sony A6300 or Panasonic m4/3 to partner with Q

[tifh21]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a leica Q and I recently bought a sony to use whenever I would need a zoom. I was wondering if these 2 work well together as a set up or would it be better for me to get a panasonic m4/3?

[mschoe]

Have you considered a Fuji X camera? They're really nice complementary cameras. (I use a Fuji X-Pro2 as my Q companion.)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Keith (M)]

With a need to reduce weight and bulk of photo-gear when touring, recently I bought a Sony A6500 with the Sony/Zeiss E 16-70mm ZA OSS f4 lens (24-105mm equivalent), thinking I would take that and the Q (for full frame + macro + wide-open shallow DoF usage).  Some results from the A6500 + E 16-70 can be seen in my A6500 Flickr album.  The last time I had a digital auto-focus zoom was nearly ten years ago (Canon 5D MII + EF 24-105mm - which had very marked barrel distortion at the wide end) and I'm really enjoying rediscovering the pleasures of a zoom.  A6500 + 16-70mm weigh 758g.

 

I had been vaguely considering buying a large aperture prime lens for the A6500 for street type use then read a test of the Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN lens on Amateur Photographer. Took the plunge and the lens arrived yesterday and as (yet again) it was pouring with rain my initial test was confined to indoors - trying out the minimum DoF at f1.4.  A hand-full of examples in my A6500 + Sigma 30mm album.  Initial impressions are very favourable indeed and whilst admitting that I am not a pixel-peeper, I wonder how Sigma can produce such quality results for £269, compared with the £2,300 my 50mm Summilux-M ASPH cost me a couple of years ago.  

 

BTW, with a Novoflex adaptor I can use all of my M lenses on the A6500 and my 135mm APO Telyt-M becomes a very useful 200mm telephoto.  Oh, and as I already had a R to M adaptor, by stacking the adaptors I can use my R lenses on the A6500 as well   The combination of the A6500 with its IBIS function plus my 60mm Macro Elmarit-R is brilliant!

 

Now I am beginning to wonder if the Q has become somewhat superfluous...

Edited January 25, 2018 by Keith (M)

[tifh21]

mschoe- I had fuji before but I wanted to try something new so I went with sony, Now i was wondering if a m4/3 setup might be more a match. 

 

keith- yea I'm planning on getting the sigma 30mm too

[Mr.Q]

How about a CL?

[jaapv]

One of the nice things about a Panasonic (for instance GX8)  as companion to the Q is that they share batteries.

[tifh21]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

the CL is too expensive for me if I'm just going to use it mainly for longer ranges that my Q can't do.

the m4/3 is a bit tempting because of the size of their zoom lenses, so much smaller compared to others.

[falcon468]

Here is my solution having digested this thread and other similar threads discussing a companion camera.  Today, I did a test on the same subject matter using the in body crop feature of 28/35/50.  Since I am not a photographer for National Geographic, I was pleased with the results. I have two trips planned over the next several months outside of the US and the reason I bought the Q was that I could carry just one camera with me.  I did that several times last year and never missed a shot.  I have recently considered taking my M4/3 camera, a Lumix GX1 with 45MM (90MM equivalent) for those few times that I might need more reach. Then again, at some point I might just say, take the Q only. Game time decision, but I like the option. So I guess in the end, like you, I am still undecided!

Edited February 2, 2018 by falcon468

[Lonescapes]

Completely dependent on what you're shooting and why.

 

M43 / APS-C aren't just different sensor sizes, they are completely different systems with benefits that overlap in some ways (size savings), but are totally disparate in others. Anytime mount diameter differs significantly, elements of physics come into play that result in fundamentally different camera systems.

 

It's just the specs-driven, hyper-consumerist camera marketplace we've got on our hands lately that can lead you to the false conclusion that these systems are roughly equal in most matters. There are things APS-C will never do as well as M43, and things M43 will never do as well as APS-C.

[rivi1969]

I have a leica Q and I recently bought a sony to use whenever I would need a zoom. I was wondering if these 2 work well together as a set up or would it be better for me to get a panasonic m4/3?

 

If you have both cameras only you can decide if both work fine as a set-up. Any camera with interchangeable lenses will complement a fixed-lens one. If you are spoiled by the Q "IQ" you might want a full frame camera for your other needs, like a Sony A7Rii or iii. I doubt any m43 camera can come close.

[falcon468]

If you have both cameras only you can decide if both work fine as a set-up. Any camera with interchangeable lenses will complement a fixed-lens one. If you are spoiled by the Q "IQ" you might want a full frame camera for your other needs, like a Sony A7Rii or iii. I doubt any m43 camera can come close.

 

With respect to the M4/3 camera, I have found that if I use my Leica 25mm or my 45mm prime, I get great results (travel and landscape photos) until I get into seriously deteriorating light, where as you say, the IQ will be somewhat less. I have pretty much decided, since my post above, to take only the Q out, but there is still something about a backup that is almost nothing extra to carry and paid for.  If something were to go wrong with the Q, I could still get day and early evening photo's without too much compromise.

[Mr.Q]

the CL is too expensive for me if I'm just going to use it mainly for longer ranges that my Q can't do.

the m4/3 is a bit tempting because of the size of their zoom lenses, so much smaller compared to others.

 

Well in that case I guess it depends how often you are going to be shooting in the longer range.

 

If you shoot ALOT in the 28-50mm range and you do mind a bit of cropping with the Q, I would get a MFT camera with one of their 14-140mm zooms or maybe a Sony RX10.

 

If you shoot ALOT in the 28-50mm range and you do mind a bit of cropping with the Q, but want more control of DOF with a fast short tele, maybe something like the 42.5/1.2 Nocticron or Fuji XF56/1.2 would suit you better.

 

If you shoot ALOT in the 70mm+ range, perhaps you should pick up a MFT or APS-C camera with one of their better F2.8 zooms.

 

If you shoot ALOT in the 200mm+ range, the Panasonic 100-400mm is quite stellar.

[Keith (M)]

Further to what I wrote in post #3, since then I have been able to try out the A6500 + 30mm f1.4 Sigma  & 16-70mm Sony/Zeiss on a couple of 'walk-abouts'. Examples are in the Flickr albums linked in post #3. The camera and two lenses cover 24 - 105mm @ f4 and 45mm @ f14 - plus I can use my 135mm APO Telyt-M as a 203mm tele complete with IBIS (in body stabilisation).  As mentioned previously, the intent was to take the Q plus A6500 when travelling but based on latest usage & results I am being to think that the Q might (heaven forfend!) be becoming surplus to requirements.