p.10 #1 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
I have both Sony and Leica. I think Leica’s app works better and more consistently than Sony.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Advantage over what? The older Leicas? I thought that was possible with all cameras these days. I mean, with Sony I can transfer my RAW files to my Samsung anytime via sony app and Wi-Fi.
p.10 #2 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Perhaps it's the same with older Sony cameras as it is with older Leica cameras, I don't know. In any case, I do it regularly with my A7IV and haven't had a single problem to date. It works absolutely reliably.
p.10 #3 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Surfnsun wrote:
I have both Sony and Leica. I think Leica’s app works better and more consistently than Sony.
As both a Leica and Sony user I agree. The Leica FOTOS App is the most stable, smoothest, full featured, and best phone to camera app I have ever used.
one advantage of the Lims half cases is the built in ARCA SWISS plate for when you want to use a tripod. This plate allows for easy access to the camera bottom, and a stable, protective platform to set the camera down on. None of the high prices half cases offer this.
p.10 #6 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
I have not used Sony, rather, I am a 40+ year Nikon photographer. But I bought a Leica Q2M last year and absolutely love it.
Love the size, weight, and feel of the camera; love, love, love the menu interface -- simplest and best camera software I've ever used; also love, love, love the lens and images it produces.
It is a little bigger and heavier than a point-and-shoot camera; you can't really fit it into a coat pocket (unless you're wearing a really big coat); but of course it is a high-quality, full-frame 35mm camera with better-than-SLR (or at least as-good) image quality. So for what it is, the size and weight feel solid, not too much.
With respect to AF, I grew up shooting sports for money with manual film cameras and we made it work without bitching about it. So I actually shoot my Q2M on manual 95% of the time because I love the control it gives me and I'm fast enough with it for what I shoot. In the rare instances I want or need AF, it is a simple switch and I find the AF to be fast enough. (Personally, I think newer or younger photographers who have only known AF cameras become too focused on AF spec's and how many milliseconds it takes to focus -- which is about as valuable as pixel-peeping on new lenses -- but that's just my old-bastard pov IMHO.)
The main thing about it: the switches, controls, and menu on the camera are the simplest, best-positioned, and most intuitive I've ever found on any camera. When I first picked it up, I couldn't believe other camera manufacturers hadn't already used some of the same simple, intuitive controls.
The only downside to me is the lack of interchangeable lenses. That is limiting if, like me, you like to shoot wide or long lenses. But it also offers advantages: (i) because you can't change lenses, you aren't tempted to take any with you so the size and weight of your kit is much smaller; (ii) it enables the camera to be seriously weather-sealed, and keeps the sensor and internals cleaner; and (iii) it forces you to be more creative with your shots -- you have to act like a real photographer and use your feet to get the correct scene/framing/image structure, instead of simply zooming or changing lenses and getting a different perspective.
In sum, if you want the simplest camera with the highest image quality -- and do not need interchangeable lenses -- I strongly recommend the Q system. But be warned, I love mine so much, I may move to the Leica M system soon now Leica has released a non-rangefinder version. And I hear that is a risk of owning a Q camera!
p.10 #7 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
LBJ2 wrote:
FWIW. Adorama offers a free up to 60 day return period if you sign up for their VIP Pro subscription, $49 annually. Currently on limited time offer for $24.99. * I used their VIP program to try out my first Leica camera.
p.10 #8 · 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 don't know about the 43mm version in particular but my experience as a Sony and Leica user is that the Sony A1's AF will leave you disappointed with the AF of most other cameras, particularly Leica. In the Q I used, the AF was serviceable (and 28mm was somewhat forgiving) but not as fast or trustworthy as my A1.
I love Leica but am just not a fan of their more automated cameras, which are not as dependable as their Japanese competition. I opted to go with an M (which has no AF at all) because then at least I'd know that missed focus (or any other imaging problem) was my fault rather than the camera's. My other camera is an A1, which I love for those times when I may not have time to get the non-composition particulars right. The camera is fast and competent enough to intercede on my behalf and get you images that work. Each lends itself to very different shooting styles - one deliberative and strategic, the other more reactive. It sounds like based on your description you're looking for a camera that lends itself to a more reactive approach. If so, I think you already have the perfect camera in the form of the A1. The Q is a way to spend a lot of money while not necessarily improving your enjoyment of the craft or the quality of your output.
p.10 #9 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Arka wrote:
I don't know about the 43mm version in particular but my experience as a Sony and Leica user is that the Sony A1's AF will leave you disappointed with the AF of most other cameras, particularly Leica. In the Q I used, the AF was serviceable (and 28mm was somewhat forgiving) but not as fast or trustworthy as my A1.
I love Leica but am just not a fan of their more automated cameras, which are not as dependable as their Japanese competition. I opted to go with an M (which has no AF at all) because then at least I'd know that missed focus (or any other imaging problem) was my fault rather than the camera's. My other camera is an A1, which I love for those times when I may not have time to get the non-composition particulars right. The camera is fast and competent enough to intercede on my behalf and get you images that work. Each lends itself to very different shooting styles - one deliberative and strategic, the other more reactive. It sounds like based on your description you're looking for a camera that lends itself to a more reactive approach. If so, I think you already have the perfect camera in the form of the A1. The Q is a way to spend a lot of money while not necessarily improving your enjoyment of the craft or the quality of your output.
I had the A1 before I eventually switched to the Leica SL3-S - there's no denying the AF is best in class but outside of wildlife photography, I have not felt "disappointed" with the Leica SL3-S or Q3 AF system. It's good enough for most people shots, where Sony still wins is on fast action or wildlife photography but the leica AF is good enough most of the time.
p.10 #10 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
dalegaspi wrote:
bro what are you doing? Adorama didn't do that so you can do a cheap rental of new camera gear.
Adorama is a sophisticated business with a long and financially successful track record. The 60 day return policy has clearly been well thought out and been successful financially. The kept product numbers are justifying the risk.
As long as one has a sincere interest to make the purchase the return policy is designed to make the opportunity to see if the product is a good fit for ones needs is what the program is intended for. This is very different than some one using the program to play with gear.
Most companies have return policies for the very same financial reasons. They track financial results on both a program and customer basis. They have checks and balances in place to mitigate abuse of the program.
Leica has a similar program itself but a shorter 14 day return privilage. The companies want a shot of closing the sale and know the risk they are incurring. I say if intent is sincere the program is valid.
Why do you think Adorama has this program? The right to return is not linked to any defect correct?
Also keep in mind that there are risks for the consumer in these programs as well. Including that the product must be returned in origional condition. 60 days is a long time to use a product heavily without some sort of signs of use. Sincerity of intent to purchase is key to both sides in such programs.
p.10 #11 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
Adorama is a sophisticated business with a long and financially successful track record. The 60 day return policy has clearly been well thought out and been successful financially. The kept product numbers are justifying the risk.
As long as one has a sincere interest to make the purchase the return policy is designed to make the opportunity to see if the product is a good fit for ones needs is what the program is intended for. This is very different than some one using the program to play with gear.
Most companies have return policies for the very same financial reasons. They track financial results on both a program and customer basis. They have checks and balances in place to mitigate abuse of the program.
Leica has a similar program itself but a shorter 14 day return privilage. The companies want a shot of closing the sale and know the risk they are incurring. I say if intent is sincere the program is valid.
Why do you think Adorama has this program? The right to return is not linked to any defect correct?
Also keep in mind that there are risks for the consumer in these programs as well. Including that the product must be returned in origional condition. 60 days is a long time to use a product heavily without some sort of signs of use. Sincerity of intent to purchase is key to both sides in such programs....Show more →
Yes, it is, and the poster seemed to say he lacked that sincerity when he used the policy.
p.10 #12 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
Yes, it is, and the poster seemed to say he lacked that sincerity when he used the policy.
From what I see in this thread the OP has a sincere interest in buying a Leica Q3 camera. That makes him not only a viable candidate for a good return policy program, but in fact the target of such programs.
The thing about the Q3 and Leica in general is that they are not specification sheet kinds of products. They will never win on a single specification. Many photography products are driven by a specification that fills a specific need. Buyers want the fastest AF, the fasted frame rate, the highest video performance, the smallest/lightest form factor, things like that.
One must look at the Leica products in a more holistic way. Leica products offer a unique experience in both image making, and ownership experiences. Many find these experiences strong enough to justify the premium prices that Leica charges. The Q series of cameras in Leicas lineup I think may currently account for the highest volume of unit sales for Leica. The Q products have a large user base who have decided that this holistic package fits their needs and has value for them. In this sense they are well validated products. Hype only goes so far.
However, this also means that based on individual specifications and performance it is difficult to know in advance of using a Q whether it is a good fit for a person. The question cannot be answered by conversations either on line or in person. In my opinion this also goes beyond a short try out of a rental, or store visit. Not enough time to fully answer the question. That means that buying from a reputable dealer that offers a good return program helps de-risk the purchase. This is probably why these retails designed these programs in the first place. They are good for the retailer and good for the customer. In my personal opinion, at this point, this is the best path for the OP to follow if his interest is sincere.
p.10 #13 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
Arka wrote:
I don't know about the 43mm version in particular but my experience as a Sony and Leica user is that the Sony A1's AF will leave you disappointed with the AF of most other cameras, particularly Leica. In the Q I used, the AF was serviceable (and 28mm was somewhat forgiving) but not as fast or trustworthy as my A1.
I love Leica but am just not a fan of their more automated cameras, which are not as dependable as their Japanese competition. I opted to go with an M (which has no AF at all) because then at least I'd know that missed focus (or any other imaging problem) was my fault rather than the camera's. My other camera is an A1, which I love for those times when I may not have time to get the non-composition particulars right. The camera is fast and competent enough to intercede on my behalf and get you images that work. Each lends itself to very different shooting styles - one deliberative and strategic, the other more reactive. It sounds like based on your description you're looking for a camera that lends itself to a more reactive approach. If so, I think you already have the perfect camera in the form of the A1. The Q is a way to spend a lot of money while not necessarily improving your enjoyment of the craft or the quality of your output.
Have you tried a SL3/SL3-S or Q328/43 (colour only) with firmware 4.x? Sony got accused of basically the A1ii being a firmware upgrade release (not true). Leica basically released an entirely upgraded camera with a firmware upgrade.
Firmware 4 has retired my Sony A7R5 (the actual closest camera to the SL3. I struggle to see any functional difference in Af between them. Both camera are really limited by FPS and shutter blackout. Firmware 4 means excellent AFc for Leicas current bodies (except the Monochrom which doesn’t have phase detect pixels). IMHO it’s now better than offerings from Fujifilm and Olympus. It is somewhat lens dependant but the Q3 will follow anyone’s brat or mutt just fine.
There’s no doubt that the fast scanning stacked sensors are faster in every way. My wildlife kit will remain built around a pair of A1ii’s. But to me they are the specialist camera and the Leicas are fantastic general shooters. I’d have no issues with some casual wildlife photography with the SL3.
For the Q3 and Q3-43’s intended purpose the Af is now excellent. It tracks well, has very high accuracy and is simple to set up. For the extremes sure you grab a Z9 or A1ii. But the Q3 isn’t a competitor to those, really.
p.10 #14 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
flash wrote:
Have you tried a SL3/SL3-S or Q328/43 (colour only) with firmware 4.x? Sony got accused of basically the A1ii being a firmware upgrade release (not true). Leica basically released an entirely upgraded camera with a firmware upgrade.
Firmware 4 has retired my Sony A7R5 (the actual closest camera to the SL3. I struggle to see any functional difference in Af between them. Both camera are really limited by FPS and shutter blackout. Firmware 4 means excellent AFc for Leicas current bodies (except the Monochrom which doesn’t have phase detect pixels). IMHO it’s now better than offerings from Fujifilm and Olympus. It is somewhat lens dependant but the Q3 will follow anyone’s brat or mutt just fine.
There’s no doubt that the fast scanning stacked sensors are faster in every way. My wildlife kit will remain built around a pair of A1ii’s. But to me they are the specialist camera and the Leicas are fantastic general shooters. I’d have no issues with some casual wildlife photography with the SL3.
For the Q3 and Q3-43’s intended purpose the Af is now excellent. It tracks well, has very high accuracy and is simple to set up. For the extremes sure you grab a Z9 or A1ii. But the Q3 isn’t a competitor to those, really.
I 100% agree with Gordon on the version 4 firmware AF. It is not just usable anymore, it is excellent. I have not shot my Sony A1 since it came out. I would be happy to take it for an African Safari or any other wildlife trip except where BIF is the main attraction. But who knows, the AF may be good for light work with fast stuff too. It is the FPS and slow sensor that may be the only problems for even that use.
It should be noted that my experience is with the SL-3 not the Q3 cameras.
p.10 #15 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
From what I see in this thread the OP has a sincere interest in buying a Leica Q3 camera. That makes him not only a viable candidate for a good return policy program, but in fact the target of such programs.
The thing about the Q3 and Leica in general is that they are not specification sheet kinds of products. They will never win on a single specification. Many photography products are driven by a specification that fills a specific need. Buyers want the fastest AF, the fasted frame rate, the highest video performance, the smallest/lightest form factor, things like that.
One must look at the Leica products in a more holistic way. Leica products offer a unique experience in both image making, and ownership experiences. Many find these experiences strong enough to justify the premium prices that Leica charges. The Q series of cameras in Leicas lineup I think may currently account for the highest volume of unit sales for Leica. The Q products have a large user base who have decided that this holistic package fits their needs and has value for them. In this sense they are well validated products. Hype only goes so far.
However, this also means that based on individual specifications and performance it is difficult to know in advance of using a Q whether it is a good fit for a person. The question cannot be answered by conversations either on line or in person. In my opinion this also goes beyond a short try out of a rental, or store visit. Not enough time to fully answer the question. That means that buying from a reputable dealer that offers a good return program helps de-risk the purchase. This is probably why these retails designed these programs in the first place. They are good for the retailer and good for the customer. In my personal opinion, at this point, this is the best path for the OP to follow if his interest is sincere.
I wasn’t talking about the OP in my last post, but about the poster who seemed to regard Adorama’s return policy a rental program to try different gear.
Even then, I think OP lives in NYC, so could drop by the Leica store and try the camera for a while. It seems OP also has just a few doubts about the Q, which can be answered pretty quickly, at least rationally.
Depending on how stores deal with the returns, this policy may screw over others. If they sell a returned camera as new, they screw over the buyer who thinks he’s buying a new camera. If they sell it as used, I’m pretty sure they recoup their costs for these pseudo-rental purchases by using higher margins on other products, margins we all pay for.
p.10 #16 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
johnvanr wrote:
I wasn’t talking about the OP in my last post, but about the poster who seemed to regard Adorama’s return policy a rental program to try different gear.
Even then, I think OP lives in NYC, so could drop by the Leica store and try the camera for a while. It seems OP also has just a few doubts about the Q, which can be answered pretty quickly, at least rationally.
Depending on how stores deal with the returns, this policy may screw over others. If they sell a returned camera as new, they screw over the buyer who thinks he’s buying a new camera. If they sell it as used, I’m pretty sure they recoup their costs for these pseudo-rental purchases by using higher margins on other products, margins we all pay for....Show more →
My guess is that with larger channels like Adorama vendors like Leica also participate in the return financials as well. It is one of the ways that the big boys use their leverage to out compete with the smaller channels who must have a "no returns" policy and/or restocking fees.
p.10 #17 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
How good is the FW4 autofocus in real low light situations on the Q3/43 (means no catch light on faces or something else. Just real low light)? Any experience?
p.10 #18 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
gammarART wrote:
How good is the FW4 autofocus in real low light situations on the Q3/43 (means no catch light on faces or something else. Just real low light)? Any experience?
Very good. I’m not having low light issues. Definitely better than any of my Fujis. I really haven’t tried it against my Sony's in very very low light though.
The gold standard is the Hasselblad X2D2 which can focus in complete darkness thanks to its lidar.
p.10 #19 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
I 100% agree with Gordon on the version 4 firmware AF. It is not just usable anymore, it is excellent. I have not shot my Sony A1 since it came out. I would be happy to take it for an African Safari or any other wildlife trip except where BIF is the main attraction. But who knows, the AF may be good for light work with fast stuff too. It is the FPS and slow sensor that may be the only problems for even that use.
It should be noted that my experience is with the SL-3 not the Q3 cameras.
My big thing with wildlife is the blackout free shooting and pre-capture. And not for just birds. They’re so useful I can’t go back to a shutter with blackout for those things. But on my upcoming Oz driving trip I’m taking my SL3 and 60-600 as my casual wildlife rig. I have no problems knowing it’ll get the job done, just fine.
Both the SL3 and Q3 got huge improvement. The SL3 can out perform the Q3 with some Sigma lenses because of the focusing motors but the Q3 and Q3-43 are both very competent now except for very erratic movements.
p.10 #20 · Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony
1bwana1 wrote:
Adorama is a sophisticated business with a long and financially successful track record. The 60 day return policy has clearly been well thought out and been successful financially. The kept product numbers are justifying the risk.
As long as one has a sincere interest to make the purchase the return policy is designed to make the opportunity to see if the product is a good fit for ones needs is what the program is intended for. This is very different than some one using the program to play with gear.
Most companies have return policies for the very same financial reasons. They track financial results on both a program and customer basis. They have checks and balances in place to mitigate abuse of the program.
Leica has a similar program itself but a shorter 14 day return privilage. The companies want a shot of closing the sale and know the risk they are incurring. I say if intent is sincere the program is valid.
Why do you think Adorama has this program? The right to return is not linked to any defect correct?
Also keep in mind that there are risks for the consumer in these programs as well. Including that the product must be returned in origional condition. 60 days is a long time to use a product heavily without some sort of signs of use. Sincerity of intent to purchase is key to both sides in such programs....Show more →
Adorama has a return policy eligibility stated here. to me that's not open to interpretation. you cannot "try" out a camera for an extended period and expect it to be like new condition.
whether there's sincere intent on buying or not, IMO this is not what it's for; that is why it's not called "trial period"
if i'm unsure about a product even after exhaustive research...especially if there's a chance it will not work for me, i rent it or i go to a physical store to try it out (_this_ is how i tried my first Leica ages ago).
there's a discussion here (among others, for sure) on whether Adorama sells returned products as new...i certainly don't want to receive a product that's been returned when i paid for a new item.
i'm sure there's nuances and case-by-case scenarios...but i don't want to get into that because i don't want to derail the topic.
