Q3 & M11 – 60 MP twice in one ecosystem?

[lik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So many comments and videos have already appeared on Q3, mostly full of praise. After the few days I have them, I agree with this praise to a large extent. I also (still) have my Q2, although the heart of my photography is the M-System – now M11. If, for some reason, I only carry one camera, it is usually an M, less often a Q. 

So everything has already been said, just not yet by everyone? Well, the focus of my (very personal) comments is on my habitual sharing of two bodies – now Q3 and M11 in a personal ecosystem. They are therefore mainly for users for whom Q and M are equally important. In this respect, sorry if the following detail should be a bit boring for pure Q photographers.

The Why

I had already ordered it months ago after it seemed to be realistic that it would have the sensor of the M11. Why an expensive pig in a poke? Because then it wasn't one for me anymore. 

However, the 60 MP was not my main reason for buying. They are more of a side effect (which is quite welcome to me). And this despite the fact that one of my greatest joys in photography is a large print. After the whole work annoying image editing, the print, which finds its way onto a wall as far as possible, is a kind of return to joie de vivre, both visually and haptically. 

After I came to my M11 as the successor to my M10R, I had taken comparison photos from the 40 MP of the M10R to the 60 of the M11 and printed them out at full resolution. The difference is noticeable, but not significant. You need a viewing distance that doesn't have much to do with the enjoyment of the entire photo. However, I had the impression that a little more plasticity is achieved with the 60 sensor in conjunction with one of the M-APO's. But this is very subjective. Anyway, for many other reasons already discussed here, the M11 is a real step forward for me. 

This brings me to my real reason for buying the Q3: Together with the M11, I now hope for a camera system in terms of sensor behavior (and hopefully also in image processing) and Leica's typical handling, despite the fundamental differences between the two cameras. My strategy to carry two bodies usually includes one with WA and one with 50 or 75mm. The flexibility of changing lenses, even on just one body, is completely sufficient for me. Especially in a big city, I don't like to change optics. And it should be a great fit to have the same sensor. In other words, the sensor and the embedding in my user behavior makes this Q an M-compatible "quasi-system camera" in one "M&Q ecosystem" for me.

Form and Function 1 or: Leica!

It's nice that a Q3 looks like a Q2 in principle, because in my opinion a perfect design was already found with the Q1. Within this successful design language, the external user interface  has been further improved. 

The self-evident facts: The connections, USB-C, HDMI are solved in a contemporary way. A camera without USB-C would be unthinkable, if only to show EU compliance. Nevertheless, I like the USB-C port on the bottom of the Leica M11, which is also much criticized there, better. But it had to leave room for another connection. HDMI would have been missing, even if not for me, because I don't film. And of course, the resolution of the EVF and display is also a good development. Personally, however, I only notice this when I look consciously, less in the flow of photography itself. It takes about 1.5 to 2 seconds from switching on to the first glance through the EVF, irrelevant for me because I don't turn it off during use. After pressing the shutter button, it wakes up immediately. 

The most interesting change with an impact on several controls is also the folding display for me. It looks very solid, but it doesn't make it more beautiful, the smooth, clear line of the back and the left side is a bit broken. Nevertheless, it is a practical advantage that I would have liked to see from time to time. And already in the first few hours I noticed that I unfold it more often than previously expected. In the consideration, I also favor the principle of "form follows function". And with the Q3, in my opinion, Leica has carefully integrated the new function into the existing look and feel without seriously damaging the design language. And no - I would still not wish for such a display on an M. The additional EVF of the M11 does the job adequately. 

I think the arrangement of the buttons on the right is even better ergonomically. Because with it I have everything on my right thumb without leaving my left hand on the camera from the lens or even from the eye. Perfect. That it's the other way around with the M11, so what. Then I can see right away what I have in my hand.

The FN button, which was pushed upwards, seemed a bit uncomfortable to my large hand at first. However, this quickly changed into pleasure, as the FN1 button protrudes about 0.5mm further and is therefore easier to feel. Really well solved in detail. 

Form and Function 2 or: Form Factor 28

Does its 28 mm optics make it too top-heavy or even clunky? In fact, my M11 with 35 cron fits better in a very small bag. And a Sony RX1 with its certainly very good Zeiss 35 mm anyway. If I had one. I had actually considered them in the first generation. This miniaturization was so fascinating! In general, Sony had occupied an important niche at that time, miniaturized full-frame models rang the death bell of the DSLR for the first time. But appearances are deceptive. Sony simply pushes the miniaturization (and anyway only that of the bodies) too far. The result was a fiddly camera that is weak in the battery, prone to malfunctions, with an EVF subject to the miniaturization dogma, which I never want to use. 

Focal length 35 or 28? In addition to quality features such as resolution, a modern fixed focal length camera has also to include the ability to separate a subject from the background. In order to realize a bokeh similar to a 35/2.0, it takes something somewhere around 1.4 to 1.7 at 28. In my opinion, Leica had thus brought back the niche with better form and function than the Sony. 

Henri Cartier-Bresson demanded the right composition already in the camera and rejected crops. Thomas Höpker once told me the same for himself in a workshop. I think those days are over with today's sensor qualities. Less photo equipment in the bag with more options, that was not possible in the past. I practically don't need the so-called digital zoom at all and can already decide what I will cut away later because e.g. I can't get close enough. But if you want, you can also take a photo with the Q3 with almost 35/2.0 mm appearance at almost 40 MP and get the 28 mm on top of that. 

Realistically, with the same ergonomics and technology, a Q with 35 mm 2.0 would hardly be smaller than the current Q. And heaven save me from a full-frame Leica in the size of a Sony RX 1!

My small ecosystem has a gap between 35 and 21 mm at the M. The Q3 now fills it more compatible than its predecessor. Will I now use more my M with 35 or the Q3 with 28? This self-test will not be easy. 

 Here my first photos with the Q3 person recognition

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!

[lik]

Photography

I like the perspective correction on the Leica M11. It expands the possibilities of any optics. In architecture and even some street photos, I sometimes look for a compromise so as not to raise up lines that fall too much in the post production, because that also affects the quality. In this way, I need a larger wide angle (forget about less comfortable shift lenses, I used to have something like that) and sometimes part of the image becomes empty space, which is to cut off later. This option sometimes gives the Q3 with 28mm the possibilities you would otherwise have needed a 24 if not a 21 for. I like to travel with 50mm on an M and the 28mm of a Q, in my pocket if necessary. still 75 or 90 plus my highly valued Lux 21. I will probably never give up the latter, but if I want to be particularly slim, I will miss it less. 

Already on the first day in an urban environment, I surprised myself how extensively I had used the perspective correction on Q3. In hindsight, I learned my lesson from it. The added value of this function varies depending on the appearance. With a 35 and even more so a 50, the effect is small and usually less obvious. With a 21 it brings much more, but this focal length itself already captures so much that you have fewer problems with falling lines by cropping or choosing a good composition of a foreground. From my initially unconscious behavior with the Q3, I can only conclude that the perspective correction is made for my "intermediate focal length" 28 mm and at least provides me with the highest added value. The feature is now quickly available to me at any time on FN2.

The frame rate is not so important to me. I'm probably still one of those people who chase the decisive moment and would rather risk failing than holding on to it at 20 fps and later scrolling endlessly on the computer (or making a quick decision, which is no better than the one made while taking pictures). The AF including 4 fps at 14 bit is still enough for me. Gladly with double storage, if - yes, if - it would also have an internal memory. 

But autofocus is already an issue. With the same naturalness with which I manually focus an M, I almost never do it with a Q. And since I found everything except the spot focus on the Q1 and Q2 rather unreliable, I used almost only this so far. At that time, I had given up eye tracking after the first few attempts and had not tried it again after firmware updates. Maybe that kept me below the possibilities of Q2. 

But now eye tracking works great, including tracking movement in portraits. As reported here, the difference to Q2 should not be that big. That may be so. In any case, the AF now does everything it is supposed to do extraordinarily well for my purposes. 

Coincidentally I made a little battery test: After 650 frames with the camera always on with not a few image control on the display, frequent menu use, various AF modes, no geotagging, no standby for the app, it was empty. That's OK with me. But I will probably always carry one of my old batteries with me, but not buy another new one for 170 €. 

Below are a few examples with extreme use of perspective correction

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!

[lik]

App Photography

Finally, I connected them to the Leica Photos app. I am not an extensive user of this option. For future firmware updates, I guess I'll have to. In any case, unlike my previous attempts with M and Q2, the connection works flawlessly and quickly. The test upload of a DNG photo over 70MB in size was also surprisingly fast. 

Of course, the control of the camera is also great for taking pictures from a tripod. 

A but – twice:

•    The connection sucks much more battery. It's hard to imagine what this would mean with the previous Q battery. 

•    My iPad can no longer communicate with the normal Wi-Fi when it is on the camera's Wi-Fi. So get out again and into the local network. Without need, I will not do this. 

I think it would be great if the camera could be configured with all functions, buttons, and favorites from the app. I do this quite extensively and it's quite a fiddling with the camera. 

My conclusion on the connectivity of camera and app: It's more for those who need to take a photo quickly, be it for the press or Instagram or similar. I don't know how many Leica photographers this is true. Not on me. 

In fact, I really like Leica looks, like Contemporary and Selenium, which you can pull from the app. However, I would like them in LR in order to be able to try out what I want in the end based on the original DNG data. Neither a JPG nor an irreversible decision while photographing would be an option for me. 

Image Quality 

Since I (still) have the Q2, I was able to quickly make a few comparisons. 

As expected, the visible difference in resolution in the unedited photo is small. In terms of readability, e.g. far away license plates on cars, it becomes recognizable but very faintly. If I test the contrast and increase the sharpness a little to make artifacts at edges of high contrasts more visible, then these are lower in the Q3 than in the Q2. This can make a difference on a large-format print. The otherwise rather small differences are also no surprise: With the same lens, you don't have to use MTF curves, it is sufficient to simply compare the difference in line pairs per mm. And this is 16 lp, so less than 14% more. To one millimeter at 240 dpi less than one and a half lp. Who is able to see that in detail? Nevertheless, the overall view gives me a somewhat more vivid impression. Or am I talking myself into something? Would a little more mid-contrast have the same effect in post-production? Comparative expressions, which I have not yet made, will hopefully bring me closer to the answer. 

And so, in my opinion, the crop reserve in the real picture will probably be almost the same as that of the Q2. In this respect, the new digital 90mm zoom seems to me to be a pure calculation variable without significance in the image and driven more by marketing than technical progress. Personally, I don't use this crop option anyway. 

Other aspects seem to be important to me: 

(1) The sheer pixel mass could be a real advantage in perspective correction. A lot of computational effort always increases the risk of artifacts, such as sharp edges, etc. in the photo. The more pixels, the less visible they become, see above. I can't check that on Q2 due to the lack of such a function. But it seems very plausible to me. 

(2) Looking at the ISO properties is becoming less important to me with the qualities of today's sensors. According to photonstophotos, the  noise behavior from ISO 800 upwards in the Q2M is about the same as the M11. I still can hardly believe it, because with my Q2M I have already printed photos in great quality without annoying noise even at 8,000 ISO. My M11 can't do that. Actually, I don't use an ISO above 3200 (except for monochrome). In a jazz cellar, I would rather use a Noctilux anyway. Of course, the sensor's tolerance to noise is much better than that of the Q2. This is already shown by the values for the M11. My occasional astrophotography is now easy going in top quality without fuss with tracking with a Lux 21 on M11 or now a Q3. It has never been so easy. 

(3) The dynamic range is really important to me. On the M11 I had tried early on whether the reduction to 36 MP increased the dynamic range. My results confirmed half an aperture to an aperture plus. For nocturnal excursions at higher ISO values, in which the micro-contrast is lower than in glaring sunlight, I therefore have an extra user setting. 

Of course, DXO and others can help with noisy pics. (By the way, a Q3 profile is not yet available there.) But if I want to do a panorama stitch, which I do from time to time, these tools fail. LR's new De-Noise also reports incompatibility here but can in turn create a panorama of the images that have gone through the proprietary denoising beforehand. Important panoramas can therefore be optimized from the beginning if you still have the source files.

Now to the dynamics of Q2 and 3: After repeated comparison and adjustment, I arrive at a difference of about one EV. Maybe my attempts were a bit too conservative using LR, Jono Slack assumes about 1.5 apertures. In any case, it is a relevant improvement and, as in the M11, the sensor will probably make even greater use of its dynamic reserves at 36 MP.

Even if the sensor of the Q2 is already damn good, the one of the Q3 / M11 is another step forward. Comparisons in real analogue life by means of expression are still to be done. Nevertheless, for me, these first results are already a progress. Bracketing in order to improve dynamics in extreme lighting conditions in an HDR merge with its typical limits on moving leaves, flowing water, etc. hopefully this can now be omitted more often for me.

(4) Despite all the sensor compatibility with the M11, one open item remains: The processor is a Maestro IV compared to a Maestro III in the M11, I know too little about what is technically behind it. Can I really import into LR with the same default settings for M11 and Q3 in the future? Could the processor make a discernible difference? If that succeeded, my little ecosystem of M11 and Q3 would be perfect. I did a first test with my meanwhile somewhat dusty ColorChecker Passport under midday sun with AWB. I like to take AWB and correct if necessary. later. 

But no success: 

•    The AWB of the two cameras behaves differently, at least in my first test (which btw certainly did not really correspond to laboratory conditions). 

•    When neutralizing the WB with a pipette, both color palettes looked almost the same and, after some reduction of red, magenta and purple, also correspond quite well to the colors of the ColorChecker. 

•    Small differences were also shown by the exposure. In my case, the Q3 came a little brighter with aperture priority. 

•    The degree of saturation directly from the camera, including DNG, seems to me to be a bit higher on the Q3 than on the M11.

•    Homogeneity in sharpness. The import basic settings, which I chose separately for portraits (high masking, low detail protection, high radius, high sharpness) and the rest (masking and details medium, low radius, moderately high sharpening) for fast results, work equally well for both. Would be strange if not. 

So it seems to remain a necessity to separate import presets. But this can also be due to my inaccuracies. Maybe I'll make more attempts. 

My interim conclusion on the IQ: For my photography, the upgrade to the 60 sensor is worthwhile, but rather because of its less prominent features compared to the resolution. And some from time to time demanded recalculation of this really great lens is about the last thing I could miss. Under no circumstances would I want to see a less fast 28mm, no matter how much improved in MTF-curves. A focal length of 28mm is critical for portraits, but at 1.7 something is still possible. It can do just so much and so easily in top quality. Peter Karbe will probably be able to calmly announce for a few more years that the modern Leica lenses have reserves for considerably more pixels than the state of the art demands for full-frame sensors. 

The extremely boring JPG's below only come close to showing the differences in resolution I can see in DNG. I also see a difference in plasticity on my screen. Start with Q2, then Q3

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!

[lik]

shots with extreme crops

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!

[lik]

Form and Function 3 or: Critical and Kitschy

(1) To be honest, I don't care about the wireless charging option at all. With a camera? Should I put them on the record next to my smartphone every night? An intensive photo session would require spare batteries anyway, even if you put the sweetheart on the hot plate during the coffee break. Carrying the charger plate with you when traveling? Be careful, the subjectively required amount of luggage is a fund for psychologists and potentially another business model for Marie Kondo. 

This brings me to the handle. My experience is based on such a cheap thing for the Q1, which I once shot for about 29.99. I only use it when I put the Q on a tripod to be Arca Swiss compatible. And I can turn my cheap part into an L bracket with two screws and thus switch from landscape to portrait format in a very practical, albeit aesthetically less elegant way. The expensive Leica handle can't do that. Unfortunately, my cheap part no longer either, because the portrait format element hits the edge of the folding screen and can no longer be screwed on. In the meantime it turned out that, contrary to initial information, the Leica grip is not even horizontally Arca-compatible. For a range of functions as an L-bracket that makes sense in practice, I would evt. even pay the typical Leica price. But I guess, I'll be waiting for the next cheap handle. For freehand photography, I prefer a Leica without any attachments anyway. 

My conclusion about the plate and handle as they are: A gimmick, over-designed and under-engineered. Focus shift is not only unfavorable in optics, but also in the dialectic of form and function if it is at the expense of the latter. 

(2) Since its introduction in Q2, the status screen has been a major step forward. But all the following line menus are in my opinion rather a step backwards – in the Q3 as well as in the M11. Fewer lines (from 8 to 6!) mean more scrolling, which is actually unnecessary, because only numbered headline (others do that better), simply less Leica perfection. Now the Q has also adapted it to the workhorse SL. Why? With the S, they stick to the proven system. It may be a cost saving for the software development department. Nevertheless, I think that an opportunity for more Leica user interface has been missed here. The menus of a modern camera are not an appendage, but an equally important part of ergonomics as the buttons and wheels. More lines mean less scrolling and saves meaningless page numbering. Why not structure and name the menu more clearly, e.g. for the functions recording, play and system? Why give away an icon from the status screen for the Switch to the favorites menu, where pressing the menu button does exactly the same thing? Why an (x) in the profiles that does nothing more than a fingertip on the previously selected profile does as well? Why not put the standard profile at the end instead of the beginning of the row? If you have a lot of profiles, you don't want a standard profile anymore, but you have to scroll anymore due to redundancies. After configuring the camera with five user settings and the key assignments that were suitable for me, scrolling in the user settings on the status screen annoyingly jerky and even hung up once. In the end, it is not decisive for me to buy, but for me it is not Leica, and should not be unmentioned here. I wish there were more ambitions for the best UI there is, with the most accessible features, because it's for a Leica!

(3) However, there is one last really, really sad thing: When I was still shooting with a DSLR, the option of double storage – at that time on two cards – was worth a lot to me. I'm also used to mirroring all data at all times, in addition to the usual backup. With my first Leica M9, I was forced to do without it. It was a trade-off, because I wanted a Leica and I had never lost a photo on SD card. In my first Q, I had lost an SD twice. How glad I was that the M11 has the internal memory! And now this. No one can tell me that the camera wouldn't have had the smallest space for an additional internal 64 or better 128 GB. I can only think of two reasonably plausible explanations. 

Firstly, this is reserved for an upcoming Q3 "P", reporter, chrome, green, celebrity xy, i.e. the well-known iconizing model policy. Since I am often one of the first buyers – as an interested party in actual technical progress and less in iconic facelift – I have a disadvantage and an advantage. I don't get to enjoy the small improvement. But on the other hand, I have the purchase price before the first increase that goes hand in hand with this model policy.  

Second speculation: Leica has done extreme cost control to keep the price below 6k. A Q is not an M. The debate about the new, barely justifiable price difference between M11 and M11M may have contributed to this. It is obvious that a price increase is coming for Q3. And with one or two additional features, it's easier to test what pricing the market tolerates. And yes, I would also have bought it for a bit over 6k if it had had internal storage. But I certainly won't buy a next Q3 Edition xy with internal memory for the then called up significantly higher price. Maybe see you in a couple of years with the Q4. 

(4) Is there much to say about the new add-on parts in chrome and brass, i.e. the thumb grip, the round lenshood, the lid, the cute shoe protector and the button pin, which is the only reason for the "new" button with its screw-in hole? I don't think so. I had briefly mounted and at once unscrewed the brass lenshood in the store - not without shaking my head right away. A customer who can be persuaded to purchase the supposedly stylish parts plus handle, warming plate, second battery, protector and pouch can leave almost € 7,500 in the store with the camera together. I would somehow be interested in the sales figures of these masterpieces of iconizing marketing. 

My overall conclusion: Just EDC?

As a starting point for my considerations, it was not a bad strategy for Leica to launch this EDC campaign shortly before Q3. Will M and Q swap roles? If only I knew. In any case, on an upcoming unfortunately very short trip to London, I will take the risk of taking only the Q3 with me. 

The M11 and Q3 are undoubtedly a big hit from Leica. M and Q are the only cameras that, after many years of photography with different devices, always say to me, "take me with you wherever you go". With the M9 I had – after years of marketing-driven conditioning by the usual too slow SLR zooms – the fresh feeling of coming back to the beginnings, when my favorite optics were still an M42 1.5/85 from Görlitz from the 60s. 

It's a good thing that a Q3 basically looks like a Q and an M11 looks like an M. I like the basic – albeit probably not quite 100% –  sensor compatibility with the M11, the perspective correction, the tilt screen, the AF speed and also the new arrangement of the buttons. And the optical quality anyway. 

M10R plus Q2 has always been a great combo for me. But I like the compatibility in handling and sensor concept of an M11 with Q3 even better – the wonderful thing is the enemy of the great. However, if you don't have my reasons for buying at all, you will certainly not miss anything with the previous generation of Q (and thus also M) at a much lower price and probably no viewer or customer will ask for missing pixels. 

With the Q3, Leica is apparently focusing (even) more than before on limited useful (and not always aesthetic) gimmicks. I don't really care, I just don't buy stuff of dubious practicality. And if(!) the R&D department co-finances it, then go ahead! It is to be hoped that Leica despite all its lifestyle products will continue to focus on photography customers in its current portfolio, who want to buy the highest quality in results and handling for their money above all else.  

And having written that, congratulations to all new and soon-to-be Q3 owners!

Here are some examples of my first walk through the city

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!

[lik]

Into the sun...

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!

[lik]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Children's fun

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!

[lik]

Berlin - old and new

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!

[Eugene Young]

6 hours ago, lik said:

 

So many comments and videos have already appeared on Q3, mostly full of praise. After the few days I have them, I agree with this praise to a large extent. I also (still) have my Q2, although the heart of my photography is the M-System – now M11. If, for some reason, I only carry one camera, it is usually an M, less often a Q. 

So everything has already been said, just not yet by everyone? Well, the focus of my (very personal) comments is on my habitual sharing of two bodies – now Q3 and M11 in a personal ecosystem. They are therefore mainly for users for whom Q and M are equally important. In this respect, sorry if the following detail should be a bit boring for pure Q photographers.

The Why

I had already ordered it months ago after it seemed to be realistic that it would have the sensor of the M11. Why an expensive pig in a poke? Because then it wasn't one for me anymore. 

However, the 60 MP was not my main reason for buying. They are more of a side effect (which is quite welcome to me). And this despite the fact that one of my greatest joys in photography is a large print. After the whole work annoying image editing, the print, which finds its way onto a wall as far as possible, is a kind of return to joie de vivre, both visually and haptically. 

After I came to my M11 as the successor to my M10R, I had taken comparison photos from the 40 MP of the M10R to the 60 of the M11 and printed them out at full resolution. The difference is noticeable, but not significant. You need a viewing distance that doesn't have much to do with the enjoyment of the entire photo. However, I had the impression that a little more plasticity is achieved with the 60 sensor in conjunction with one of the M-APO's. But this is very subjective. Anyway, for many other reasons already discussed here, the M11 is a real step forward for me. 

This brings me to my real reason for buying the Q3: Together with the M11, I now hope for a camera system in terms of sensor behavior (and hopefully also in image processing) and Leica's typical handling, despite the fundamental differences between the two cameras. My strategy to carry two bodies usually includes one with WA and one with 50 or 75mm. The flexibility of changing lenses, even on just one body, is completely sufficient for me. Especially in a big city, I don't like to change optics. And it should be a great fit to have the same sensor. In other words, the sensor and the embedding in my user behavior makes this Q an M-compatible "quasi-system camera" in one "M&Q ecosystem" for me.

Form and Function 1 or: Leica!

It's nice that a Q3 looks like a Q2 in principle, because in my opinion a perfect design was already found with the Q1. Within this successful design language, the external user interface  has been further improved. 

The self-evident facts: The connections, USB-C, HDMI are solved in a contemporary way. A camera without USB-C would be unthinkable, if only to show EU compliance. Nevertheless, I like the USB-C port on the bottom of the Leica M11, which is also much criticized there, better. But it had to leave room for another connection. HDMI would have been missing, even if not for me, because I don't film. And of course, the resolution of the EVF and display is also a good development. Personally, however, I only notice this when I look consciously, less in the flow of photography itself. It takes about 1.5 to 2 seconds from switching on to the first glance through the EVF, irrelevant for me because I don't turn it off during use. After pressing the shutter button, it wakes up immediately. 

The most interesting change with an impact on several controls is also the folding display for me. It looks very solid, but it doesn't make it more beautiful, the smooth, clear line of the back and the left side is a bit broken. Nevertheless, it is a practical advantage that I would have liked to see from time to time. And already in the first few hours I noticed that I unfold it more often than previously expected. In the consideration, I also favor the principle of "form follows function". And with the Q3, in my opinion, Leica has carefully integrated the new function into the existing look and feel without seriously damaging the design language. And no - I would still not wish for such a display on an M. The additional EVF of the M11 does the job adequately. 

I think the arrangement of the buttons on the right is even better ergonomically. Because with it I have everything on my right thumb without leaving my left hand on the camera from the lens or even from the eye. Perfect. That it's the other way around with the M11, so what. Then I can see right away what I have in my hand.

The FN button, which was pushed upwards, seemed a bit uncomfortable to my large hand at first. However, this quickly changed into pleasure, as the FN1 button protrudes about 0.5mm further and is therefore easier to feel. Really well solved in detail. 

Form and Function 2 or: Form Factor 28

Does its 28 mm optics make it too top-heavy or even clunky? In fact, my M11 with 35 cron fits better in a very small bag. And a Sony RX1 with its certainly very good Zeiss 35 mm anyway. If I had one. I had actually considered them in the first generation. This miniaturization was so fascinating! In general, Sony had occupied an important niche at that time, miniaturized full-frame models rang the death bell of the DSLR for the first time. But appearances are deceptive. Sony simply pushes the miniaturization (and anyway only that of the bodies) too far. The result was a fiddly camera that is weak in the battery, prone to malfunctions, with an EVF subject to the miniaturization dogma, which I never want to use. 

Focal length 35 or 28? In addition to quality features such as resolution, a modern fixed focal length camera has also to include the ability to separate a subject from the background. In order to realize a bokeh similar to a 35/2.0, it takes something somewhere around 1.4 to 1.7 at 28. In my opinion, Leica had thus brought back the niche with better form and function than the Sony. 

Henri Cartier-Bresson demanded the right composition already in the camera and rejected crops. Thomas Höpker once told me the same for himself in a workshop. I think those days are over with today's sensor qualities. Less photo equipment in the bag with more options, that was not possible in the past. I practically don't need the so-called digital zoom at all and can already decide what I will cut away later because e.g. I can't get close enough. But if you want, you can also take a photo with the Q3 with almost 35/2.0 mm appearance at almost 40 MP and get the 28 mm on top of that. 

Realistically, with the same ergonomics and technology, a Q with 35 mm 2.0 would hardly be smaller than the current Q. And heaven save me from a full-frame Leica in the size of a Sony RX 1!

My small ecosystem has a gap between 35 and 21 mm at the M. The Q3 now fills it more compatible than its predecessor. Will I now use more my M with 35 or the Q3 with 28? This self-test will not be easy. 

 Here my first photos with the Q3 person recognition

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!

I love first photo. Beauty!

[lik]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Eugene Young:

I love first photo. Beauty!

Thank you! I was really in doubt but somehow I love it too. I made it even while running behind her and it was my very first experience with that new autofocus. Aperture 4.0 and 1/500 sec. 

[lik]

I was restless until I had another opportunity to test the resolution or the sharpness impression of the cameras.

This time the conditions were better, bright, quite contrasty sunlight in the afternoon. Cameras with spot metering and spot AF and AWB at ISO 100, aperture 7.1 and 1/500 sec.

•    First attempt with import into LR without import settings and thus with the slight sharpening automatically carried out by LR.

•    In the next comparison, all sharpening and also the denoising reduced to zero.

•    Thirdly, I sharpened all of them separately, which I (still) thought was justifiable. So it was different in the values: sky almost fully masked in all of them, details appropriate to the photos aimed at the same effect of still visible structures in the wall, but thus different strength, radius again the same, sharpening at the end almost the same.

•    I left effect controls such as structure, clarity and haze untouched.

The result was the following:

•    Even the unsharpened photos were easy to distinguish.

•    When sharpening the images as above, the limits of the Q2 compared to the Q3 became clearer. The structure of the wall of the portal was significantly less visible in Q2.

•    An attempt to make the structure of the wall recognizable in the Q2 by sharpening it in a similar way as in the Q3 ends in terrible artifacts on all edges. There's no way to get a Q2 photo as sharp as one from Q3.

•    Then I made an unfair comparison, the Q3 against the M11 with an APO Cron 35 (aperture in that case 6.8). Of course, this combo has outperformed everything.

My conclusion is clear:

•    The Q2 is still very good but cannot stand against the new generation in hard contrasts and fine structures. Even at a viewing distance of three or four feet with the naked eye, the Q3 produces much sharper, more vivid images, without having to search around with a magnifying glass. But it will probably only really show up on big prints. The difference is recognizable but not dramatic.

•    The M11 with one of the new top lenses such as APO 35 or 50 beats everything and is the very first choice for large format prints. However, I am pretty sure that in a fair comparison, that is, with M-28mm, there will be no such big difference.

•    Overall, the difference between the M11 and Q3 is by no means so great, even with the comparison, which in this case somewhat unfairly disadvantages the Q3 due to the focal length, that the M11 would be preferable for landscapes or architecture under all circumstances. Apart from extreme cases, I have the impression that I can do anything that comes to my mind with both of them and print them as I want.

•    The Q2 is actually no longer a match for the M11, the Q3 clearly is.

I have no comparison of what the new models from Hasselblad or Fuji can do with their 100 MP sensor when using their equivalent focal lengths. But I never before have been able to produce such quality with compact, easy-to-carry cameras anywhere as with these two 60 MP Leicas.

And then, by the way, I noticed differences in exposure and coloring:

•    In the exposure, the M11 was rather tight, the Q3 noticeably more brighter, the Q2 in between.

•    The colors were strongest on M11 with a slight shift towards magenta, stronger red and a little less strong on the Q3 with a slight shift to green.

I'm pretty sure the lighting conditions hadn't changed during my testing. I did it all in few minutes. Can the different cutout of 35 and 28mm – the latter with more green in the image – make a difference here? I don't know. In any case, in order to adjust the tint of both photos, I had to move the slider on the Q3 about 15 points to the right.

I know the criticism of the magenta stitch of the M11. But in comparison to the Q3 out of the camera I still like it better than what I saw today on the Q3. The Q3 may be exaggerating in the opposite direction. I have to keep an eye on that. Hopefully I've done something wrong and someday another photographer will come to a more valid conclusion than me. Because I definitely don't like it that way.

Here is the whole scenery and the sharpened photos that make the effects most noticeable. Brightness adjusted a bit, but colors left as they came out with AWB. First Q2.

 

 

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!

[lik]

Q3

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!

[lik]

And finally out of competition M11 with APO Cron 35

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!

[Olaf_ZG]

@likthanks for this thorough write up!

[elmars]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb lik:

 

I was restless until I had another opportunity to test the resolution or the sharpness impression of the cameras.

This time the conditions were better, bright, quite contrasty sunlight in the afternoon. Cameras with spot metering and spot AF and AWB at ISO 100, aperture 7.1 and 1/500 sec.

•    First attempt with import into LR without import settings and thus with the slight sharpening automatically carried out by LR.

•    In the next comparison, all sharpening and also the denoising reduced to zero.

•    Thirdly, I sharpened all of them separately, which I (still) thought was justifiable. So it was different in the values: sky almost fully masked in all of them, details appropriate to the photos aimed at the same effect of still visible structures in the wall, but thus different strength, radius again the same, sharpening at the end almost the same.

•    I left effect controls such as structure, clarity and haze untouched.

The result was the following:

•    Even the unsharpened photos were easy to distinguish.

•    When sharpening the images as above, the limits of the Q2 compared to the Q3 became clearer. The structure of the wall of the portal was significantly less visible in Q2.

•    An attempt to make the structure of the wall recognizable in the Q2 by sharpening it in a similar way as in the Q3 ends in terrible artifacts on all edges. There's no way to get a Q2 photo as sharp as one from Q3.

•    Then I made an unfair comparison, the Q3 against the M11 with an APO Cron 35 (aperture in that case 6.8). Of course, this combo has outperformed everything.

My conclusion is clear:

•    The Q2 is still very good but cannot stand against the new generation in hard contrasts and fine structures. Even at a viewing distance of three or four feet with the naked eye, the Q3 produces much sharper, more vivid images, without having to search around with a magnifying glass. But it will probably only really show up on big prints. The difference is recognizable but not dramatic.

•    The M11 with one of the new top lenses such as APO 35 or 50 beats everything and is the very first choice for large format prints. However, I am pretty sure that in a fair comparison, that is, with M-28mm, there will be no such big difference.

•    Overall, the difference between the M11 and Q3 is by no means so great, even with the comparison, which in this case somewhat unfairly disadvantages the Q3 due to the focal length, that the M11 would be preferable for landscapes or architecture under all circumstances. Apart from extreme cases, I have the impression that I can do anything that comes to my mind with both of them and print them as I want.

•    The Q2 is actually no longer a match for the M11, the Q3 clearly is.

I have no comparison of what the new models from Hasselblad or Fuji can do with their 100 MP sensor when using their equivalent focal lengths. But I never before have been able to produce such quality with compact, easy-to-carry cameras anywhere as with these two 60 MP Leicas.

And then, by the way, I noticed differences in exposure and coloring:

•    In the exposure, the M11 was rather tight, the Q3 noticeably more brighter, the Q2 in between.

•    The colors were strongest on M11 with a slight shift towards magenta, stronger red and a little less strong on the Q3 with a slight shift to green.

I'm pretty sure the lighting conditions hadn't changed during my testing. I did it all in few minutes. Can the different cutout of 35 and 28mm – the latter with more green in the image – make a difference here? I don't know. In any case, in order to adjust the tint of both photos, I had to move the slider on the Q3 about 15 points to the right.

I know the criticism of the magenta stitch of the M11. But in comparison to the Q3 out of the camera I still like it better than what I saw today on the Q3.

 

Our forum friend Don Daniel criticizes the magenta tint very harshly. I can see the tint clearly now, but the fact that I didn't notice it before is probably due to the fact that it fits some images or looks more pleasing than completely neutral or green. But Leica should make it much weaker.

[lik]

Hello, I'm back and I like to share a bit more practical experience with the Q3+M11 combo – mostly in street photography.

In order to experiment with the potential of the Q3, I focused very much on people in the streets, less architecture and buildings, if anything, then more as a background for people, or because it just attracted me geometrically.

• While I love and prefer BW on the street, I went for color and intentionally stronger saturated. Shadows are also a little deeper, as I often do in BW. In LR, the masking is often used to intensify the effects if necessary. So all photos shown here are edited in LR.
• I did everything only with 60 MP Setting. I now don't care that much about discussions in terms of DR. I can optimise the rest in the post if I need to. And that's not often the case.
• Apertures vary between 1.7 and 6.8, rarely even smaller.
• Motion blur minimized by mostly 1/250 sec to 1/500 sec.
• After a while I switched from single mode to 2 FPS to get more accuracy. Then it became too much data material for me again, so back to te single mode.

A few examples that could show how the 28mm in my opinion are suitable for deliberately incorporating larger dark zones, here from London:

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!

[lik]

But first technical things following my first topics about color rendering and resolution:

• Color casts are definitely no longer an issue for me. I do everything with AWB on the street because the light changes far too quickly to keep track of it. I would miss a lot of photos. And it's totally no problem. I made a "Vivid" import preset for more saturated shots (another one for the M11), after a few attempts I didn't even correct green, but slightly reduced red, purple and magenta. It is really a matter of taste in nuances.
• Cropping is not a problem. With 28mm at 60 MP, almost everything you want to do in a city is possible. It's really fantastic.

 

Three strong crops from Glasgow, approx. 50-60mm:

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!

[lik]

A strength of the 28mm, which in my opinion the 35 does not have - people in the urban-architectural environment, who can still appear more vividly sharp due to the many megapixels – Glasgow:

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!

[lik]

Similar in London:

 

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]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[lik]

The auto focus. The challenge is the person recognition which I mostly used:

• Almost 17 percent - yes, I wanted to know exactly and counted it - of my shots had a misfocus, which in my opinion should not have happened. Deleted.
• I lost opportunities to shoot I would have made with the M (albeit with a hyperfocal setting). But at the same time I also took a lot of shots which I wouldn't have even tried with the M.
• In a dynamic situation, it is impossible, at least for me, to change the focus point recognizing people using the arrow keys. Even if it doesn't fit into the design concept of the Q, I would like a small nipple.
• In some cases I can't figure out why the focus didn't do what one would expect: the closest person or the one in the center to focus on. I don't see a pattern, it seems really erratic to me.
• Sometimes the recognition stays with the person once focused, sometimes it changes. That's hardly predictable.
• In combination with perspective correction, the person recognition seems to be a bit worse. computationally intensive?
• The recognition of people works considerably worse in shadow areas, especially when bright areas in the photo compete with the shadows. Sometimes, even if there was only one person or a couple in the picture, it didn't capture the sharpness once. It is obvious that contrast AF is at its limit here. I have no idea when which focus method dominates more.
• If there are no people in the picture, you have to be very careful to set the focus point consciously, otherwise it remains often where it was last and not at all in the middle.
• In some photos, the focus jumped away from the people on the second shot, even though it was right on the first. Even without other people interfering.
• Very often the frame does not show green on the desired subject / person. What can I say, just hold it (iAF), very often the focus is still right.
• I was hoping that, if there are several people, the focus will be on those whose faces or even eyes are easier to see. This is not always the case. Sometimes one has sharp hair of the averted person and blurred facial features of the facing or laterally visible person.
• An attempt to very quickly capture a passing person through an open door, photographed from the inside out, showed me that this works in half the cases. It might be better to focus manually on the distance at which the passers-by are likely to be.

But as is sometimes the case, you keep some photos because you like them, even though the sharpness is not optimal. As HCB said right away: Sharpness, that's a bourgeois concept.

This one was unrepeatable. too bad, isn't it? But it was also very nice to pose.

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!