p.8 #1 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I’m merely contributing. The topic isn’t new and I don’t see a reason to discuss it in another thread.
I think it was established a while back in this one that the MF capability of the Q3 is largely unimportant for the OP. Good AF is and there his Sony is outperforming whatever Leica will come up with.
Beyond that, we’re moving into a discussion about sufficiency vs highest performance.
That’s the real question here posed in this thread.
p.8 #2 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
As I said in an early thread I doubt the Q3 43 would be right for him. He needs to put one in his hands to see if indeed its a good fit or not. The Q series is not for me either. But they are still wonderful cameras. And I can see why some choose them. Nice to have that choice.
p.8 #3 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
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.
No, you misunderstood me. The results clearly show that your equipment suits you and what you do. So how could I possibly question that? I was referring solely to your statement about your way of seeing, which, according to you, is better suited to manual focus than autofocus, and frankly, I find that absurd. Human vision (and therefore yours) occurs with continuous autofocus always engaged. How could manual focus be better suited than autofocus in that case? It's a contradiction in itself. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of it; it was just a casual remark because it really made me chuckle.
p.8 #4 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
The Leica Q series is noticeably larger than your A7CR, so if compact size matters to you, that's something to keep in mind. There's also the price, of course. And if your goal is to keep up with your grandkids using reliable tracking AF, Sony is still hard to beat. Leica has come a long way, and the AF is quite good now, especially with recent firmware updates, but it still lags behind Sony's so you may get the occasional missed shot, which may or may not matter to you.
Another factor is flexibility. With Sony, you can switch lenses and shoot 40mm or any FL you like. With the Leica Q, you're committing to a single lens.
But, Leica offers something different that Sony doesn't really replicate. The build quality, the haptics, and the simplicity of the shooting experience is real. If those things matter more to you than interchangeable lenses and reliable tracking AF, and you're comfortable with the price, then the Leica is awesome. It would be a good idea to try one before you commit though.
p.8 #5 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
To nifty fifty,
My creative vision is clearly better suited for manual focus. Proof is in my work. I moved away from autofocus after a decade with Canon. When I work I do not want to be thiniking of technique. I really need that to be truly second nature. Like breathing or walking. And using the same camera and lens combo for me makes that a reality. I could never get there with auto focus. NEVER. It seemed to always get in my way. I no longer have those issues to interfere with my vision while I'm creating. So therefor manual focus better fits with the way I see and work. It is seamless for me. Could be much different for others. Thats why having choices is so important. No autofocus in the world is faster than being pre focused.
p.8 #6 · 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.
Well, the problem in this discussion about sharpness and blur is that everything is being lumped together, and the fact that there are many different types and causes of blur (e.g., lens quality and coating, camera shake, subject movement, film stock, sensitivity and development, and positive processing) is being completely ignored. All of these factors can contribute significantly to an appealing image (I myself am not a fan of razor-sharp images and a big fan of pictorialists), but I consider it a big mistake and quite misleading to justify poorly focused digital photos from forum members by claiming that blurry photographic masterpieces exist. Zone focus, if you want to use it successfully, must be mastered. Mounting a Summilux lens on an M11, stopping down to f/4.0, setting the focus using the scale, and then mindlessly snapping away with 60MP and a super-sharp lens is hardly a act of art if the end result is nothing more than two blurry people running against a sharp background, who also bear no discernible relation to each other or the scene. The excuse of "zone focus" is unfortunately useless in this case.
And no, I'm definitely NOT referring to you! Just so there are no misunderstandings.
p.8 #7 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
To nifty fifty,
My creative vision is clearly better suited for manual focus. Proof is in my work. I moved away from autofocus after a decade with Canon. When I work I do not want to be thiniking of technique. I really need that to be truly second nature. Like breathing or walking. And using the same camera and lens combo for me makes that a reality. I could never get there with auto focus. NEVER. It seemed to always get in my way. I no longer have those issues to interfere with my vision while I'm creating. So therefor manual focus better fits with the way I see and work. It is seamless for me. Could be much different for others. Thats why having choices is so important. No autofocus in the world is faster than being pre focused.
Allen ...Show more →
I think I understand you, but you don't understand what I meant, but in the end, that doesn't matter. Incidentally, I'm not usually a fan of autofocus, but I'm using it more and more these days because looking through the EVF with one eye strains my eyes immensely, especially during pollen season. It's a problem I didn't have with the viewfinder magnifier of my 6x6 waist-level viewfinder.
p.8 #8 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
airfrogusmc wrote:
... "sharpness is a bourgeois concept" ...
I had struggled with this idea until I convinced myself of its truth when I was flipping through countless photo books. But now that I think about it, I think those pictures benefited from film grain and, in some instances, character lenses. This has me thinking that if the lack of sharpness is _solely_ due to missed focus, then IMO the average pic is just sloppy. On the other hand, when you add another tasteful component (motion blur, film grain, lens character, ...) that contributes to the vibe of the picture, then I am once again in agreement with "sharpness is a bourgeois concept".
p.8 #9 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Leica Q series is noticeably larger than your A7CR, so if compact size matters to you, that's something to keep in mind. There's also the price, of course. And if your goal is to keep up with your grandkids using reliable tracking AF, Sony is still hard to beat. Leica has come a long way, and the AF is quite good now, especially with recent firmware updates, but it still lags behind Sony's so you may get the occasional missed shot, which may or may not matter to you.
Another factor is flexibility. With Sony, you can switch lenses and shoot 40mm or any FL you like. With the Leica Q, you're committing to a single lens.
But, Leica offers something different that Sony doesn't really replicate. The build quality, the haptics, and the simplicity of the shooting experience is real. If those things matter more to you than interchangeable lenses and reliable tracking AF, and you're comfortable with the price, then the Leica is awesome. It would be a good idea to try one before you commit though....Show more →
Thanks, Fred. The haptics and the simplicity of the shooting experience is what tempts me. I like my Sony cameras very much. However the haptics and the complexity sometimes feels like an interference, and so I am always tempted by the Leica design aesthetic. I know the M is not for me, but the Q3 43 appeals. I shoot almost everything between 40 and 50, with occasional excursions to 24 or 65 but rarely beyond either. So the 43mm lens is fine with me. I rarely shoot the kids when they are in extreme motion and if I do I often want a little blur. So I do think I could be satisfied with the 43's AF.
I think the primary remaining question for me is whether the haptic and the simplicity of the shooting experience with the Q3 43 would actually be very different from the A1 II and the A7C R; or, perhaps more exactly, different enough to lead me to feel that the additional expense was worth it. And I probably will only know that when I shoot with one.
The Sony body that I have been most comfortable with is the A9 because of its smaller size, the smoothness and lightness of the body, its stacked sensor, and yes, the simplicity of shooting with it. I got mine out this morning and put my Canon EF 50mm 1.2L lens on it, set the creative style to B&W and I have been having a great time.
p.8 #10 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Well, the problem in this discussion about sharpness and blur is that everything is being lumped together, and the fact that there are many different types and causes of blur (e.g., lens quality and coating, camera shake, subject movement, film stock, sensitivity and development, and positive processing) is being completely ignored. All of these factors can contribute significantly to an appealing image (I myself am not a fan of razor-sharp images and a big fan of pictorialists), but I consider it a big mistake and quite misleading to justify poorly focused digital photos from forum members by claiming that blurry photographic masterpieces exist. Zone focus, if you want to use it successfully, must be mastered. Mounting a Summilux lens on an M11, stopping down to f/4.0, setting the focus using the scale, and then mindlessly snapping away with 60MP and a super-sharp lens is hardly a act of art if the end result is nothing more than two blurry people running against a sharp background, who also bear no discernible relation to each other or the scene. The excuse of "zone focus" is unfortunately useless in this case.
And no, I'm definitely NOT referring to you! Just so there are no misunderstandings....Show more →
Yes it has to be mastered for sure. And it can take some time to master. But the more you do it the better you will get. And it can become second nature. It has for me.
Sometimes blur can be a good thing. Sometimes extreme sharpness is a good thing. What are we as creatives trying to communicate with our image? Does blur help the visual statement or is it better for the image to be sharp? These all depend on so many things.
I don't recall ever saying one should go out and just indiscriminately make blurry images. I do recall using the word intent. But there are less than tack sharp images that are masterpiece's as well as tack sharp ones. The keys is does either of those things contribute to the visual statement?
There is no one right way to do any of this. We are all on separate journeys. What's right for A can be horribly wrong for B. The question is how can one get to a point where all they have learned, seen and been influenced by get all mixed up and come out as their own way of seeing.
And whatever gear helps them along the journey can be very personal but finding what works for them can be an important part of it. And getting back to topic the only way to know for sure is to put that gear in ones hands.
p.8 #11 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I think I understand you, but you don't understand what I meant, but in the end, that doesn't matter. Incidentally, I'm not usually a fan of autofocus, but I'm using it more and more these days because looking through the EVF with one eye strains my eyes immensely, especially during pollen season. It's a problem I didn't have with the viewfinder magnifier of my 6x6 waist-level viewfinder.
That's a reason I like a true rangefinder. I'm not looking or concentrating through the lens.
p.8 #12 · 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 →
Here is a link to a very beautiful unsharp image by Leora Laor that I found this morning. It would, I think, be much less beautiful if it were sharp. Some of my own favorite photos that I have taken, especially of people, have motion blur. I do find that motion blur works much, much better for me than does focus blur:
p.8 #13 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
Thanks, Fred. The haptics and the simplicity of the shooting experience is what tempts me. I like my Sony cameras very much. However the haptics and the complexity sometimes feels like an interference, and so I am always tempted by the Leica design aesthetic. I know the M is not for me, but the Q3 43 appeals. I shoot almost everything between 40 and 50, with occasional excursions to 24 or 65 but rarely beyond either. So the 43mm lens is fine with me. I rarely shoot the kids when they are in extreme motion and if I do I often want a little blur. So I do think I could be satisfied with the 43's AF.
I think the primary remaining question for me is whether the haptic and the simplicity of the shooting experience with the Q3 43 would actually be very different from the A1 II and the A7C R; or, perhaps more exactly, different enough to lead me to feel that the additional expense was worth it. And I probably will only know that when I shoot with one.
The Sony body that I have been most comfortable with is the A9 because of its smaller size, the smoothness and lightness of the body, its stacked sensor, and yes, the simplicity of shooting with it. I got mine out this morning and put my Canon EF 50mm 1.2L lens on it, set the creative style to B&W and I have been having a great time....Show more →
I would still say if you are really curious, try one. The real difference would be an M. But Sony's are great cameras and if you are comfortable with the one you have, why change horses?
p.8 #14 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
chiron wrote:
Thanks, Fred. The haptics and the simplicity of the shooting experience is what tempts me. I like my Sony cameras very much. However the haptics and the complexity sometimes feels like an interference, and so I am always tempted by the Leica design aesthetic. I know the M is not for me, but the Q3 43 appeals. I shoot almost everything between 40 and 50, with occasional excursions to 24 or 65 but rarely beyond either. So the 43mm lens is fine with me. I rarely shoot the kids when they are in extreme motion and if I do I often want a little blur. So I do think I could be satisfied with the 43's AF.
I think the primary remaining question for me is whether the haptic and the simplicity of the shooting experience with the Q3 43 would actually be very different from the A1 II and the A7C R; or, perhaps more exactly, different enough to lead me to feel that the additional expense was worth it. And I probably will only know that when I shoot with one.
The Sony body that I have been most comfortable with is the A9 because of its smaller size, the smoothness and lightness of the body, its stacked sensor, and yes, the simplicity of shooting with it. I got mine out this morning and put my Canon EF 50mm 1.2L lens on it, set the creative style to B&W and I have been having a great time....Show more →
To your lingering question, I'd say both are mirrorless systems, so not much really changes beyond what we already discussed. The bigger shift would be moving from Sony to an M camera, but as you mentioned, that is not really your thing.
As for your Canon EF comment, there are two EF lenses I've held onto and won't sell, the 24mm f/1.4L (v1) and the 50mm f/1.2L. Not only does adapted AF work better now than it used to, but they also bring a very distinct look and personality to the images.
p.8 #15 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Nifty Fifty wrote:
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.
You know of course that in discourse about photography the term "see" is often not an act of biology, but a creative pursuit.
“A camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera.” — Dorothea Lange
That is the statement that you so rudely attacked
airfrogusmc wrote:
"I don't use autofocus because manual focus fits the way I see"
p.8 #16 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
I'd rent first before making any decisions. It's good to get people's opinions. It may help you think of issues that haven't come up otherwise. The most objective thing I can say about the Q line is that there's enough difference between them and other digital cameras that can be either positive or negative that it's worth paying for the rental first.
I prefer the less expensive solution of the Batis 40/2 on your a7cr. Used prices are really favorable and the all-around performance pleasing. It has its problems, mostly that it's large (as large as their 85/1.8) but it only weighs 361g, so I only realize the size when I'm putting it back in the bag. It's one of the best single lens solutions that goes mostly ignored.
p.8 #17 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Fred Miranda wrote:
To your lingering question, I'd say both are mirrorless systems, so not much really changes beyond what we already discussed. The bigger shift would be moving from Sony to an M camera, but as you mentioned, that is not really your thing.
As for your Canon EF comment, there are two EF lenses I've held onto and won't sell, the 24mm f/1.4L (v1) and the 50mm f/1.2L. Not only does adapted AF work better now than it used to, but they also bring a very distinct look and personality to the images.
Have to disagree here. The Q3 and A7CR are wildly different, apart from potential image quality. I simply detest the EVF in the A7CR while the Q3 is a joy. Just this is a massive difference in shooting experience. I often carry both (with a 90mm on the Sony) and switching between them is jarring. IMHO the ONLY advantage of the Sony is its better continuous AF. And maybe the grip. I have to modify both camera to work for me so I consider that a wash. Everything else is superior on the Leica.
Some here are discussing zone focusing. The Q does that as well as any M. The A7CR feels like a toy compared to the build quality of the Q3. The rear screen is better. The Q3 has an IP rating. No need to discuss the menus and buttons. Finally there’s all the advantages of a leaf shutter. That means near silent, no flash sync issues and zero shutter shock. Plus none of the EFCS bikes wobble the A7CR can exhibit (EFCS is mandatory on the A7CR).
And you need to have. a GM lens on the front to come close to the APO Summicron on the Q3-43.
p.8 #18 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
We don’t disagree. The Q3 EVF does have an edge in clarity and viewing experience, which makes sense since Leica isn’t chasing the same level of compactness that Sony prioritizes in the A7CR design.
flash wrote:
Have to disagree here. The Q3 and A7CR are wildly different, apart from potential image quality. I simply detest the EVF in the A7CR while the Q3 is a joy. Just this is a massive difference in shooting experience. I often carry both (with a 90mm on the Sony) and switching between them is jarring. IMHO the ONLY advantage of the Sony is its better continuous AF. And maybe the grip. I have to modify both camera to work for me so I consider that a wash. Everything else is superior on the Leica.
Some here are discussing zone focusing. The Q does that as well as any M. The A7CR feels like a toy compared to the build quality of the Q3. The rear screen is better. The Q3 has an IP rating. No need to discuss the menus and buttons. Finally there’s all the advantages of a leaf shutter. That means near silent, no flash sync issues and zero shutter shock. Plus none of the EFCS bikes wobble the A7CR can exhibit (EFCS is mandatory on the A7CR).
And you need to have. a GM lens on the front to come close to the APO Summicron on the Q3-43.
p.8 #19 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
flash wrote:
Have to disagree here. The Q3 and A7CR are wildly different, apart from potential image quality. I simply detest the EVF in the A7CR while the Q3 is a joy. Just this is a massive difference in shooting experience. I often carry both (with a 90mm on the Sony) and switching between them is jarring. IMHO the ONLY advantage of the Sony is its better continuous AF. And maybe the grip. I have to modify both camera to work for me so I consider that a wash. Everything else is superior on the Leica.
Some here are discussing zone focusing. The Q does that as well as any M. The A7CR feels like a toy compared to the build quality of the Q3. The rear screen is better. The Q3 has an IP rating. No need to discuss the menus and buttons. Finally there’s all the advantages of a leaf shutter. That means near silent, no flash sync issues and zero shutter shock. Plus none of the EFCS bikes wobble the A7CR can exhibit (EFCS is mandatory on the A7CR).
And you need to have. a GM lens on the front to come close to the APO Summicron on the Q3-43.
How do you modify the body of the Q3 43 to improve its handling and secure the camera? I am butter-fingered and a neck strap and/or wrist strap plus some kind of grip would be mandatory for me.
p.8 #20 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
I had the Q2 and the thumb grip alone improve the sense of security in hand tremendously, even without the front grip (I had the original half case on, though, that improve the grip too). I do, have a neck strap on all the time, either around my neck or wrapping around my arm for more freedom, but the thumb grip and half case alone were more than enough.
chiron wrote:
How do you modify the body of the Q3 43 to improve its handling and secure the camera? I am butter-fingered and a neck strap and/or wrist strap plus some kind of grip would be mandatory for me.
The Q3 EVF does have an edge in clarity and viewing experience, which makes sense since Leica isn’t chasing the same level of compactness that Sony prioritizes in the A7CR design.