Jump to content

Survey: Are you planning to buy the new Leica Q3?

LUF Admin
 Share

Leica Q3 Survey  

551 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you planning to buy the new Leica Q3?

    • Yes, already as good as pre-ordered
      168
    • Probably yes, got to check my savings
      58
    • I'm still waiting for reviews and first hand experiences
      45
    • Thanks, I'll stick with my Q2....
      150
    • Leica Q3 is generally not interesting for me
      57
    • Other opinion (please comment below)
      71

Recommended Posts

Aram Langhans

Aram Langhans

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/27/2023 at 10:34 PM, Mr.Q said:

No, I made the mistake once of upgrading to the Q2 and returning back to the original Q.  There are a few points that make me prefer the original.

1. What separated the Q from other fixed lens cameras (RX1, X100, GR) is it's simplicity and great haptics. I feel the Q3 is trying to do too much. It became bigger, heavier and clumsier as a result.  I have other cameras that can do even more, and with the size/weight gap decreased, I think I prefer the other cameras that offer better ergonomics and much better versatility.
2. The original 24MP sensor created the most unique images with grit as opposed to the more clinical/digital looking images of the high MP sensors.  Again, I have other cameras like the A7IVR for those type of images. And the 24MP sensor performed better than the Q2's 47MP sensor in low-light.  I'm not sure about the Q3 but it probably performs even worse in low light with more MP.
3. I have the silver Q which is the best looking Q 😁

The Q3 is miles ahead of the Q2 in low light performance, at least when I tested it against my Q2.  Not sure about the Q.  The Sony sensor of the Q3 performs very well at and even above ISO 6400.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 240
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

frame-it
frame-it

with a 50mm lens, i'd buy a Q3 and Q3 mono

Stuart Richardson
Stuart Richardson

Agreed with Daryl and frame-it. I have a Q2 and Ricoh GRIIIx, and I use the GRIIIx by far the most. This is a function of both size and focal length. Unfortunately, the very wide 28mm in the Q series

GaryBNE
GaryBNE

Definitely NOT.    After a long time saving I bought a CL, then saved some more to buy lenses.   Then I find you have abandoned CL and CL  lenses.    I thought I was dealing with a trusted company but

Posted Images

LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

Did you try the high ISO in dim light?  For me that is the main reason I will probably switch to the Q3.  It is SOOOO much better.  That really is my only major gripe with the Q2 that would make me want to get something else as I often shoot in low light and often would rather carry something ligter and smaller than my Nikon Z7ii with bulky lens.

No, other than the shady interior of a shop where there was bright sunlight outside. The consensus from others seems to be that it is 1-2 stops better than the Q2, but not up to the standard of the SL2-S. I could live with a minimum of a stop of improvement, but would be very happy with anything more than that.

The improvement in AI noise reduction tools has been a bit of a game changer, though one has to use them with caution, and it is at the expense of more post processing time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.Q

Mr.Q

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

The Q3 is miles ahead of the Q2 in low light performance, at least when I tested it against my Q2.  Not sure about the Q.  The Sony sensor of the Q3 performs very well at and even above ISO 6400.

Well if the Q3 shares a similar sensor with the M11, it will perform about a stop better than the Q2 in low light. I wouldn't consider that 'miles ahead' but better nonetheless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
TDE-Photo

TDE-Photo

Posted
Posted
vor 7 Stunden schrieb Aram Langhans:

The Q3 is miles ahead of the Q2 in low light performance, at least when I tested it against my Q2.  Not sure about the Q.  The Sony sensor of the Q3 performs very well at and even above ISO 6400.

I wouldn't call it miles ahead. The differences are very small to be honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SrMi

SrMi

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

No, other than the shady interior of a shop where there was bright sunlight outside. The consensus from others seems to be that it is 1-2 stops better than the Q2, but not up to the standard of the SL2-S. I could live with a minimum of a stop of improvement, but would be very happy with anything more than that.

The improvement in AI noise reduction tools has been a bit of a game changer, though one has to use them with caution, and it is at the expense of more post processing time. 

And more disk space.

Is there a comparison between SL2-S and Q3's noise? Within regular shooting parameters, I found the difference between SL2-S and M11 small.

P.S.: It is fair to assume that no other camera beats SL2-S in noise :).

Edited by SrMi
Link to post
Share on other sites
LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, SrMi said:

And more disk space.

Is there a comparison between SL2-S and Q3's noise? Within regular shooting parameters, I found the difference between SL2-S and M11 small.

P.S.: It is fair to assume that no other camera beats SL2-S in noise :).

I hope the Q3 noise pattern is better than the Q2’s, which I find positively ugly, with lots of white speckles. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aram Langhans

Aram Langhans

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, TDE-Photo said:

I wouldn't call it miles ahead. The differences are very small to be honest. 

Well, here are some totally unprocessed DNG files from the Q2 and Q3 side by side in Lightroom 1:1 screen captures.  Q2 on left and Q3 on right.  First is ISO 12500 and second is ISO 25000 I took at the Bellevue Leica store a month ago.  To me the difference is much more than very small, but I guess everyone is free to interpret them as you choose.

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!

 

 

Edited by Aram Langhans
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BobsFirstLeica

BobsFirstLeica

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Aram Langhans said:

Well, here are some totally unprocessed DNG files from the Q2 and Q3 side by side in Lightroom 1:1 screen captures.  Q2 on left and Q3 on right.  First is ISO 12500 and second is ISO 25000 I took at the Bellevue Leica store a month ago.  To me the difference is much more than very small, but I guess everyone is free to interpret them as you choose.

Indeed!  Thanks for the images.  The difference is night and day!

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
HL99

HL99

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

Well, here are some totally unprocessed DNG files from the Q2 and Q3 side by side in Lightroom 1:1 screen captures.  Q2 on left and Q3 on right.  First is ISO 12500 and second is ISO 25000 I took at the Bellevue Leica store a month ago.  To me the difference is much more than very small, but I guess everyone is free to interpret them as you choose.

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!

 

 

great comparison! the difference is indeed non-negligible. I do wonder with AI-denoise how much it matters anymore -- that said I appreciate how good the Q3 is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bobtodrick

bobtodrick

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

Well, here are some totally unprocessed DNG files from the Q2 and Q3 side by side in Lightroom 1:1 screen captures.  Q2 on left and Q3 on right.  First is ISO 12500 and second is ISO 25000 I took at the Bellevue Leica store a month ago.  To me the difference is much more than very small, but I guess everyone is free to interpret them as you choose.

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!

 

 

That's so amazing...I mean every day I'm in situations where i need 25000ISO...hopefully the sarcasm is coming through!

That's like saying...look how much better a Ferraril drives at 180mph than a Toyota.  I live in a city so...do I care?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Aram Langhans

Aram Langhans

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

That's so amazing...I mean every day I'm in situations where i need 25000ISO...hopefully the sarcasm is coming through!

That's like saying...look how much better a Ferraril drives at 180mph than a Toyota.  I live in a city so...do I care?

It does not effect your photography so you don't care and that is fine.  It does for others, and that is fine, too.  I was just presenting data in a thread that is helping people decide what they want.  I happen to like shooting in low light so I was interested in the comparison, so I took the photos to answer my questions.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikep996

Mikep996

Posted
Posted

IMO extreme ISO specs is about marketing.  The only use I have ever seen so far is to make comparisons on internet sites showing that one camera's output at (say) ISO 50,000 is a bit less awful than another camera's output. ;)     Admittedly, it's about how you use your camera.  In my case I have my M10R and Q2 auto ISO both set to a max ISO of 3200 but have never taken a pic where the ISO actually went that high.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rdf

Rdf

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mikep996 said:

IMO extreme ISO specs is about marketing.  The only use I have ever seen so far is to make comparisons on internet sites showing that one camera's output at (say) ISO 50,000 is a bit less awful than another camera's output. ;)     Admittedly, it's about how you use your camera.  In my case I have my M10R and Q2 auto ISO both set to a max ISO of 3200 but have never taken a pic where the ISO actually went that high.

 

Is it a fair assumption that an improvement is appreciated at 100% enlargement and ISO above 800? (Or something like photos in a museum?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucena

Lucena

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Aram Langhans said:

Well, here are some totally unprocessed DNG files from the Q2 and Q3 side by side in Lightroom 1:1 screen captures.  Q2 on left and Q3 on right.  First is ISO 12500 and second is ISO 25000 I took at the Bellevue Leica store a month ago.  To me the difference is much more than very small, but I guess everyone is free to interpret them as you choose.

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!

 

 

Interesting and significant.

No impact for me as my problem is the inverse, where I live and for the kind of photography I take I could even use less than ISO50, as I mostly use wide apertures for intense depth of field I have to increase speed…

Link to post
Share on other sites
SirBlunder

SirBlunder

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Lucena said:

Interesting and significant.

No impact for me as my problem is the inverse, where I live and for the kind of photography I take I could even use less than ISO50, as I mostly use wide apertures for intense depth of field I have to increase speed…

You need an ND filter for that…

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...