Leica Q3 predictions / ruminations

[Lucena]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, Simone_DF said:

Would a smartphone be enough for you?

I was meaning for video, not photography, otherwise I would not have Leicas!

[Advertisement]

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

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, Lucena said:

I am no technician but discarding video feature could maybe allow increase elsewhere, or not?

It's a software feature. No additional hardware is required, except some heat management. But the Q size is already constrained by its M-like form factor.

[Simone_DF]

1 minute ago, Lucena said:

I was meaning for video, not photography, otherwise I would not have Leicas!

What's the difference? If a smartphone is enough for video, it's also enough for photography, no?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Simone_DF

[Lucena]

1 minute ago, Simone_DF said:

What's the difference? If a smartphone is enough for video, it's also enough for photography, no?

IMHO there are only video cameras available… maybe if one wants to make videos it is better than a polyvalent (photo+video) cam, but once more it is just my feeling as I never use video. About the place it takes technically I am a … I don’t know anything about it. But I read someone here saying that no video could make room for something else…

[Lucena]

9 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

What's the difference? If a smartphone is enough for video, it's also enough for photography, no?

You must be joking 

[Nimar]

I adore my q2m, though the more I read this the more I realise the q3m** I want is just an m10/11-m with a 35 1.4. Maybe I'll just wait for the m11-m to come out and then pick up a cheap m10-m

** I know this is at least two years away

Edited January 30, 2023 by Nimar

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

27 minutes ago, Lucena said:

IMHO there are only video cameras available… maybe if one wants to make videos it is better than a polyvalent (photo+video) cam, but once more it is just my feeling as I never use video. About the place it takes technically I am a … I don’t know anything about it. But I read someone here saying that no video could make room for something else…

Can you please post an example of a "video only camera" that is better than a ILCE at the same price range?

"No video could make room for something else" = nope. The only hardware that would be removed are the mics, which are really tiny, and possibly the heat sinks would be redesigned, but nothing else. 

[Simone_DF]

30 minutes ago, Lucena said:

You must be joking 

No. If you say a smartphone is enough for video, can you please clarify why at the same time you say a smartphone is not enough for still photography?

[Qwertynm]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Lucena:

discarding video feature could maybe allow increase elsewhere, or not?

In order to have an EVF you need a video signal from the sensor. Constantly. The Q2 is a hybrid camera, photo first, video second. So unless you design a camera around the video capabilities (which the Q2 is not), there is no downside in including video features. The bandwith is there anyway so there are only downsides by removing video via software. The market of people who want/don't mind video on their cameras is much bigger than the market of people who don't want video features. Otherwise we would've seen the continuation of the M10-D which offers neither an EVF/Liveview nor video. Don't pay attention to the video feature in your Q2 and live happy.

The Q3 will continue to offer video and a 28 1.4 although nice, would mean a different design, probably more glass, more weight, more bulk. So I'd be happy with an updated sensor for even more resolution and faster processor for better AF capabilities (like Panasonic S5II) and leave the rest as is. 

[Nimar]

1 hour ago, Qwertynm said:

In order to have an EVF you need a video signal from the sensor. Constantly. The Q2 is a hybrid camera, photo first, video second. So unless you design a camera around the video capabilities (which the Q2 is not), there is no downside in including video features. The bandwith is there anyway so there are only downsides by removing video via software. The market of people who want/don't mind video on their cameras is much bigger than the market of people who don't want video features. Otherwise we would've seen the continuation of the M10-D which offers neither an EVF/Liveview nor video. Don't pay attention to the video feature in your Q2 and live happy.

The Q3 will continue to offer video and a 28 1.4 although nice, would mean a different design, probably more glass, more weight, more bulk. So I'd be happy with an updated sensor for even more resolution and faster processor for better AF capabilities (like Panasonic S5II) and leave the rest as is. 

You've made this point in a number of threads and while you are not wrong that the EVF is essentially a video monitor, that isn't entirely the same as saying you need to include video features into the stills camera.  

- Mic / Speaker

- Continuous focus (possibly investing in phase detect focusing which primarily benefits video)

- Software development

- Unknown trade offs

I don't work at Leica but I do work around product development and any increase in scope involves trade offs.  Potentially in features that stills photographers care about. 

As you pointed out the real driver for video is likely due to the "prosumer" nature of the Q line, some percentage of buyers wouldn't buy the Q2 if it didn't shoot 4K video even though they are likely never to use it, just because it ticks a box for the type of consumer that buys based on a specs sheet alone.  

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Nimar

[Lucena]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

No. If you say a smartphone is enough for video, can you please clarify why at the same time you say a smartphone is not enough for still photography?

60 years I take photos. Never did video, not my thing. But some people I know who do have professional video gear. 
Some people use smartphones for occasional video, like showing something to others but amateur like I guess. 
video on smartphones cannot be the same as in pro video cameras as photo with smartphones, as good as they can be, are not what we can achieve with an fx camera.

Hope my English is clear enough as it is not my mothertongue.

and… no offense meant there, I am not that kind of person

[Simone_DF]

40 minutes ago, Nimar said:

You've made this point in a number of threads and while you are not wrong that the EVF is essentially a video monitor, that isn't entirely the same as saying you need to include video features into the stills camera.  

- Mic / Speaker

- Continuous focus (possibly investing in phase detect focusing which primarily benefits video)

- Software development

- Unknown trade offs

I don't work at Leica but I do work around product development and any increase in scope involves trade offs.  Potentially in features that stills photographers care about. 

As you pointed out the real driver for video is likely due to the "prosumer" nature of the Q2 line, some percentage of buyers wouldn't buy the Q2 if it didn't shoot 4K video even though they are likely never to use it, just because it ticks a box for the type of consumer that buys based on a specs sheet alone.  

 

- Mic / Speaker: these are so tiny that it's like saying that by removing a button you will gain more space on your shirt

- Continuous focus (possibly investing in phase detect focusing which primarily benefits video): it's no secret that Panasonic does the heavy lifting here. Furthermore, Leica has to invest on C-AF anyway, because the SL2-S is more geared toward video. Removing video from the Leica Q won't decrease the cost of phase detect development. The trade off would be less sales. And by the way, wasn't the lesson learned already? Cameras without a good C-AF don't sell enough in a competitive market, see how the Panasonics were reviewed before and after the introduction of PDAF. Panasonic had to cave in on CDAF-only and accept the inclusion of PDAF and spin it via its marketing department.

- Software development: see above. Leica has to work on the video features for the SLs.

I bet that most, but obviously not all, of the product development process of the Q and the SL is the same. The menu and button positions is the same. Unified product development, unified UX/UI, unified hardware / software features, within the limit of the hardware. All of this brings to a reduction in cost, shared processes across business capabilities, shared SOPs, increased value streams for the end user. Removing a feature like video from the Q without a valid business reason is not a good business strategy.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Simone_DF

[Qwertynm]

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Nimar:

any increase in scope involves trade offs.  Potentially in features that stills photographers care about. 

Could you name an example? 

Mic/Speaker - fair enough. No need for that without video

continuos focus / phase detect - the S5II has it, so the Q3 will probably get it, as will the SL3. Face/Eye-AF and continuos AF are vastly improved in both photo and video. I disagree that this benefits mainly video. I constantly shoot portraits of my son moving around and Eye-AF is a game changer. Such improvements are not just developed for the successor of the Q2 but for the SL cameras as well.

software development - hard to believe that Leica would have a software development team for each individual camera. More likely the software runs on the processor platform and is adapted to each iteration of camera model on top. I don't believe they have ressources specifically reserved to develop video features for a camera model - moot point.

unknown trade offs - what would that be? A camera that is 0.3mm thinner because of different thermal design/management? We can only speculate. Don't think the Q would look any different without video.

Bottom line: hard to believe that Leica goes out of their way to make the Q video compatible as the technology is already there. The trade off to not include it would be much larger than to include it, I'd argue. I don't use 8k raw of my Canon R5 and I feel indifferent about if it's there or not. Crazy how people can have  such strong feelings towards things that don't impact them in any way.

 

[Simone_DF]

9 minutes ago, Lucena said:

60 years I take photos. Never did video, not my thing. But some people I know who do have professional video gear. 
Some people use smartphones for occasional video, like showing something to others but amateur like I guess. 
video on smartphones cannot be the same as in pro video cameras as photo with smartphones, as good as they can be, are not what we can achieve with an fx camera.

Hope my English is clear enough as it is not my mothertongue.

and… no offense meant there, I am not that kind of person

Of course no offense meant, I never thought it not even for a minute! 🙂

So, if we agree that video in smartphones cannot be the same quality/level as video in ILCEs (plus the Q), why would you want to take away that feature for users that use it?

PS: the Panasonic S5 is "Netflix approved", meaning Netflix has certified the camera for usage for its tv shows. ILCEs like the S5, the SLII, Sony A7III etc etc have taken over the market for tv and small/medium sized video productions, because they are more flexible and have other tangible benefits. And these people bring in more sales, in a period of recession, increased cost of production and decreased sales 

[LocalHero1953]

Just like there are many many people who take still photos (good and bad) without being professional, there are many people (I'm one) who take videos without being professional. Suggesting that the only suitable video in a Q3 is a one suitable for a professional just is not logical. Most pros would not use a Q for professional still photography. Some do, though, in spite of its limitations, because in the right hands and right conditions the results can be indistinguishable. The same applies to video.

[Lucena]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

Of course no offense meant, I never thought it not even for a minute! 🙂

So, if we agree that video in smartphones cannot be the same quality/level as video in ILCEs (plus the Q), why would you want to take away that feature for users that use it?

PS: the Panasonic S5 is "Netflix approved", meaning Netflix has certified the camera for usage for its tv shows. ILCEs like the S5, the SLII, Sony A7III etc etc have taken over the market for tv and small/medium sized video productions, because they are more flexible and have other tangible benefits. And these people bring in more sales, in a period of recession, increased cost of production and decreased sales 

OK, learnt some things today.

For me who am not a social network user (no FB, Twitter, Insta...etc)I saw video as purely amateur for sharing (and therefore smartphones seem to do the good job), or as professional as some friends of mine are, and they use specific video cameras. Therefore my previous thoughts on the matter.
I thought too that video was an extra occupying "place" and not useful for some photo functions, as I said I am not a technician, no knowledge at all about it, just learnt to use it, coming from a whole life on analogic photo. 

I wouldn't have purchased the Q, then Q2 if it wasn't for the weight burden represented by the M and the lenses, I wanted a full frame camera, simple to use, that I could carry on my handbag all the time in all circumstances.
Therefore I find the Qs great for me because they are full frame, light, performant, have macro function and don't drown me under complicated programs and other features I wouldn't use.

 

I still have my Q, but someone in my family is using it with great pleasure since I purchased the Q2. I don't think I will feel the need to upgrade to the Q3... but I am curious about it.

[ianforber]

@Lucena I’ve seen a lot of great shots from you in the macro image thread. Personally, I would be interested in a Q3 only if it had a rear screen that would help taking pictures below knee-level. It probably wouldn’t be enough to tempt me to buy a Q3 but I wondered if this would be something you would find helpful?

[Lucena]

1 minute ago, ianforber said:

@Lucena I’ve seen a lot of great shots from you in the macro image thread. Personally, I would be interested in a Q3 only if it had a rear screen that would help taking pictures below knee-level. It probably wouldn’t be enough to tempt me to buy a Q3 but I wondered if this would be something you would find helpful?

I would of course, even if I still can get up quite easily... but as I am old, in the future who knows?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jbripley]

My wishlist for the Q3 in priority order:

1. A sensor with better low light support, current megapixel count is fine
2. Phase detect auto-focus and better face/eye AF
3. Rear screen that flips up/down, not to the side

Looking at the rumours and the release of the Panasonic S5 II, they all seem likely.

[marchyman]

7 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

there is no downside in including video features.

Then why do so many complain about it's presence?   From a marketing perspectiv people saying "I'll not buy that camera because video" is a down side.   From a technical perspective people saying "Mic and Speaker openings are avenues for moisture and dust entry" is a down side.  From a using the camera perspective people complaining about accidentally enabling video and not knowing how to turn it off is down side.

Personally, I don't care if video is present or not as long as the camera lets me disable the function or at least greatly reduce the chance accidental activation.  A few small pieces of gaffers tape cover mic and speaker openings if I care about that.  I understand from an engineering standpoint video is mostly free.  I also understand those who finds its presence in the camera off setting.