Leica Q3 ?

[bobtodrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Something interesting to consider…is the current 28mm up to a 60mp sensor?

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2023/05/03/could-the-leica-q3-have-a-big-problem-with-glass/

[Le Chef]

8 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

Something interesting to consider…is the current 28mm up to a 60mp sensor?

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2023/05/03/could-the-leica-q3-have-a-big-problem-with-glass/

I’m sure Leica are well aware of this, and if the lens is not up the performance of the sensor then they will have developed it and refined it to be so. In addition the camera would need a more powerful processor and bigger buffer to handle the larger files and to deploy fast and accurate PDAF.

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Le Chef said:

You would have to redesign both lenses to remove the lens mount and build in the shutter mechanism. Not straightforward.

Not just that. The lens has OIS and AF, which means (a) it needs an element that can be used to compensate for instability, and (b) it needs an element that is light enough to be moved for focusing. Most M lenses focus by moving the whole barrel, slowly by force of hand, and are not designed to make individual elements light and movable.

Edited May 6, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[wlaidlaw]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

Sample of 1. And no other camera has mechanical or electrical failures?

I can only extrapolate from my personal experience. Other digital Leicas I have had were none too reliable either, M8, M9 and M240 all needed service/sensor replacement and no I am very careful with my cameras. 

Wilson

[SrMi]

53 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

Something interesting to consider…is the current 28mm up to a 60mp sensor?

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2023/05/03/could-the-leica-q3-have-a-big-problem-with-glass/

There is no such thing as a lens being unable to resolve a sensor's potential. This has been discussed on LUF several times before.

Also, consider that 60MP has only 14% higher resolution in linear dimension than a 47MP sensor. Since the Q lens relies heavily on software distortion correction, I expect the corners of 60MP will be a bit better. I expect Sean Reid to report on that.

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

A Q 35 or Q 50 would likely cannibalize the SL2 or 3. And since Leica are already having to sell the SL2/S at significant discount that would not be a smart move.

Why would that be? Again, completely different beasts, different markets, different needs, different everything. The SL line has a proper lens mount that allows you to use lenses from 9 to 600mm and everything in between.

If you want small & light, you won't buy the SL, and if you want wider than 28 or a tele or the efficiency of a zoom instead of a prime, then the Q won't cut it. 

Also, this "spot the difference" comparison never gets old:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Why would that be? Again, completely different beasts, different markets, different needs, different everything. The SL line has a proper lens mount that allows you to use lenses from 9 to 600mm and everything in between.

If you want small & light, you won't buy the SL, and if you want wider than 28 or a tele or the efficiency of a zoom instead of a prime, then the Q won't cut it. 

Also, this "spot the difference" comparison never gets old:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

It’s really a very simple point. At the moment the choice is the SL2/S. If you add the option of a Q35 or Q50 what incentive would there be to buy an SL2? Unless you value the added weight and size of an SL2/S there’s every incentive to move to something smaller. But with the complexities of adding alternative lenses to the Q and the associated costs, I don’t think there’s any incentive for Leica to do this or shrink the SL2. 

[bobtodrick]

28 minutes ago, SrMi said:

There is no such thing as a lens being unable to resolve a sensor's potential. This has been discussed on LUF several times before.

Also, consider that 60MP has only 14% higher resolution in linear dimension than a 47MP sensor. Since the Q lens relies heavily on software distortion correction, I expect the corners of 60MP will be a bit better. I expect Sean Reid to report on that.

While I am hoping that Leica’s 28mm is up to the task…Ziess (whose word I will take over LUF) does say it is possible for a lens’s resolution to not be up to the task

https://camera-info.com/photocommunity/contaxinfo/pdf_files/Zeiss-Resolving_power_and_contrast.pdf

I’m not of either opinion…we will see what we will see when the camera comes out…but it may be something to consider.

Lots of people love putting old lenses on the Fuji GFX for this very reason…they love the look they get with old lenses and the images they get because the lenses are no match for the GFX’s sensor.

As the saying goes…bigger is not always better…we’ll find our eventually.

Edited May 6, 2023 by bobtodrick

[Simone_DF]

10 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

If you add the option of a Q35 or Q50 what incentive would there be to buy an SL2?

I'd buy the Q50 AND the SL2, and use the Q50 for when I want lightweight and small footprint, the SL2 for everything else, including an additional 50mm, plus everything above 90mm like a 70-200 or a 100-400, or everything wider 28mm, like the 16-28 Sigma zoom I already have. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

It’s really a very simple point. At the moment the choice is the SL2/S. If you add the option of a Q35 or Q50 what incentive would there be to buy an SL2? Unless you value the added weight and size of an SL2/S there’s every incentive to move to something smaller. But with the complexities of adding alternative lenses to the Q and the associated costs, I don’t think there’s any incentive for Leica to do this or shrink the SL2. 

I suppose that just shows we're all different. I just can't imagine the idea of choosing between a Q and SL. In my world's Venn diagrams, the use cases barely touch. At the fundamental level, the Q2 fixed lens and sensor just cannot compete with the SL lenses and SL2-S sensor. A Q3 with 50mm fixed lens will not change this with respect to a next gen SL

In my world, a Q3 is much more likely to cannibalise M sales, since they work in a similar range of focal lengths.

Edited May 6, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, bobtodrick said:

While I am hoping that Leica’s 28mm is up to the task…Ziess (whose word I will take over LUF) does say it is possible for a lens’s resolution to not be up to the task

https://camera-info.com/photocommunity/contaxinfo/pdf_files/Zeiss-Resolving_power_and_contrast.pdf

I’m not of either opinion…we will see what we will see when the camera comes out…but it may be something to consider.

Lots of people love putting old lenses on the Fuji GFX for this very reason…they love the look they get with old lenses and the images they get because the lenses are no match for the GFX’s sensor.

As the saying goes…bigger is not always better…we’ll find our eventually.

I doubt a 14% increase in resolution will have any noticeable effect. If it will, it would likely improve IQ with the current lens since the final output depends on the camera and lens and not the lens alone.

[M11 for me]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb SrMi:

There is no such thing as a lens being unable to resolve a sensor's potential. This has been discussed on LUF several times before.

Myths are myths are myths

[bobtodrick]

21 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I doubt a 14% increase in resolution will have any noticeable effect. If it will, it would likely improve IQ with the current lens since the final output depends on the camera and lens and not the lens alone.

I’m not here to argue…just posting a concern that a reputable website has.

I’ve been a Leica user since 1980…love their cameras and philosophy but they are not infallible.

Edited May 6, 2023 by bobtodrick

[Lelmer]

4 hours ago, trickness said:

They're not going to make a 35 or a 50 Q. The frame line/crop option bump already allows you to "shoot at those lengths" and the increase in resolution only improves that ability. A 35 or 50 Q would cannibalize from M sales, and having multiple Q versions with different focal lengths makes zero sense. Won't happen, they'd be competing with themselves and they can't afford it.

Why would a 35 or 40 or 50 Q cannibalize from M sales more than a 28 Q? not sure I understand.

[T25UFO]

Ah, so many comments on something that isn't going to happen.  

Sadly, whatever else is said, I don't think we are going to make @Simone_DF or @Lelmer happy ☹️

To paraphrase Mr Lincoln, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Edited May 6, 2023 by T25UFO

[thelivingyears]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb T25UFO:

Ah, so many comments on something that isn't going to happen.  

Sadly, whatever else is said, I don't think we are going to make @Simone_DF or @Lelmer happy ☹️

 

Well, at least they have made their point which is convincing and logical. 

Btw. who is “we“? 

 

[Lelmer]

20 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

Ah, so many comments on something that isn't going to happen.  

Sadly, whatever else is said, I don't think we are going to make @Simone_DF or @Lelmer happy ☹️

To paraphrase Mr Lincoln, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Don't worry, I am happy with my M's 😊

My point is that I would certainly consider buying a Q with a 35/40 or 50mm lens to complement my M, but I will never buy one with a 28mm...

Edited May 6, 2023 by Lelmer

[T25UFO]

35 minutes ago, thelivingyears said:

Well, at least they have made their point which is convincing and logical. 

Btw. who is “we“? 

 

We: used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. 💁

[LocalHero1953]

39 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

We: used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. 💁

In some languages there are two words for ‘we’: a version that includes both parties in the conversation, and another version that includes the speaker and some others, but excludes the person spoken to. 

The absence of the distinction in English has led to the snotty response “speak for yourself!".

🙂

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[trickness]

6 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Not really. For people that shot mostly 50mm doesn't make sense to buy a full frame 28mm Q then crop all the time. 

As for the cannibalization, M and Q are two completely different cameras. The M is a manual focus rangefinder with an OVF, the Q is autofocus, no rangefinder, EVF. It's like saying that a racing bicycle is the same as an electric bicycle and they cannibalize each other. 

I’m not referring entirely to the logic of the people who buy these cameras, I’m referring to the logic of Leica. 
 

I can’t speak for anybody else, but I certainly can speak for myself: I bought a Q2M because it was a monochrom camera with a lens for $3500 less than an M10M. I primarily use it in manual focus. The only reason why I remain interested in an M body (mono or not) is because the Q is a 28. If the Q3 was available as a 50mm, I would entertain no such thoughts. And plenty of people here have both Q and M (or SL) bodies BECAUSE the Q is a fixed 28. 
 

Leica is very smart about getting us to buy multiple bodies, platforms….they are always sure to never give us one camera that does everything. Quite like Apple.

None of us really know what Leica will do, but I don’t ever expect a Q with a fixed 50, no matter how much people here might fantasize about it.