it was on macro mode.
that said, the lens is phenomenal...it's sharp with very very little CA (it is APO, after all) but the focus fall off is something i have only seen in SL/M APO lenses ..it is f2 but the falloff is like it's a faster lens ..i put up with the quirks of the camera because of the lens. and the menu system is above anything else which makes it tolerable to use..
Generally I am not a fan of APO lenses since I find the overall sharpness a bit unnatural. I prefer Zeiss--like "rounded sharpness." But I would enjoy having one lens-body with the trademark Leica clarity.
p.1 #17 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Perhaps this review will help you a little. In my opinion, it's one of the very few that doesn't simply repeat the usual platitudes about Leica, but where I get the feeling that someone actually used the camera, listened to their inner voice, and thought about it objectively, instead of just parroting advertising claims or other influencers.
p.1 #18 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Perhaps this review will help you a little. In my opinion, it's one of the very few that doesn't simply repeat the usual platitudes about Leica, but where I get the feeling that someone actually used the camera, listened to their inner voice, and thought about it objectively, instead of just parroting advertising claims or other influencers.
I would note that this review was written before the release of firmware 4.0, which substantially improved both AF and startup time.
To the OP: I wouldn't write off the Q3 43 out of concerns for AF, responsiveness or the APO lens (the single greatest feature of the camera, IMO). Instead, I'd recommend renting one for a week or two and see if it meets your expectations.
I'm certainly glad I gave it a try. Best camera I've ever owned, and I've owned quite a few.
p.1 #19 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Currently in the same boat. Big sony guy. Own an original rx1r and Q. Love them both but have a love and hate with 28mm. Sometimes great for creative shots, but prefer the 35-50 range most of the time. Really mulling the latest 43 and mk3 rx1r. I can’t own both, my wife would destroy me.
p.1 #20 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
Generally I am not a fan of APO lenses since I find the overall sharpness a bit unnatural. I prefer Zeiss--like "rounded sharpness." But I would enjoy having one lens-body with the trademark Leica clarity.
i think you'd be better off with a RX1R III, then...but take that with a grain of salt... i have not used an RX1R ... but given you're already in the Sony ecosystem this would suit you better...and from what I gather its AF is not that far off with the current generation of Sony ILC cameras.
and it has a Zeiss lens that's not APO so the rendering is probably up your alley.
