p.7 #1 · 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.
But the truth is those images wouldn't be as powerful if they were tack sharp. Have you ever seen the color images of the bull fights from Ernst Haas or Running White Deer by Paul Caponigro?
p.7 #2 · 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.
😄
Huh? So you are saying that my tools that fit me and the way see and work are not valid for me? Finding equipment that fits with ones artistic vision and they way they work is what this is should be all about.
p.7 #4 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
... or Capa's Normandy beach pics or the pictures of Typhoon Cobra hitting the pacific fleet in 1944.
What focusing methods "The Greats" would use today I do not know. What I am certain of though is that they would not be bickering back and forth in an online forum. Instead, they would be out using their cameras. Anybody can make any focusing method work if they apply themselves and different people will arrive at different methods for different use cases. My heart goes out to anyone offended by this diversity.
p.7 #5 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
SlowDriver wrote:
No offense but yes, there is. I moved from Leica to Hasselblad 5 years ago and zero regret.
Leica comes with a lot of kool-aid supplied by influencers, online forums, etc. Once you stop drinking that it is mostly just a brand as any other.
Yes absolutely. I shot with 500 C/Ms for well over a decade. Hasselblads are wonderful cameras. And their digital cameras are great cameras. But they are a very different beast than Leica M or Q. The only reason I shoot with Leica M is works for me. Nice to have a real alternative to everything else out there.
But back to helping the OP and to help him to decide if the Q is right for him all the talk is not going to tell him if it's for him like putting one in his hands will.
p.7 #6 · 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 rarely use manual focus lenses, but it does seem to me that manual focusing creates a kind of space and involvement with the image and the scene that the automatic process does not. I think it is less extreme but analagous to the way that sketching creates a kind of involvement that taking a photograph does not. There are many ways to make good images.
p.7 #7 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
Yes absolutely. I shot with 500 C/Ms for well over a decade. Hasselblads are wonderful cameras. And their digital cameras are great cameras. But they are a very different beast than Leica M or Q. The only reason I shoot with Leica M is works for me. Nice to have a real alternative to everything else out there.
But back to helping the OP and to help him to decide if the Q is right for him all the talk is not going to tell him if it's for him like putting one in his hands will.
I have a book at home by Melissa O'Shaughnessy. She shoots street photography with a Sony A1. The brutal reality is that a Leica Q will add little to nothing to a Sony A1. The OP already has everything he needs to make good pictures but if money is no object I guess why not? On Hasselblads being a different beast, for me personally Leica M and Leica Q cameras are very different beasts as well.
p.7 #8 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
But the truth is those images wouldn't be as powerful if they were tack sharp. Have you ever seen the color images of the bull fights from Ernst Haas or Running White Deer by Paul Caponigro?
This is a very interesting and, indeed, challenging thought. Does the very sharpness itself of modern lenses change our perception of the photo? Capa's photos and many others of that era carry an emotional charge because of the overall image rather than the incredible detail captured in any one part of it. The latter would change our perception of it. I find myself almost never enjoying the kind of wildlife phots which are forensic rather than emotionally responding to the subject.
Are we, in a sense, 'prisoners' of our own wonderful tools? I remember when the original instruments movement was getting under way in classical music. The initial response was: why would I want to hear an 18th century violin with gut strings when the modern violin is so much better in every way. Why would I want to hear Mozart on the kind of piano he composed for, when Steinways are so full and rich in tone?
p.7 #10 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
SlowDriver wrote:
I have a book at home by Melissa O'Shaughnessy. She shoots street photography with a Sony A1. The brutal reality is that a Leica Q will add little to nothing to a Sony A1. The OP already has everything he needs to make good pictures but if money is no object I guess why not? On Hasselblads being a different beast, for me personally Leica M and Leica Q cameras are very different beasts as well.
Agree. M and Q are very different beasts. In my opinion Leica is M. It's what seperates Leica from all the rest. M being a true rangefinder is one big reason I choose to work with Leica M.
p.7 #11 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
This is a very interesting and, indeed, challenging thought. Does the very sharpness itself of modern lenses change our perception of the photo? Capa's photos and many others of that era carry an emotional charge because of the overall image rather than the incredible detail captured in any one part of it. The latter would change our perception of it. I find myself almost never enjoying the kind of wildlife phots which are forensic rather than emotionally responding to the subject.
Are we, in a sense, 'prisoners' of our own wonderful tools? I remember when the original instruments movement was getting under way in classical music. The initial response was: why would I want to hear an 18th century violin with gut strings when the modern violin is so much better in every way. Why would I want to hear Mozart on the kind of piano he composed for, when Steinways are so full and rich in tone?...Show more →
Any work of art is more than technically excellence. When talking about any art form when technical excellence becomes the driving force; does that creation then become a form of creative masturbation by only serving technical excellence?
These are all great questions and ones I doubt will ever get completely answered ha ha. And doubt these questions, even if fully answered, helps the OP with his choice of Q3 43 or not.
p.7 #12 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
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.
I realize my response is somewhat contradictory but that’s because I also have a m11 and a set of M apo lenses. If I ever sold that, I’d get the q3 43mm again immediately. I toyed with m kit + q3 43mm for af but I wanted better video capability so I moved to the SL3s.
I also used to have the Sony a1 and the 40mm f2.5 a few times - the q3 43mm lens is significantly better than the Sony 40mm from a sharpness and bokeh perspective. The OIS is good for photos but not for videos. In my opinion, having used pretty much Sony exclusively until 2023, their cameras and lens have better tech on Leica. However ergonomics and color rendition are better than Leica. Lens support is about the same but I think the sl apos are better than the Sony gms unless you really want f1.4 or 1.2. The q3 43mm is basically getting one of those top tier lenses in a much smaller package.
p.7 #13 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
But the truth is those images wouldn't be as powerful if they were tack sharp. Have you ever seen the color images of the bull fights from Ernst Haas or Running White Deer by Paul Caponigro?
Again, imperfection can be very artistic.
The question is whether some of the classic images that are considered iconic were made to be artistic by deliberately adding those imperfections or whether the imperfections were introduced because that was all that could be achieved.
You’re obviously convinced that you take better images because of your manual focus practice and the lack of a search for perfection. That’s fine, but it’s a choice that HCB or Capa couldn’t even make.
p.7 #14 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Any work of art is more than technically excellence. When talking about any art form when technical excellence becomes the driving force; does that creation then become a form of creative masturbation by only serving technical excellence?
These are all great questions and ones I doubt will ever get completely answered ha ha. And doubt these questions, even if fully answered, helps the OP with his choice of Q3 43 or not.
I really don’t think anyone here talks about technical excellence as the goal of their photography. Surely everyone strives towards artistic vision when they take photos. The same should be said about striving towards blurry images trying to emulate one’s idols…does that blurry creation then become a form of creative masturbation by only serving trying to create the photos of their hero’s?
p.7 #15 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
BTW how many unintended blurry images have you seen from me? And I can't think of one great photogrpaher I have any desire to emulate. I choose my own path though I do have infuelnces as we ALL do. But what has this got to do with the Q3 43? AHHH thats right it's a Leica thread and you always seem to wander into thesee threads with your tons of Leica knowledge ha ha.
p.7 #16 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
Again, imperfection can be very artistic.
The question is whether some of the classic images that are considered iconic were made to be artistic by deliberately adding those imperfections or whether the imperfections were introduced because that was all that could be achieved.
You’re obviously convinced that you take better images because of your manual focus practice and the lack of a search for perfection. That’s fine, but it’s a choice that HCB or Capa couldn’t even make.
But all that matters is end results. And the works of Haas and Caponigro those imperfections were indeed deliberate and in both case were direct reflections of their vision and in part their visual signatures.
And Bresson has clearly stated that he thought that "sharpness is a bourgeois concept". And in his case he doesn't see sharpness as being the judge of what is or isn't a great image.
But I say if you prefer to pursue this conversation start a thread. Maybe put the word Leica in the title and you'll get a lot of the usual suspects to join in. Ha ha..
The only reason I shoot with manual focus is it works better for me. Nice for me to have that choice.
p.7 #17 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Alright, I'll play along. No offence but I didn't find Hasselblad rendering appealing. Tried the X2D in store and didn't like the size and the feel of shooting.
Glad that you missed the Leica hook and found a happy home, but pity you feel the need to attack.
SlowDriver wrote:
No offense but yes, there is. I moved from Leica to Hasselblad 5 years ago and zero regret.
Leica comes with a lot of kool-aid supplied by influencers, online forums, etc. Once you stop drinking that it is mostly just a brand as any other.
p.7 #18 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
I rarely use manual focus lenses, but it does seem to me that manual focusing creates a kind of space and involvement with the image and the scene that the automatic process does not. I think it is less extreme but analagous to the way that sketching creates a kind of involvement that taking a photograph does not. There are many ways to make good images.
I use manual focus and zone focus, as well as autofocus. I have my reasons, but if anything, manually focusing doesn’t make me more deliberate with framing etc. I actually prefer fast AF eye focus in the studio, so I can pay more attention to composition than I would if I constantly had to check focus.
p.7 #19 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
Again, imperfection can be very artistic.
The question is whether some of the classic images that are considered iconic were made to be artistic by deliberately adding those imperfections or whether the imperfections were introduced because that was all that could be achieved.
You’re obviously convinced that you take better images because of your manual focus practice and the lack of a search for perfection. That’s fine, but it’s a choice that HCB or Capa couldn’t even make.
My technique is a result of decades of experience and that along with many other things have contributed to a personal way of working. Perfection? What is perfection in art? Is it when one is able to fully capture ones vision and be able to full express that vision through to the final end result?
And I'm not and haven't ever argued for only fuzzy images. Intent. I said that earlier but some seemed to have missed that. I have shot with view cameras where the intent is clearly extremely sharp images. A properly focused and exposed 8 X 10 negative is about a sharp as it gets and I have certainly made my share of those over the years.
But again if you want to continue this conversation maybe it's better to start a thread to that topic instead of using this thread for this conversation.
p.7 #20 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
jeffersoncasey wrote:
Alright, I'll play along. No offence but I didn't find Hasselblad rendering appealing. Tried the X2D in store and didn't like the size and the feel of shooting.
Glad that you missed the Leica hook and found a happy home, but pity you feel the need to attack.
Yeah lotsa room to move around. The only important thing is to find what works for you. And it's nice to have all the choices we have.
