Will the Q3 bring them back?

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/26/2023 at 10:11 AM, colint544 said:

Nice to see a bit of enthusiasm for the Ricoh GR3 on here. I got one of those three years ago as a pocket camera. Ended up using it far, far more than I imagined I might. You can make stunning A2 prints from it, and it's fast and intuitive in operation. I still use my Leica M cameras, but I don't go anywhere without the GR3.

*Edit* - while I'm on, where are Leica's slick promotional videos of photographers using the Q3? Only YouTube bloggers reviewing the camera so far.

I agree GR III and IIIx are awesome. IIIx proves that Leica should consider a 40mm Q.

However buying into Ricoh led me to Pentax with K3 III Monochrome and then to good old ME Super with the excellent line of Limited lenses. 
They are super fun cameras and drive le away from Leica.
So I won’t buy Q3, not sure why I should buy the same cameras three times. Anyway the ugly tilting screen is a definitive no go for me.

[Advertisement]

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

[ken_tanaka]

Speaking only for myself...probably not.

Having owned the original Q and the Q2 (very recently sold) I’m a member of the group you ponder.  My answer: Maybe, but probably not. The Q3 does offer two of the three features I most wanted to see in a Q2 successor.  (Tilt screen and better AF.) And I have no quibbles with the quality of the Q-class cameras’ optics, build, or weather resistance.  The Q2 is an elegantly engineered camera and I imagine the Q3 to be the same.  Plus the tilting screen increases its usability by perhaps a third for me.

But the camera world has moved forward meaningfully since Leica introduced the first Q, and its fundamental value proposition has diminished.  Six thousand dollars is an unreasonable price for a camera that offers far less versatility and nothing fundamentally better than other cameras costing half that ... or less.  Yes, I know the schtick about how wonderful its 28 f/1.7 is but...c'mon.

Don't get me wrong.  I love the Leica brand, as evidenced by my long relationship with the M...and having recently updated my 35 and 50 to the most recent close-focusing models, not to mention my 90 and 75 APOs, etc.  But I accept my M cameras as the somewhat modernized relics they are; fun and precisely-engineered vestiges of photography's mid-century history.  I -can- do serious work with them but...

Nevertheless, my primary allegiance is to images, not to cameras.  Frankly, in my years with a Q it hasn't enabled me to make any images that I could not have made equally well with another camera brand/model.  Nor can I honestly say that it's produced a qualitatively better image than I would have gotten with another (far less costly and more versatile) camera. And it's certainly not the "compact point-and-shoot" that Leica is trying to promote it to be.   So my own inclination is that I've said a final farewell to Leica's Q.

Again, just my opinion as a member of the o.p.'s inquisition group.

[sebben]

15 hours ago, SrMi said:

Why? The DR benefit would be small, and the size and weight benefit would likely be lost. I wish Leica would still make an APS-C camera.

Because bigger sensors look nicer. The lenses don't need to be as wide to have the same angle of view. 

[bobtodrick]

On 5/25/2023 at 11:17 AM, Farrell Gallery said:

Likely that people won’t ever be satisfied, and never realize they’re usually the problem. The rest of us use it and enjoy it. 

I see this so often (work in the retail industry).  I deal with a lot of pros who are quite happy with their (ancient) Nikon D850’s, Canon 5D’s and Leica M240’s (and make good livings).

I also deal with a ton of ‘serious’ amateurs who are constantly trading up and showing how great the images are from the new camera on Instagram 😂   Now admittedly that’s okay GAS is what keeps camera companies in business.

Edited May 30, 2023 by bobtodrick

[hdmesa]

On 5/27/2023 at 6:57 AM, charlesphoto99 said:

That said, Leica would probably see an interchangeable Q cannibalizing SL sales, primarily. 

What SL sales?

 

 

 

 

😂

[ECohen]

 

I am very seriously considering a Q3. I’ve been looking at the Q for a while and being mostly a 35 and a 50 mm shooter. Upping the sensor size has got me ready to pull the trigger. And I like the idea of the 28mm for occasional use. Seems like the perfect auto focus family/travel all around camera. With macro. and hi ISO being a real plus.

I have to admit, I like the idea of prime lenses, and slowing down to make a photograph. But I realize the older I get the more they sit in the bag and I use the lens that is on the camera. Or I choose one lens before leaving the house.

I am even considering trading my MP 240 and four lenses. My photo needs have changed over the years and I am realistically looking to the future.

 

I can’t figure out what’s wrong with the Q3. It looks perfect as a family camera for someone that loves capturing and documenting memories…. quickly. So where are the flaws in this kind of shooting?
 

Are there workflow flaws? 

 

Not having used a Q, I have a question. If I choose to shoot with the 35 mm crop. When I download the images to Lightroom , do I get the 28 full frame or does it down load my 35 mm crop, discarding pixels? To say it differently do I have to re crop again in Lightroom?

 

PS I am a retired professional, so I get the trade-offs. But if it fits your needs, I don’t see any flaws.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by ECohen

[serhan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, ECohen said:

Not having used a Q, I have a question. If I choose to shoot with the 35 mm crop. When I download the images to Lightroom , do I get the 28 full frame or does it down load my 35 mm crop, discarding pixels? To say it differently do I have to re crop again in Lightroom?

Lightroom raw will show the full 28mm file with the crop rectangle in the middle. Jpegs will be cropped. In raw file you can change the crop size also. I used Q2 for family photos. It is great.  Only negative is the big file sizes for storage. 

Edited May 30, 2023 by serhan

[lencap]

I owned the first Q, buying it for convenience, light weight and image quality.  The wonderful haptics and quasi M feel/lens control was a bonus.  But I quickly learned that the main shortcoming, especially after years of shooting 50mm focal length lenses on a M body, is that the 28mm lens doesn't provide the "dreamy" bokeh that a 50mm lens does.  The lack of composition flexibility from having a 50mm Summilux (or even a Summicron) limits the way I shoot, uncomfortably so.

In all other respects the Q line of cameras is a winner, but if I can't compose and capture the image I want, then I have to decide if I can live with that limitation.  I found that I couldn't and sold the Q and moved to the SL2-S.  A heavier camera than the Q, larger, etc., but interchangeable lenses give me back the ability to compose as I like.  When I need a wide angle I surprisingly have another option - my ever present iPhone 14 Pro.  It provides a similar prospective to the Q, but is essentially a zoom lens with separate lenses as well as digital zoom options.  With the advanced image processing standard it allows me to make surprisingly good images with minimal effort.  And it also has a 48MP sensor that can be binned downward for greater light gathering at the expense of less pixel density.  It's not a Leica, but it's a very useful tool that's always in my pocket.  For the serious stuff I still have the SL2-S platform.  Incidentally, the bundled 50mm f/2.0 ASPH lens is wonderful - small, lightweight, and creates wonderful images.

If the Q works for your use, that's great and I'm happy for you.  For me, I'd need the flexibility of a 50mm lens and creamy bokeh options for portraits/family shots.

[davidbaddley]

No. Since I use 50mm most of the time, and that's really what I like best, having massive resolution only to throw most of it away doesn't seem like a very elegant solution. I'd get a 50mm Q in a second, but I understand why that isn't going to happen.

 

[swatch]

Don’t own Q camera so far but it is getting my attention since I lately just put TL 18mm lens on CL as daily camera for walk or coffee at corners shop.

Focal length is personal / subjective but potential buyers need to understand the intended usage of Q camera as compact point-and-shot.  75mm or 90mm lenses will not allow Q camera to remain compact unless the lens is collapse lens.  Nowadays who would accept the inconvenience of using collapse lens? 50mm lens can be compact in size but would not produce nice looking / pleasing bokeh due to smaller aperture.

A fixed prime lens on a camera, most potential buyers would expect large aperture, don’t they?

The design and specifications of Q are logical / reasonable to maximise sales / satisfy most fixed-lens-point-and-shot users.

Need to start saving now for Q3!

[LocalHero1953]

6 hours ago, ECohen said:

If I choose to shoot with the 35 mm crop. When I download the images to Lightroom , do I get the 28 full frame or does it down load my 35 mm crop, discarding pixels? To say it differently do I have to re crop again in Lightroom?

To be clear, Lightroom applies the crop (as if you had cropped in LR), but you can remove the crop just as you remove or adjust any other crop in LR. No pixels are discarded from raw images.

I usually want to recrop in LR to get my composition (and I often forget to select the correct crop when shooting), so my first post-processing step is to remove the crop from all my imported images and start again.

Edited May 30, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Daniel C.1975]

Hi, 

 

I am (was) more of an 35mm shooter. Still I loved the Q and even more so the Q2.

Especially with the Q2 and more so with the Q3 the argument of being an 35mm shooter is only half valid (in my view). Reasoning is that if one prefer to shoot 35mm only, one literally gets an Summicron f2(.1) lens with 31mp (Q2) or 39mp (Q3) resolution, plus the ability to move in DNG the crop or adjust to a wider view if preferable. 

For 50mm or tighter crops it is a different story if you want to have the f2 or even f1.4 depth of field limitation of a native 50, 75, or 90mm lens. With the Q3 I would say 50mm is still plenty of resolution and still okay resolution for 75mm, but depth of field is different topic - as always depending on the use case. 

Overall the Q2(3) is an incredible versatile and compact camera with, as every other camera, its limitations. 

 

Will the Q3 bring them back? Some of "them" possibly, others not. I dare an open minded non dogmatic 35mm shooter will look even closer into the Q3 than into the Q2. 

Correct is, a Q3-35 with a f2 35mm lens, could be a little bit more compact as the design would be a bit simpler - but it would be a less versatile camera, therefore I, meanwhile, prefer the 28mm approach. However, if you are more of an 50mm shooter, the equation definitely is not so clear and there are far more compromised to swallow - for most  people probably too many. 

 

Cheers

 

[Olaf_ZG]

1 hour ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

However, if you are more of an 50mm shooter, the equation definitely is not so clear and there are far more compromised to swallow - for most  people probably too many. 

 

Cheers

 

Indeed, to me, being a 50mm guy the Q is too wide, when set to 50mm, which I do all the time, the evf shows rather a small image…

[IanH]

I’ve nearly purchased a Q on a couple of occasions, but both times left the shop and site empty handed. Mainly because I’ve been content with my Ricoh GRi, ii then iii as a daily shooter.

The reasons I have paused are the size of the lens (it’s huge compared to my 35mm cron, I’d happily take smaller and slower), wider than advertised 28mm (I love 28mm but dislike 26mm) and the joys of retractable lens plus pocket ability of the GR series.

If the Q6 had the same sized body as current Qs with a  genuine 28mm lens of half the physical length (and even f/2.8) I’d put the Ricoh down and get onboard.
From a financial perspective it’s nice to be able to take the Ricoh anywhere and not stress about theft or damage with them being relatively cheap and unobtrusive.

 

[profus]

2 hours ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

Hi, 

 

I am (was) more of an 35mm shooter. Still I loved the Q and even more so the Q2.

Especially with the Q2 and more so with the Q3 the argument of being an 35mm shooter is only half valid (in my view). Reasoning is that if one prefer to shoot 35mm only, one literally gets an Summicron f2(.1) lens with 31mp (Q2) or 39mp (Q3) resolution, plus the ability to move in DNG the crop or adjust to a wider view if preferable. 

For 50mm or tighter crops it is a different story if you want to have the f2 or even f1.4 depth of field limitation of a native 50, 75, or 90mm lens. With the Q3 I would say 50mm is still plenty of resolution and still okay resolution for 75mm, but depth of field is different topic - as always depending on the use case. 

Overall the Q2(3) is an incredible versatile and compact camera with, as every other camera, its limitations. 

 

Will the Q3 bring them back? Some of "them" possibly, others not. I dare an open minded non dogmatic 35mm shooter will look even closer into the Q3 than into the Q2. 

Correct is, a Q3-35 with a f2 35mm lens, could be a little bit more compact as the design would be a bit simpler - but it would be a less versatile camera, therefore I, meanwhile, prefer the 28mm approach. However, if you are more of an 50mm shooter, the equation definitely is not so clear and there are far more compromised to swallow - for most  people probably too many. 

 

Cheers

 

Well said 👌

[roma]

On 5/29/2023 at 2:18 PM, nicci78 said:

Battery life if Q3 and M11 should be enough for a whole day of shooting. 
You can charge both with USB-C so it is not a problem anymore to have different type of batteries. 

It’s not so easily done if you’re in the middle of long-day assignment. 

[Aram Langhans]

On 5/30/2023 at 12:16 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

To be clear, Lightroom applies the crop (as if you had cropped in LR), but you can remove the crop just as you remove or adjust any other crop in LR. No pixels are discarded from raw images.

I usually want to recrop in LR to get my composition (and I often forget to select the correct crop when shooting), so my first post-processing step is to remove the crop from all my imported images and start again.

So, out of curiosity, why even bother with the crop feature of the Q?  Just shoot 28mm and crop later?  That is what I do with my Q2.  I have even removed the crop selection feature from the programmable buttons and never even think about it.  I just get what I want towards the center of the frame and crop in LR to what I had visualized. Don't have to waste your time trying to fit what you want into some pre-assigned crop factor.  I know the lens can take a lot of crop.

[Aram Langhans]

On 5/30/2023 at 12:16 AM, Daniel C.1975 said:

Hi, 

 

I am (was) more of an 35mm shooter. Still I loved the Q and even more so the Q2.

Especially with the Q2 and more so with the Q3 the argument of being an 35mm shooter is only half valid (in my view). Reasoning is that if one prefer to shoot 35mm only, one literally gets an Summicron f2(.1) lens with 31mp (Q2) or 39mp (Q3) resolution, plus the ability to move in DNG the crop or adjust to a wider view if preferable. 

For 50mm or tighter crops it is a different story if you want to have the f2 or even f1.4 depth of field limitation of a native 50, 75, or 90mm lens. With the Q3 I would say 50mm is still plenty of resolution and still okay resolution for 75mm, but depth of field is different topic - as always depending on the use case. 

Overall the Q2(3) is an incredible versatile and compact camera with, as every other camera, its limitations. 

 

Will the Q3 bring them back? Some of "them" possibly, others not. I dare an open minded non dogmatic 35mm shooter will look even closer into the Q3 than into the Q2. 

Correct is, a Q3-35 with a f2 35mm lens, could be a little bit more compact as the design would be a bit simpler - but it would be a less versatile camera, therefore I, meanwhile, prefer the 28mm approach. However, if you are more of an 50mm shooter, the equation definitely is not so clear and there are far more compromised to swallow - for most  people probably too many. 

 

Cheers

 

I was almost thinking of a Sony RX1 with the 35mm but then realized, even though I shoot a lot of 35-50 images, the added versatility of the 28 would be a real plus and not a negative.  I did wait until the Q2 came out for the extra pixels to be able to crop and still have a detailed image to do what I want to do and print fairly large.  And of course, the complex menu system of the Sony was not something I wanted to navigate after working with one for a bit.  Leica's are so simple yet do everything I want to do.  While I have a Q3 on order, I sometimes think, when I shoot with the Q2 that it is just fine for me.  Tilt sensor might be nice since at 73 the ground is a bit further away from me that it use to be, and I do a lot of dim/low light shooting and the Q2 does get a bit challenged about 1600 and my hour with the Q3 showed it was much better, and the Q2 autofocus is also a challenge at times, so who knows.  I am told I am still 4 months out, so lots to think about.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

So, out of curiosity, why even bother with the crop feature of the Q?  Just shoot 28mm and crop later?  That is what I do with my Q2.  I have even removed the crop selection feature from the programmable buttons and never even think about it.  I just get what I want towards the center of the frame and crop in LR to what I had visualized. Don't have to waste your time trying to fit what you want into some pre-assigned crop factor.  I know the lens can take a lot of crop.

I use the crop feature not for cropping, but to constrain the area within which multi-point AF and autoexposure operate. For street photography I can set a small crop and know that AF will only pick something to focus on within that central area, not some irrelevant feature at the edge. Similarly, if the scene I want to capture is shaded but there is a bright area of sky in one corner of the 28mm scene, setting a small crop means that auto exposure will be set for the central shaded part and will ignore the sky.

I actually find the Q system crop feature quite handy for these purposes. In the Q2 it would be even more useful if body/face/eye AF actually worked so one could more easily select which bodies in a scene to focus on, but sadly even with the smallest crop the Q2 still can't recognise a human being. The Q3 should be better in this regard.

[JoshuaR]

I'm one of those people who bought and sold a Q2—in my case, to move to film and digital M. I sold the Q2 not out of any real dissatisfaction but just because I preferred the M system more and wanted to fund an M lens. But now I've just bought my second Q2, because the Q3 drove used prices lower. So in that sense the Q3 has "brought me back."

I love the M system and my M lenses. But there are certain circumstances where the Q2 (and I presume the Q3) is just ideal for me. Last week, we went on a big family vacation, where my family joined up with aunts, uncles, cousins, and other relatives at a shared house. There were lots of kids running around, we were constantly moving outdoors and indoors, there was water and sand everywhere. The flexibility and speed of the Q2, its weather resistance, its silent shutter, its reasonably good AF, and especially its all-in-one-ness, were huge assets. Ultimately, I prefer using my M cameras, both for the experience and for the optics. But the Q2 was a better fit for this particular situation.

During the trip, I asked myself whether a tilting screen, slightly faster AF, and a bit more resolution would make a difference. My conclusion was "no." So I'm going to keep my Q2 for the foreseeable future.