flash wrote:
Why not just put a SIgma 45mm DGDN on your A1 and be done with it? It won’t look any bigger to your subject as your hand is the biggest thing they see anyway.
Since the firmware upgrades the Q and SL cameras have excellent AF. Personally I’d have no issues chasing my daft dog or screaming brats around but I shot my kids with an M and had no issues. Personally I don’t need every shot of Fido and his drool covered ball to be in critical focus anyway. But that’s just me.
In single shot you’ll likely notice little to no difference between the cameras. You will get a speed boot with a GM prime but then you need to carry them. The Q3 will be on par with the 45 2.5 or a Sigma. In continued the Leica is actaully very good now but not A1ii good. But what is.
But here’s the thing. A Q isn’t meant to be an alternative to an A1ii. It’s like the opposite end of the usability spectrum. You’re supposed to slow down and be a bit more considerate in your shooting. A Q will impact how you approach a subject. If you want a rattle gun it’s the wrong camera. A Q is designed to be a considered camera. It’s not for shooting 30fps and then pulling a frame. It’s about planning and waiting for a moment.
Generally a Q is more than fast enough but if you consider photographing your kids to be similar to shooting football, it’s the wrong camera for you.
Gordon
Very helpful response. Thank you. My Sigma 45mm is on my A1 II, where it usually is, as I write this. But I think you misunderstand what I am looking for a bit. I have never shot more than a single frame at a time, my cameras have never been set to multiple FPS. And I never gun photos. As I said, somewhere above, I take both slow, considered shots but I also often try to capture something that is there for only a second, like the right expression or alignment. I do want a camea to be responsive so that I can get those fleeting moments, and I thought the Q3 43 might be a bit like an M set to zone and ready for anything that happens in the proper range. I am getting the impression that the Q3 43 operates a bit more like a GFX100S II. Excellent image quality, decent AF and IBIS, but a little pokey. I love my GFX, and use it often, but I was looking for a different experience with the Q3 that I imagined might be more Leica M (other than the rangefinder aspect of the M)like but with the gifts that electronics bring.
Apr 15, 2026 at 07:34 PM
Previous versions of chiron's message #17021560 « Considering a Leica Q3 43 but used to Sony »
