p.6 #1 · 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?
Chiron, I have a good friend that recently bought a Q3 43 and it is a great camera. But after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm not sure it would be a good fit for you. Leica's are not for everyone. I think the advice a few posts back about renting one before you buy is good advice. Good luck on your journey.
p.6 #2 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
Chiron, I have a good friend that recently bought a Q3 43 and it is a great camera. But after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm not sure it would be a good fit for you. Leica's are not for everyone. I think the advice a few posts back about renting one before you buy is good advice. Good luck on your journey.
Thank you, airfrog. I think that's good advice. Is there anything in particular that made you think it might not be the camera for me? I would be interested in your thoughts. I've always been tempted by Leica but never quite found one that I thought fit me. The Q3 43 seems to come closest because it shares some of the Leica ethos but has AF and OIS. I am probably going to wait to see what Sony announces with the A7RVI in May. That may not be my cup of tea either. The closest I have come to the right form factor for me is the original A9, which was smaller than the current crop of regular Sony cameras and had good speed, responsiveness and AF. Its sensor is now a bit old and is 24mpix, but it fit my hand well and I still enjoy shooting with it.
p.6 #3 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
Thank you, airfrog. I think that's good advice. Is there anything in particular that made you think it might not be the camera for me? I would be interested in your thoughts. I've always been tempted by Leica but never quite found one that I thought fit me. The Q3 43 seems to come closest because it shares some of the Leica ethos but has AF and OIS. I am probably going to wait to see what Sony announces with the A7RVI in May. That may not be my cup of tea either. The closest I have come to the right form factor for me is the original A9, which was smaller than the current crop of regular Sony cameras and had good speed, responsiveness and AF. Its sensor is now a bit old and is 24mpix, but it fit my hand well and I still enjoy shooting with it. ...Show more →
Your heart tells you to go for it, and your brain tells you to stay away from it. Again, no string attached solution is to rent one...
Time and time again I tried to play around with Sony files (sample DNGs or my old photo archives) since that's where I spent the most time prior, my conclusion is always the same - once you're hooked with Leica really no turning back. In fact, one of my friend who's a long term Fuji X (which is renowned for the colors) shooter as a journalist told me he finally understood upon first session of shooting with the Q2. 🤪
p.6 #4 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
I think Leica's really shine using zone focus. The autofocus is good but I think there are other systems out there where it is better. It is a great camera having said all that. I think all the talk is just that. The ony way to know for sure it is right for you is to put your hands on one.
p.6 #5 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
... The ony way to know for sure it is right for you is to put your hands on one.
This.
I remember shopping for a monochrome about four years ago. Looking at the specs and the price, the Q2M was my distant second choice. But after my first choice backfired, I picked up the Q2M, and I was shocked by its performance. I still would not buy a color Q, but I admit I have never handled one, so perhaps my opinion is once again wrong.
p.6 #6 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
theHUN wrote:
This.
I remember shopping for a monochrome about four years ago. Looking at the specs and the price, the Q2M was my distant second choice. But after my first choice backfired, I picked up the Q2M, and I was shocked by its performance. I still would not buy a color Q, but I admit I have never handled one, so perhaps my opinion is once again wrong.
What surprised you and was unexpected about the performance of the Q2M?
p.6 #7 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
In no particular order:
- It has a pattern noise when shooting into the sun. This is easy to solve via composition or by shooting wider open if you are willing to trade off DOF. This may be unique to the monochrome version, and in my four years of use, I can only think of one picture that required attention so I would avoid the effect.
- I expected focus by wire to be as awful as on the Sony 90 mm macro. It is not. It feels like a well-damped Zeiss/Hasselblad.
- The quiet shutter. My god, the shutter alone is a work of art.
- The lens. There is a lot of talk about distortions and software corrections. The prints tell a clear story: This sensor/lens combo shreds.
- Sensor bifurcation. It is there in some copies, and it is not field relevant with my copy.
- The low temperature performance.
I wanted a mono for a glacier trip (to document my attempt at summiting Denali). I knew that my Sony could handle it, so my first choice was to convert another Sony body to mono, but the vendor botched it. The experience left my scarred, so I wanted a native mono -> Q2M. The Q2M is only rated to 32 F, so I hesitated because I did not know how conservative the rating was. I took a gamble and bought a second hand copy and on two separate trips (to 16,300 ft on attempt #1 and to 18,200 ft two years later [not summiting on either trip and I am ok with it]) the camera handled temperatures at least down to 0 F with ease. My impression, of my copy, is that the camera is overengineered, and Leica have earned my respect for this.
p.6 #8 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
I don't use autofocus because manual focus fits the way I see
Congratulations! This is by far the most funniest statement in this thread so far (and there are actually countless funniest statements here). So you aim your eyes at a subject and manually focus them on it? Fascinating! Then you are undoubtedly a medical marvel and should make yourself available to science. For everyone else, the eye focuses automatically.
😄
p.6 #9 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Congratulations! This is by far the most funniest statement in this thread so far (and there are actually countless funniest statements here). So you aim your eyes at a subject and manually focus them on it? Fascinating! Then you are undoubtedly a medical marvel and should make yourself available to science. For everyone else, the eye focuses automatically.
😄
I think his results confirm that his personal work flow is valid and successful. It is backed by many years of experience. Manual focusing is a skill. As a skill it can be practiced and developed to a high level. When I decided to make manual focus lenses the core of my photography workflow I worked diligently on developing this skill. I set up targets at various distances and practiced achieving focus quickly and accurately using multiple techniques. This effort was very well documented here on FM.
Alan also shoots primarily in black and white. I usually can identify that he made an image just by seeing it. He has developed a style. These are also because of the way he sees and the way he approaches photography. It is evidence of a very high level of skill achievement. A concept you cannot yet even conceive of. Hopefully it will eventually come to you.
Alan has a long and successful professional career in photography using manual focus. Your post unfortunately doesn't come across as funny, I wish it did. Instead it just comes across as ignorant.
p.6 #10 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
I think his results confirm that his personal work flow is valid and successful. It is backed by many years of experience. Manual focusing is a skill. As a skill it can be practiced and developed to a high level. When I decided to make manual focus lenses the core of my photography workflow I worked diligently on developing this skill. I set up targets at various distances and practiced achieving focus quickly and accurately using multiple techniques. This effort was very well documented here on FM.
Alan also shoots primarily in black and white. I usually can identify that he made an image just by seeing it. He has developed a style. These are also because of the way he sees and the way he approaches photography. It is evidence of a very high level of skill achievement. A concept you cannot yet even conceive of. Hopefully it will eventually come to you.
Alan has a long and successful professional career in photography using manual focus. Your post unfortunately doesn't come across as funny, I wish it did. Instead it just comes across as ignorant. ...Show more →
You don't need to tell me anything about manual focusing; I focused exclusively by hand for over 20 years. That's precisely why I'm always so amused by the esoteric drivel and almost religious veneration of this type of focusing by digital photographers who believe they can approach their photographic idols solely through manual focusing.
Furthermore, I have absolutely nothing against zone focusing, provided it is used correctly and not misused as an excuse for subpar AF.
p.6 #11 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
What's the intent of the image, visual message and visual signature should all part of it. Some of the greatest photographs of war are the Omaha Beach images from Robert Capa. In Saving Private Ryan Spielberg was heavily influenced by those images because they captured the chaos of battle. Feeling over technical perfection. So sign me up for message and impact.
I’m pretty sure Capa would have shot those images sharp and in focus if he had had access to today’s gear.
While I agree that technical perfection isn’t necessary to create powerful imagery, I think you confuse historical limitations with purposeful artistry.
p.6 #12 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
You don't need to tell me anything about manual focusing; I focused exclusively by hand for over 20 years. That's precisely why I'm always so amused by the esoteric drivel and almost religious veneration of this type of focusing by digital photographers who believe they can approach their photographic idols solely through manual focusing.
Furthermore, I have absolutely nothing against zone focusing, provided it is used correctly and not misused as an excuse for subpar AF.
I hate to say this about a fellow FM member but posts like these are rude and contribute nothing to our community. I wish you wouod rethink your approach for the benefit of all of us.
p.6 #13 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
I think Leica's really shine using zone focus. The autofocus is good but I think there are other systems out there where it is better. It is a great camera having said all that. I think all the talk is just that. The ony way to know for sure it is right for you is to put your hands on one.
Allen
There is a footnote, though, when it comes to the Q series. Several reviewers have concluded that the DoF scale on the 28mm Q lens isn’t precise enough for zone focusing. I don’t have a Q anymore, but the scale is indeed more sloppy than those on true MF lenses. This never bothered me with the Q, because the lens was wide, even wider than the stated 28mm.
I don’t know if the DoF scale on the 43mm lens is precise enough, but I’d be wary of using it at that focal length if it is as imprecise as the 28mm Q.
p.6 #14 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
I’m pretty sure Capa would have shot those images sharp and in focus if he had had access to today’s gear.
While I agree that technical perfection isn’t necessary to create powerful imagery, I think you confuse historical limitations with purposeful artistry.
Yes, we could make a list of which great contemporary war photographers used AF (I almost wrote Leica) and which didn't.
Speaking of war photography, here's a link to a film about the war photographer Anja Niedringhaus, a fascinating personality and a master of her craft.
Dokumentation & Reportage: Anja Niedringhaus - Die Fotografin und der Krieg - https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/Y3JpZDovL3N3ci5kZS9hZXgvbzIyOTE4NDY
p.6 #15 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
I hate to say this about a fellow FM member but posts like these are rude and contribute nothing to our community. I wish you wouod rethink your approach for the benefit of all of us.
Why don't we stick to the content? I wrote that autofocus is closer to human vision than manual focus, since autofocus is an integral part of human vision. If you disagree, just say so.
p.6 #17 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Why don't we stick to the content? I wrote that autofocus is closer to human vision than manual focus, since autofocus is an integral part of human vision. If you disagree, just say so.
It is hard to stick to subjects and content when you post such rude and insulting comments directed towards fellow members. I am not objecting to what you say, but how you say it. Style and politeness counts.
p.6 #18 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
It is hard to stick to subjects and content when you post such rude and insulting comments directed towards fellow members. I am not objecting to what you say, but how you say it. Style and politeness counts.
Think about that...
I always assumed that readers could recognize and categorize irony or sarcasm without posting various emoticons. Perhaps that's a mistake, but I simply find it very difficult to remain serious when I read completely absurd statements. When I react to such things, I refer to what was written, completely regardless of whether the author is this or that in real life, because I'm concerned with the written content, which is entirely independent of that. If someone tells me that the earth is flat, I find that ridiculous, regardless of whether the person making the claim is naive or an otherwise quite respectable physicist. Of course, this comparison is also exaggerated, but what I wanted to say is that I don't generally devalue a person or their achievements by being amused by a nonsensical statement. At that moment, I'm only concerned with the statement itself, nothing else. One could also argue the opposite, that by stating that Autofocus is merely a gadget, one not only disparages its inventors and builders but also its users.
Regardless of all this, I gladly apologize to airfrogusmc should he have perceived my post as a personal insult.
p.6 #19 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I always assumed that readers could recognize and categorize irony or sarcasm without posting various emoticons. Perhaps that's a mistake, but I simply find it very difficult to remain serious when I read completely absurd statements. When I react to such things, I refer to what was written, completely regardless of whether the author is this or that in real life, because I'm concerned with the written content, which is entirely independent of that. If someone tells me that the earth is flat, I find that ridiculous, regardless of whether the person making the claim is naive or an otherwise quite respectable physicist. Of course, this comparison is also exaggerated, but what I wanted to say is that I don't generally devalue a person or their achievements by being amused by a nonsensical statement. At that moment, I'm only concerned with the statement itself, nothing else. One could also argue the opposite, that by stating that Autofocus is merely a gadget, one not only disparages its inventors and builders but also its users.
Regardless of all this, I gladly apologize to airfrogusmc should he have perceived my post as a personal insult. ...Show more →
I will say this as clearly as possible so you finally understand and stop trying to justify your behavior. There was no sarcasm in your rude post. Your statement was clear and unambiguous. In this your false attempt at an apology you double down on your insult by calling airfrogusm's sincere post as "nonsensical". Seriously?
The most absurd thing here is your lack of self awareness and your hubris in judging and insulting others.
p.6 #20 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
In this your false attempt at an apology you double down on your insult by calling airfrogusm's sincere post as "nonsensical". Seriously?
You're boring me. Just read the post you're referring to. I didn't call airfrogusm's sincere post nonsensical, but rather the specific sentence I quoted from this. Manual focusing contradicts human vision, because it's autofocused. And yes, if someone claims otherwise, I find that nonsensical, regardless of who it is.
