p.4 #1 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
It's expensive but after trying a few of the cheaper grips I really do like the Helium He3 grip. The camera feels secure in hand and I appreciate being able to attach my wrist strap to the bottom of the grip for a more comfortable and less intrusive experience. I have Owlkrown straps for some of my other cameras, but I do like how smooth the Peak Design closure is. Unfortunately PD put a metal slide buckle which can cause scratches/nicks, so I have put some tape over it to minimize the chance of this occurring, mostly to protect the lens. I've also wrapped the camera with Alphaguard 3M and replaced the red dot to make my own pseudo Q3 43 Reporter haha.
chiron wrote:
Another question about the Q3 43. Several reviews mention that the camera is slippery and both difficult and uncomfortable to hold without adding various grips. One reviewer compared it to holding a bar of soap.
What add-on grips have people liked with the body? For me, butter-fingers as I am, an add-on grip and perhaps a neck or hand strap would be mandatory, or the camera would have a short life.
p.4 #2 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
Thank you for the info.
I am still contemplating what you wrote earlier about the minimal differences between the Q3 43 and the A7C R. I do worry a little bit that I am talking myself into something that won't be very different from what I already have! It's happened to me before.
I don’t think they’re the same. The EVF on the A7CR is woeful and I need the extension grip on to make the camera comfortable. I don’t like fully articulated scarring for stills shooting. The shutter sound is much much louder. But you can put a Sigma 90mm on the Sony, which I sometimes do and carry that with my Q3-43.
From an IQ point they’re similar but we could say that about most modern cameras.
p.4 #3 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
The difficulty with zone focusing for me, which can be done with any camera, is that it commits you to a particular range and favors deep dof detail as a look. That can be fine, but they are certainly limitations and many pictures taken with M cameras show the effects of that style of focusing in their composition and dof. Fast AF systems give a much broader range of options and greater accuracy. But of course they come with different ergonomics. I am hoping that the Q3 43 strikes an optimum balance between fast, accurate AF and transparent ergonomics and direct simplicity....Show more →
Like I said different methods for different situations and goals. All are valid.
p.4 #4 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chez wrote:
You are severally limiting the type of images you can produce using zone focus. You either have to have a very large dof in order to track a moving subject, giving you that large dof image, or you have to have a stationary subject with a shallow dof. Forget trying to acquire images of moving subjects ( not just side to side, but also front to back ) with a dof that isolates the subject.
You are not limiting yourself at all. In fact quite the opposite. Zone focus is a technique that expands your capability. Choose the right technique appropriate for the situation. In the proper situation zone focus is the best and fastest method. In other situations it is clearly not.
p.4 #5 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
You are not limiting yourself at all. In fact quite the opposite. Zone focus is a technique that expands your capability. Choose the right technique appropriate for the situation. In the proper situation zone focus is the best and fastest method. In other situations it is clearly not.
Given that there is only one plane that is truly in focus…can you honestly say you get the best focus using zone focus…or just good enough. And do you spend upteen thousands of dollars on your Leica gear just to get good enough focus?
I would not say zone focus is the best…it’s the best given the limitations.
p.4 #6 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
endergemini wrote:
It's expensive but after trying a few of the cheaper grips I really do like the Helium He3 grip. The camera feels secure in hand and I appreciate being able to attach my wrist strap to the bottom of the grip for a more comfortable and less intrusive experience. I have Owlkrown straps for some of my other cameras, but I do like how smooth the Peak Design closure is. Unfortunately PD put a metal slide buckle which can cause scratches/nicks, so I have put some tape over it to minimize the chance of this occurring, mostly to protect the lens. I've also wrapped the camera with Alphaguard 3M and replaced the red dot to make my own pseudo Q3 43 Reporter haha.
p.4 #7 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chez wrote:
Given that there is only one plane that is truly in focus…can you honestly say you get the best focus using zone focus…or just good enough. And do you spend upteen thousands of dollars on your Leica gear just to get good enough focus?
I would not say zone focus is the best…it’s the best given the limitations.
I will say unequivocally that I get the image I envisioned and the result I wanted. In the same way that many of the best photographers in history got their most famous images.
No one said zone focus is the best. For many it is the best and fastest for some circumstances. That is a very different statement.
Money has zero relevance in this conversation.
In any case I don't think this discussion is helping the OP answer his questions so I will bow out.
p.4 #10 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
You are not limiting yourself at all. In fact quite the opposite. Zone focus is a technique that expands your capability. Choose the right technique appropriate for the situation. In the proper situation zone focus is the best and fastest method. In other situations it is clearly not.
The issue here is that zone focusing is great with wide angle lenses but gets challenging with 43mm.
p.4 #12 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
The issue here is that zone focusing is great with wide angle lenses but gets challenging with 43mm.
If I'm not mistaken, Henri Cartier-Bresson used zone focusing with a 50mm lens. And he got some pretty amazing results.
If you're willing to stop down a little, zone focusing is both very fast and very reliable. It may not result in technical perfection, but it can yield some great images.
p.4 #13 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
bhollis wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Henri Cartier-Bresson used zone focusing with a 50mm lens. And he got some pretty amazing results.
If you're willing to stop down a little, zone focusing is both very fast and very reliable. It may not result in technical perfection, but it can yield some great images.
I’m pretty sure a lot of his images wouldn’t be considered in focus and sharp enough in this day and age.
He did it because he didn’t really have a choice. Like I used to do with the Yashica 45mm rangefinder I started out with.
Nowadays, I don’t think it makes sense to spend thousands of dollars for a 60MP camera if you can’t technically perfect images with it. Artistic excellence can be achieved with any camera.
p.4 #14 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
bhollis wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Henri Cartier-Bresson used zone focusing with a 50mm lens. And he got some pretty amazing results.
If you're willing to stop down a little, zone focusing is both very fast and very reliable. It may not result in technical perfection, but it can yield some great images.
Yes, this is true, HCB did use zone-focusing regularly, usually shooting at f/11 to f/16 and at somewhere around 6-10 or 8-10 feet. He also thought sharpness was overrated. He did essentially stop photographing in 1976, almost 30 years before he died, and well before the era of autofocus cameras or digital sensors. He very much loved his Leicas, said they were an extension of his eye. But if he had been 50 years younger, it is hard to know what he would have chosen to do as the technology evolved. Many great photographers, like Saul Leiter or Frank Horvat, switched over to autofocus, digital cameras.
I think it is true that zone focusing, which can be done with any camera but which is most associated with Leicas and perhaps the Ricoh GR, does make it possible to shoot instantly without having to AF or even to wait for the camera to AF, and that is an advantage that can be critical and very, very freeing in some situations. I also think that it nonetheless mostly evolved as an adaptation to the difficult and often inaccurate focusing process with a rangefinder-mechanically-coupled focusing system. It also, I think, results in a certain look to photos that are made with zone-focusing, perhaps an aspect of the Leica-look, that consists of deep dof, normal or wide-angle lenses, and compositions that are adjusted to that dof and fov. There is of course nothing wrong with that look if that is what you would like to get. There are thousands and thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of great photographs done by wonderful photographers thar have been made that way. It is, however, a particular visual genre.
p.4 #15 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
I’m pretty sure a lot of his images wouldn’t be considered in focus and sharp enough in this day and age.
He did it because he didn’t really have a choice. Like I used to do with the Yashica 45mm rangefinder I started out with.
Nowadays, I don’t think it makes sense to spend thousands of dollars for a 60MP camera if you can’t technically perfect images with it. Artistic excellence can be achieved with any camera.
Some amazing photographs have been made with Holgas. Not many today can match his (Bressons) vision and ability to capture that vision no mater how sharp or not so sharp. Remember his great quote "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." Great photographs are not and should not be about sharpness.
p.4 #16 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
For me and the way work good DoF scales are a must. One reason I went completely to Leica M over a decade ago. I use zone focus most of the time when working on the street. And even for some of my pro work.
p.4 #17 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Didn't have a chance to read through all the comments but I was on Sony for a long time and would wholeheartedly recommend the Q3 43mm APO. There's minimal learning curve and the 43mm APO lens is top notch and I thought better than anything I've used from Sony in terms of sharpness, colors and image quality. The industrial design on the camera is also next level great.
The biggest downsides is that the body lacks IBIS which makes it borderline unusable for video (e.g. if you want to take videos of your grandkids or on vacation unless your hands are super steady, expect shakey cam footage). The second big downside is I think the tech is overall closer to the Sony A7RIV in terms of speed of operation and overall capability. The 3rd downside is 43mm is a bit of a weird focal length - I couldn't fully get used to it as my one and only lens.
I eventually moved over to the SL3-S mainly for the IBIS and better sensor (only 24mp) for video. It's bigger than the Q3 43mm but I also have a Leica M11 for when I want to maximize compactness. I keep thinking about adding the Q3 43mm APO back in my kit but trying to hold off.
On accessories, I think the ergonomics of the Q3 isn't as good as a proper DSLR style mirrorless camera but I didn't think any of the half cases or grips I've tried made it meaningfully better, so if I get it again, I'd probably just use it without any.
p.4 #18 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
tzhang4284 wrote:
Didn't have a chance to read through all the comments but I was on Sony for a long time and would wholeheartedly recommend the Q3 43mm APO. There's minimal learning curve and the 43mm APO lens is top notch and I thought better than anything I've used from Sony in terms of sharpness, colors and image quality. The industrial design on the camera is also next level great.
The biggest downsides is that the body lacks IBIS which makes it borderline unusable for video (e.g. if you want to take videos of your grandkids or on vacation unless your hands are super steady, expect shakey cam footage). The second big downside is I think the tech is overall closer to the Sony A7RIV in terms of speed of operation and overall capability. The 3rd downside is 43mm is a bit of a weird focal length - I couldn't fully get used to it as my one and only lens.
I eventually moved over to the SL3-S mainly for the IBIS and better sensor (only 24mp) for video. It's bigger than the Q3 43mm but I also have a Leica M11 for when I want to maximize compactness. I keep thinking about adding the Q3 43mm APO back in my kit but trying to hold off.
On accessories, I think the ergonomics of the Q3 isn't as good as a proper DSLR style mirrorless camera but I didn't think any of the half cases or grips I've tried made it meaningfully better, so if I get it again, I'd probably just use it without any....Show more →
After reading your comments, I felt dissuaded from the Q3 43 rather than moved toward it. So I am perplexed a bit that you wholeheartedly recommend the camera. Is that based exclusively on the lens? You don't seem to like anything else about it and in fact you got rid of yours. What am I missing about why you recommend the camera over, for example, a Sony A7C R or an A1 series body?
BTW, although it doesn't have IBIS, the Q3 does have lens-based image stabilization. Not as good as most IBIS systems but still helpful.
p.4 #19 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
Some amazing photographs have been made with Holgas. Not many today can match his (Bressons) vision and ability to capture that vision no mater how sharp or not so sharp. Remember his great quote "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." Great photographs are not and should not be about sharpness.
Right…but also great photographs should not be about out of focus images as well. Given a great sharp image and a great fuzzy image,,.sign me up for the sharp image.
So many people live in the past with the limitations that existed then.
p.4 #20 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chez wrote:
Right…but also great photographs should not be about out of focus images as well. Given a great sharp image and a great fuzzy image,,.sign me up for the sharp image.
So many people live in the past with the limitations that existed then.
I don't think anyone is arguing that zone focusing is a replacement for AF. But it does have it's place, and in certain situations, e.g., street photography where you're not trying to isolate your subject with shallow DOF, but rather trying to maximize speed and stealth, zone focusing is a great option.
If you don't want to use it, that's fine, but don't tell those of us who do use it on occasion that we're living in the past.
