Q3 - underwhelmed after 1 week

[liggy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, AussieQ said:

The sad thing is that with the shortage in Q3's, there is most certainly someone else who is patiently waiting for one and they have missed out because you have it. Perhaps you aren't a Leica owner and should have stayed with your alternate brand and left the camera to someone who would appreciate the work, design and level of detail put into these cameras.

Sell it now and give someone else who appreciates the camera and brand a chance to enjoy it.

But he *is* a Leica M11 owner.   

Different strokes - I actually prefer the Q2 to the M11.  Just not a rangefinder kind of guy.  Your condescension towards the OP is IMO unwarranted and uncool.

Edited July 30, 2023 by liggy

[SoCalLeicanator]

16 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I would say return it if you can. Don't mess around with it another few weeks and find out that you can no longer return it. The Q3, like the other Q cameras, has some very good characteristics, but all the things you say are accurate. It's EVF is not as good as the best, its AF is not going to beat a top of the range Sony, and its lens is not sharp enough to fully utilize 60mp across the frame. The lens is quite wide compared to other 28mm lenses and it is not going to give you as much separation as a longer lens. If you want a mirrorless camera with Leica's best quality, the SL series and an APO Summicron is more the ticket, but they are obviously a lot bigger and heavier and more expensive. The AF will still not get close to a Sony. Works fine for me at least. I would say either stick with the M11 (AF really is less necessary than most think unless you really are chasing after very active subjects all the time), or look at other options. I know I have said it a lot on this forum, but if you want a light and compact camera with a super high quality lens, there is currently nothing that can offer the combo of the Ricoh GRIIIx (or GRIII). They are very cheap compared to anything Leica, the lens is sharper than the one in the Q, and it is truly pocketable. I haven't got around to selling my Q2 yet, which gathers dust, but the GRIIIx I use nearly every day.

This this this.  My path was Leitz Minolta CL  --> Digital CL --> Q2 --> SL2-S.  I too was underwhelmed with the Q2 until the latest firmware update.  I picked up a GRIIIx between the Q2 and SL2-S and *might* (this probably won't happen) sell my Q2 and move to GR III for the 28 equivalent.  There are a few GR folk on this forum and please believe the hype.  The things is tiny, kicks serious butt and is about 1/3 to 1/6th the price of a single Leica lens.   It's a relatively guilt free investment, but the word is out.  GRIIIs and IIIxs are hard to find new these days. 

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, SoCalLeicanator said:

This this this.  My path was Leitz Minolta CL  --> Digital CL --> Q2 --> SL2-S.  I too was underwhelmed with the Q2 until the latest firmware update.  I picked up a GRIIIx between the Q2 and SL2-S and *might* (this probably won't happen) sell my Q2 and move to GR III for the 28 equivalent.  There are a few GR folk on this forum and please believe the hype.  The things is tiny, kicks serious butt and is about 1/3 to 1/6th the price of a single Leica lens.   It's a relatively guilt free investment, but the word is out.  GRIIIs and IIIxs are hard to find new these days. 

I had both GR’s but was somehow not happy with the files, so I sold them. Pity, as the size is indeed great.

[EJS73]

Never having owned a Q, I wonder why people are not happy with them. Apart from the realisation that a single WA lens is too restricting and that it best focuses in AFS single point, is there anything else?

I am actually looking to buy a new Q2 while I still can.

Edited July 31, 2023 by EJS73

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, EJS73 said:

Never having owned a Q, I wonder why people are not happy with them. Apart from the realisation that a single WA lens is too restricting and that it best focuses in AFS single point, is there anything else?

I am actually looking to buy a new Q2 while I still can.

In my mind they are a bit neither here nor there. They are too big and heavy to be a truly compact camera, but not as good as the "full on" M or SL cameras. This would be ok if the lens was extremely good, but at 47 or 60mp it is quite good, but not extremely so. If you primarily use it for photos where edge to edge performance is not that important, you might not notice. In the original Q the lens was more than sufficient. On 60mp....not quite as great. Clearly they appeal to a very large number of users, since they are one of Leica's best sellers, but for me at least, it did not quite find a niche. I truly do hope they do a variant with a longer, sharper lens however. Even if they slow it down to 2.8 or so, as long as they make it more compact and sharper. If the camera was the same size but the lens smaller, I think it would fit its roll as a "second camera" a bit better. I guess the camera I am thinking as a model for it would be the Hexar AF, which is a bit wider, but flatter and lighter, so it is a bit more suitable as a travel or daily user, even though it is not a true compact.

[FusionX.Photo]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In my mind they are a bit neither here nor there. They are too big and heavy to be a truly compact camera, but not as good as the "full on" M or SL cameras. This would be ok if the lens was extremely good, but at 47 or 60mp it is quite good, but not extremely so. If you primarily use it for photos where edge to edge performance is not that important, you might not notice. In the original Q the lens was more than sufficient. On 60mp....not quite as great. Clearly they appeal to a very large number of users, since they are one of Leica's best sellers, but for me at least, it did not quite find a niche. I truly do hope they do a variant with a longer, sharper lens however. Even if they slow it down to 2.8 or so, as long as they make it more compact and sharper. If the camera was the same size but the lens smaller, I think it would fit its roll as a "second camera" a bit better. I guess the camera I am thinking as a model for it would be the Hexar AF, which is a bit wider, but flatter and lighter, so it is a bit more suitable as a travel or daily user, even though it is not a true compact.

The AF is significantly better than the SL. As for the lens, I think that view is very firmly in the minority, it’s more than good enough for 60mp.

[McMx72]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have to say, as someone with a GRIII (which I dearly, dearly love) and an ordered Q3, this is a bit of a sobering thread (and it‘s not the only one). 
 

If only the GRIII had a viewfinder.  😕

[EJS73]

1 hour ago, FusionX.Photo said:

The AF is significantly better than the SL. As for the lens, I think that view is very firmly in the minority, it’s more than good enough for 60mp.

The Q2's is? Or the Q3's? My interest is with the Q2, the flipscreen and additional ports don't do anything for the camera's good looks or premium feel. I do appreciate the additional use of these features, but I appreciate the aesthetics of the Q2 more, in this case.

[EJS73]

41 minutes ago, McMx72 said:

I have to say, as someone with a GRIII (which I dearly, dearly love) and an ordered Q3, this is a bit of a sobering thread (and it‘s not the only one). 
 

If only the GRIII had a viewfinder.  😕

Bring on the GRX mark II!

[adrianh]

5 minutes ago, EJS73 said:

The Q2's is? Or the Q3's? My interest is with the Q2, the flipscreen and additional ports don't do anything for the camera's good looks or premium feel. I do appreciate the additional use of these features, but I appreciate the aesthetics of the Q2 more, in this case.

I would think that right now, with a significant discount, the Q2 is the better value proposition. Word is out that Leica might come out with a Q3-S that has exactily those features at a lower price point than the Q3. But if you get a Q2 heavily discounted right now...why not? 

[LocalHero1953]

I got the Q2 last year as a replacement for the CL and its lenses - not because I had issues with the CL, but it simplified the systems I have (SL2-S, film cameras), and clarified what I use them for. Although I had four CL lenses, I didn't actually need them all for family/social/travel. The Q2 covers the classic Leica 28-90 range well (OK, it does 90mm to 1930s Leica standards), producing high quality images for most purposes.

For a long time I was obsessed with finding a truly pocketable camera: M2 + various collapsible lenses, the TL2+18mm, Ricoh GRD4, my wife's Rollei 35. In the end common sense told me that I have a limited number of pockets and I don't want to load them so they pull my trousers down (my Leica Standard is very pocketable, but I need a tight belt). So it's smartphone in one and wallet in the other - no room for anything else. A camera goes in a bag over my shoulder, where the size of a Q2 is not an issue.

[EJS73]

My reason for considering a Q2 would be to complement an M camera. The size and lack of features are good for this purpose. I wouldn't be comparing against the SL2S or other mirrorless systems, with more impressive internals and the external size to hold them.

[FusionX.Photo]

2 hours ago, EJS73 said:

The Q2's is? Or the Q3's? My interest is with the Q2, the flipscreen and additional ports don't do anything for the camera's good looks or premium feel. I do appreciate the additional use of these features, but I appreciate the aesthetics of the Q2 more, in this case.

Q3 seeing as this thread was about someone’s perception of the Q3.

[EJS73]

12 minutes ago, FusionX.Photo said:

Q3 seeing as this thread was about someone’s perception of the Q3.

Is there a marked AF difference between the Q2 and Q3, when single point AF-S is concerned?

[JoshuaR]

In my experience, the Q series and Ricoh GR series are not actually comparable or related. Not saying that’s the case universally - but it’s the case for me. I take my GR III/IIIx (I’ve owned both, currently have the IIIx) with me when I want a pocket camera. I take the Q2 when I want a full-featured camera with proper viewfinder and excellent AF/MF. (The MF system on the Q cameras is extraordinarily good—I use it at least half the time.) I have taken beautiful pictures with the Ricohs, but I find the Q2’s images superior. (Though not quite as beautiful as what I can get out of an M.)

I understand the underwhelming-ness of the Q2; after using one for about a year and a half, I sold it, but immediately regretted it and eventually repurchased it. To me, it’s not an inspiring or “artistic” camera, but a kind of practical documentary machine. I prefer to use my Ms because they’re more fun, but I’m grateful to have a Q2 around, both for snapshots and for fast-moving or unpredictable situations or trips where I just don’t know what kind of lens I’ll want to use. The Q2’s particular combination of small-ish size, low-ish weight, adequate battery, total silence, weather resistance, high resolution, AF/MF, and optical quality is unique among cameras I’ve used. (I’m sure the Q3 is even better.) I find that the particular balance of compromises involved in the Q2 hits a sweet spot of practicality for me. 

[1945 Mouton]

18 hours ago, LatestWord33 said:

I think the best answer on this was from Peter Coulson. He uses multiple brands and describes Leica lenses as having soul. He describes Sonys as photocopiers. Sony pictures are very boring, but you will generally get your shot. With Leica you will discard a lot of your pictures but end up with a handful of amazing pictures.

I think that is a silly statement. If Coulson is right, then anyone who picks up a Leica camera would become the next Saul Leiter. It's an over-romanticizing of Leica cameras.  Having said that, I readily agree that there is a kind of magic with Leica cameras and lenses.  Perhaps it is the fact that they do force you to work slower, or maybe somehow the quality of the camera inspires you to be more careful (contemplative?) with your shots.  When I raise the Q3 (and the Q2 previously) to my eye, there is a different feeling compared to when I shoot with my Sony cameras.  Maybe that's what baseball people call the intangibles.  And I have owned and sold the X100V and the GRiiix.  They are wonderful cameras, but the experience I get out of them is just not the same as with my Leicas.

I shot with Nikon cameras for over 35 years, but finally switched to Sony two years ago when I it was clear that for bird photography there was no comparison between Nikon and Sony, at least at the time.  I currently own the Sony A1 and A7RV with a dozen lenses.  I use the A1 for bird photography and the A7RV for landscape.  But for street photography, portraits and travel etc.., my Q3 is always the one I use.  I recently returned from a trip to Machu Picchu carrying just the Q2.  It was liberating not having to lug all that weight hiking up and down the mountain.

Every camera or camera system has its strengths and weaknesses.  And frankly there aren't any bad cameras today.  So let's not under-estimate what the photographers put into the pictures.  One could get equally emotionally affected looking at a blurry Saul Leiter or a pin-sharp landscape photo.

Like music, art offers up wonders in any genre.

[charlesphoto99]

I had used Q once for about a week before I returned it to the dealer. For me, it didn't do anything my M10 couldn't do. It certainly wasn't more compact (albeit a bit lighter) and I spent more time getting lost with the functions then the manual simplicity of an M. 

[AdHox]

19 hours ago, BobsFirstLeica said:

You are welcome!  I have personally not experienced any freezing or lockups.  It seems it may be something to do with the memory card.  Try different brands.  That would be an issue that would, admittedly,  get under my skin. A side:  Many years ago I bought a Nikon D3S that would freeze too often.  Imagine shooting a bridal procession and having to pop out the battery, wait, reinsert, and start shooting again!  That was the last time that cam was used for something so vital.

My sense is your "heart" has to be there with the Q3.  If your instinct is not there to keep it, then part ways.  Someone suggested a lens for the A7r5.  I tested the Q3 against the A7R5 with the Zeiss Batis 25mm/2.  That's pretty close in focal length and you get somewhat a "Zeiss" look.  The results were nearly the same with the Q3.  Consider that as an option.  Good luck!

Bob

Currently in the middle of six weeks in France and Italy, bringing the Q3 as my principal camera. It was either the Q3, or a Sony A7R4 (or maybe A1) with the Batis 2/40, with the 2/25 for when I wanted wider. Decided against the Sony to keep the kit simple. The Q3 has done everything I’ve asked it to do so far (until today when I had my first experience of the infamous battery issue) and I’ve not really missed the Sony’s additional technical trickery. 

[Segal]

I love both my Q2 and my M11, but they're very different cameras built for different purposes. If you don't enjoy shooting 28mm, it's hard to imagine you'd like Leica Q3.

I agree that the Summilux in Q series is on the harsh-sharp side compared to 35 mm and 50 mm Summilux-M (I also own both). But it works great for specific genres like street photography. My wife also hates portraits taken with this lens, BTW  

If you intend to shoot streets or landscapes, I suggest trying it before selling your Q3. If not, thousands of people would happily take it off your hands, and you'd even earn some money by reselling your camera. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[brickftl]

I suspect the OP and BobsFirstLeica have unrealistic expectations of the Q series. The Sony A7V is a fabulous cam for things that it does best, which include the ability to change lenses for different situations. I love my A7iv for performance images and portraits, but for street work, landscape/hiking/travel, the Sony is a poor choice compared to the Q3. 

My advice to OP - return or sell the Q3 as it simply isn't the camera for you - and there's nothing wrong with that. Even better, sell it to someone who knows, appreciates and loves the Q series (and is lusting for the Q3) for its many strengths in the aforementioned uses that put it far above Sony cams.

For me, as I posted a couple of weeks ago, I'm thrilled with the Q3. It's the cam I take everywhere and leave my Sony A7iv (with fabulous GM lens collection) on the shelf except when I need it for a specific purpose where it shines over the Q3.

And for what it's worth, if you love the Q or Q2, you'll be ecstatic with the Q3.

Edited July 31, 2023 by brickftl