Leica Q3 Waitlist/Stock/Shipment

[Fortemd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I, too, have the Sony a7rV. I love it and the lenses, but it’s quite a bit bulkier and heavier. I ordered the Q3 because it had the same sensor in a compact form factor. Apples and oranges. 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[JTLeica]

42 minutes ago, brickftl said:

I have a Sony A7rv (as well as Leica Q3). Answer to your question: the Sony 24/1.4 GM and Sony 35/1.4 GM (both of which I own) are absolutely equal in image quality to that of the fixed Q3 lens. Both of those lenses are superb.

How dare you mention the S word on here brick. Sorry my point wasn’t clear. It’s not that you can’t equal the IQ with Sony, you could probably, technically better the IQ.

The Q as a package, with a tiny bit super fast and sharp lens, plus the design aesthetic, build, UI is just not available with another brand. Certainly not in the size package 

[JTLeica]

3 minutes ago, Fortemd said:

I, too, have the Sony a7rV. I love it and the lenses, but it’s quite a bit bulkier and heavier. I ordered the Q3 because it had the same sensor in a compact form factor. Apples and oranges. 

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!

Lovely shot. You certainly wouldn’t be getting that one with a Q 😉

[adrianh]

There is a trio of great small G-Lenses (28, 40 and 50), as well as a Sigma 35 2.0. You could therefore have a pretty similar package in terms of size, IQ and still be able to change focal lengths. However, I agree with the design, build, UI and value retention over the next years beeing in favor of the Q3 as arguments. 

[Cogito]

5 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Well if they do, it makes absolutely no sense at all. You really dont buy a Sony interchangeable lens camera instead of a Leica Q, they are so different. What 28mm or 35mm F1.7/1.8 lens can you paid with that Sony to get quality anywhere near?

I wouldn't use either a Q3 or an A7CR for professional work, but both fit the bill for a fun, compact, travel camera, different advantages to each. When Leica Store LA called to say they had a Q3 for me I held off just to see what the A7CR (and A7C2) would have to offer.

[leviathan7]

So bummed that the A7RC doesn't have a tilt screen.. just articulating. That was gonna be my go to, but I think I'm skipping it.

I was able to get my hands on an X100V for a good price, so that will tide me over until my June 1st B&H order gets shipped, hopefully this year.

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, Cogito said:

I wouldn't use either a Q3 or an A7CR for professional work, but both fit the bill for a fun, compact, travel camera, different advantages to each. When Leica Store LA called to say they had a Q3 for me I held off just to see what the A7CR (and A7C2) would have to offer.

Have you passed on the Q3 now then? The A7CR wouldn't replace a Q to me, but more a consideration to replace my Z7 or Z7 II etc. I don't know much about the Sony lenses anymore, I had an A7RII but things have changed a lot. But, I am don't with changing systems just because one camera might be better than my current workhorse. As, Nikon will be out next year with a 60mp camera and I will want that too 🙃

The A7CR EVF is such garbage I couldn't use it full time. It would 'do' but really not ideal. I'll see if the Sony idea of small FF cameras are adopted by others. 

[JTLeica]

15 minutes ago, leviathan7 said:

So bummed that the A7RC doesn't have a tilt screen.. just articulating. That was gonna be my go to, but I think I'm skipping it.

I was able to get my hands on an X100V for a good price, so that will tide me over until my June 1st B&H order gets shipped, hopefully this year.

I don't mind the Articulating screens, great for landscape but not for casual / street stuff I agree. That EVF though!?

[leviathan7]

22 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

I don't mind the Articulating screens, great for landscape but not for casual / street stuff I agree. That EVF though!?

I wouldn't call articulating screen "great" for anything except for situations when you're in front of the camera taking pictures or video of yourself.

Almost any other situation where you're behind the camera is a sub-par experience with an articulating screen (except maybe vertical shots, but a tilting screen sometimes also tilts from the side like an X-T5)

If you're gonna be using that extra grip on the A7CR might as well save a bit more and go for the big boy A7RV, it will get you the better LCD and EVF ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[Cogito]

29 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

Have you passed on the Q3 now then? The A7CR wouldn't replace a Q to me, but more a consideration to replace my Z7 or Z7 II etc. I don't know much about the Sony lenses anymore, I had an A7RII but things have changed a lot. But, I am don't with changing systems just because one camera might be better than my current workhorse. As, Nikon will be out next year with a 60mp camera and I will want that too 🙃

The A7CR EVF is such garbage I couldn't use it full time. It would 'do' but really not ideal. I'll see if the Sony idea of small FF cameras are adopted by others. 

I passed on the individual Q3 that became available, told Leica Store I was out of town, which has the advantage of being true. The Q3 EVF is definitely a plus in the Leica column, have you seen through the EVF on the A7CR? It's supposed to be better than that on the A7C, but camera stores here don't have it in stock yet. 

[JTLeica]

23 minutes ago, Cogito said:

I passed on the individual Q3 that became available, told Leica Store I was out of town, which has the advantage of being true. The Q3 EVF is definitely a plus in the Leica column, have you seen through the EVF on the A7CR? It's supposed to be better than that on the A7C, but camera stores here don't have it in stock yet. 

I haven’t no but it looks very similar in spec to the A6500 I have and I really wouldn’t want that to be my main camera / evf, looking through it while shooting all day isn’t fun. It’s just not clear and make it significantly less easy on the eye.

It’s a shame it’s not just the very common 3.7mp evf found in most half decent cameras now. I think it’s to really push people wanting the perfect setup into an A7RV etc. Can’t give the 7C range everything or it would hurt the sales of the larger kit I guess.

If you ever get one. You need to look at the Sigma Contemporary lineup. I have the 35 and the 90, two of the finest lenses I have ever used. Almost like an autofocus Leica lens in some ways, small ways 

[Cogito]

Mea Culpa for my hand in the recent A7CR tangent. To bring thread back I offer this Leica shooter's review of the A7CR (Hugh owns  M, SL2, and Q3.)  Even though review (and comparison to Leica) seems glowing of the Sony at first, I implore you to continue watching, I might be leaning more toward picking up a Q3 (or Q2M) after watching this. 

 

[lukeadair]

13 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Well if they do, it makes absolutely no sense at all. You really dont buy a Sony interchangeable lens camera instead of a Leica Q, they are so different. What 28mm or 35mm F1.7/1.8 lens can you paid with that Sony to get quality anywhere near?

Plus, in 5 years, your Q3 is worth 80-90% of what you paid, your Sony is worth 30-40%. It's just nothing alike. You buy a Leica generally for very different reasons than you do a Sony.

If you think the Q3, or any digital camera, will be worth 80-90% of its cost new after 5 years, I fear you may be very sorely mistaken. Could you point to any 5-year-old digital camera today that commands such residual value?

[JTLeica]

3 hours ago, lukeadair said:

If you think the Q3, or any digital camera, will be worth 80-90% of its cost new after 5 years, I fear you may be very sorely mistaken. Could you point to any 5-year-old digital camera today that commands such residual value?

So, yes, I can. I will explain why too, Leica price hikes are very regular and also out of kilter with the rest of the market, that then brings up the price of use equipment with it of course. I might have been too excited saying 90%... Sorry

The original Leica Q was purchased for £2900 when released back in 2015 or so, they are still selling now, 8 years later for £2100, or £2200 for mint condition camera in 2023. 80% would be £2300.

The Q2 is even more hardy, granted only 4 years old. £4250 new and sells now for between £3500 min, and £3900 for a perfect copy. That is quick incredible. By Comparison

My Nikon Z7 I bought for £3300, now sells used for £1200-1500 for a perfect one. 90% was too rich I will admit, but 70-80% of its original value 8 years later for almost any Leica camera is incredible.

The M Monochrome 246 when released in 2015 I think was pretty overpriced vs the colour M240. It was in terms of the price difference in the M10 R vs Mono or M11 vs M11M etc. So those prices have halved now. Plus I think the M residuals now are being effected by the huge MP count in the recent M's... I guess for most, or some, it is less attractive to buy a 24mp M, when there are 40 and 60 MP units available.

[JTLeica]

7 hours ago, Cogito said:

Mea Culpa for my hand in the recent A7CR tangent. To bring thread back I offer this Leica shooter's review of the A7CR (Hugh owns  M, SL2, and Q3.)  Even though review (and comparison to Leica) seems glowing of the Sony at first, I implore you to continue watching, I might be leaning more toward picking up a Q3 (or Q2M) after watching this. 

 

I like this chap, I will have a watch. He has a very relaxing manner.

[JTLeica]

So my Q3 arrived, I ordered it on the 14th August and it arrived today.

If anyone in the UK 'needs' one, PM me and I can share the details of the company I ordered from.

[Miltz]

For those who are saying Sony is an option I disagree. You’re not buying a Leica because it’s 60 megapixels. I know I didn’t. The Sony cameras feel like s… And work completely different. They are amazing tech but that’s it. The Nikon Z feels great but it’s not even close to the Leica. Especially when it comes to simplicity.

[lukeadair]

8 hours ago, JTLeica said:

So, yes, I can. I will explain why too, Leica price hikes are very regular and also out of kilter with the rest of the market, that then brings up the price of use equipment with it of course. I might have been too excited saying 90%... Sorry

The original Leica Q was purchased for £2900 when released back in 2015 or so, they are still selling now, 8 years later for £2100, or £2200 for mint condition camera in 2023. 80% would be £2300.

The Q2 is even more hardy, granted only 4 years old. £4250 new and sells now for between £3500 min, and £3900 for a perfect copy. That is quick incredible. By Comparison

My Nikon Z7 I bought for £3300, now sells used for £1200-1500 for a perfect one. 90% was too rich I will admit, but 70-80% of its original value 8 years later for almost any Leica camera is incredible.

The M Monochrome 246 when released in 2015 I think was pretty overpriced vs the colour M240. It was in terms of the price difference in the M10 R vs Mono or M11 vs M11M etc. So those prices have halved now. Plus I think the M residuals now are being effected by the huge MP count in the recent M's... I guess for most, or some, it is less attractive to buy a 24mp M, when there are 40 and 60 MP units available.

I think our respective experience here may have something to do with the market, UK vs. USA. Examples: Here in the States, the original Q sold for $4250 new. I did a random check of five Qs for sale, each mint or near mint, all with boxes and papers and all accessories, and the average retail price of the five was $2,690, or 63% of original cost. Again, this is retail, so if you were to sell a mint Q to a dealer here (or trade it in), you would likely receive between $1615 and $1885, or 38%-44%of original cost. As for the Q2 (which is not yet five years old), it was introduced here at $4795, which later swelled to $4995, then $5495, then $5795. Taking a median of $5295 as original cost, I again searched out five Q2s in mint or near mint condition, again with boxes and all original accessories. The average cost was $4140, or 78% of the original median cost. In seven or eight months, when the Q2 reaches the five-year mark, prices will inevitably be lower. And again, if you are selling or trading in a Q2, you are likely to get about $2895 for it (Leica stores pay 70% of what they think they can sell for; most other dealers here pay less). That $2895 represents 55% of the original median cost.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Miltz said:

For those who are saying Sony is an option I disagree. You’re not buying a Leica because it’s 60 megapixels. I know I didn’t. The Sony cameras feel like s… And work completely different. They are amazing tech but that’s it. The Nikon Z feels great but it’s not even close to the Leica. Especially when it comes to simplicity.

I bought a Sony a7iv a couple of months ago while waiting for the (soon to arrive) Q3 and I agree with you. The technology was fantastic, but it felt like a machine that I struggled to control. If I were a professional I'm sure my opinion might be different, but as a keen amateur looking for a simple to configure, beautifully made, carry everywhere camera that takes amazing photos it was a long way from giving me the pleasure that my Q2 has.

Incidentally, my wife who cares nothing for cameras and has never heard of the "Leica Look" thought that the Q2 photos were much more appealing than the Sony. Not a definitive survey, but if it helps her to approve my Leica purchases, who am I to disagree!

[gotium]

17 hours ago, Cogito said:

 Even though review (and comparison to Leica) seems glowing of the Sony at first, I implore you to continue watching…

Indeed, he sums it up nicely in the last few minutes.