Q3 - underwhelmed after 1 week

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wouldn't comment generally as your findings are pertinent to you, but the comment about your wife being too sharp is the only one I would question. The Q is known as having a super sharp lens, and its a key selling point. With sharp you can always make less sharp, but with soft you cant make realistically sharp again. Perhaps a filter for portraits is a good idea. What you are confirming is the great nature of the Q in terms of landscapes and street. Well IMHO anyway. In build its good, but I agree not as good as the M, but part of the good build quality from the M is an illusion that comes from the weight and the brass. The main critism of the Q I have had is that it is too easy for nicks on the side to knock the black paint off, I would prefer a DLC type coating. The Q is basically for the super sharp Leica look at low weight and 28mm. For any other FL you need another system.

[Advertisement]

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

[viramati]

One reason I won't be upgrading to the Q3 from my Q2 is that I just know I am going to be disappointed mostly with the AF when comparing to my Sony A1. I tried out the Q3 in the Leica store in London and was surprised to see that it still pulses in and out when in lock on continual AF. I mainly pair the Q2 with my Sony A1 and the 50/1.4 GM and this makes for a reasonably sized package. If Sony came out with a decent 28mm/1.8 lens I would sell the Q2 but until that happens I will continue enjoy using it

[BobsFirstLeica]

17 hours ago, brickftl said:

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. 

Since I was mentioned, I am curious what I said that would indicate an unrealistic expectation?  In fact, other than a typo above (there is no A7V), I agree with everything you say..... except maybe for saying Sony is a "poor" choice" for landscape or travel.  I'm sure some would consider their Sony suitable but not desirable compared to the Q3.  

The Q3 is the cam in a small bag hanging over my shoulder wherever I go.  Unrealistic expectations?  Not really.  It is what it is..... and that's a damn good camera!

Bob

[brickftl]

5 hours ago, viramati said:

One reason I won't be upgrading to the Q3 from my Q2 is that I just know I am going to be disappointed mostly with the AF when comparing to my Sony A1. I tried out the Q3 in the Leica store in London and was surprised to see that it still pulses in and out when in lock on continual AF. I mainly pair the Q2 with my Sony A1 and the 50/1.4 GM and this makes for a reasonably sized package. If Sony came out with a decent 28mm/1.8 lens I would sell the Q2 but until that happens I will continue enjoy using it

well sure the A1 has fabulous tracking focus but do you really need that high octane for the Q3? 

Regardless of A1 focus, the Q3 AF is a HUGE improvement over Q2 AF. I set the Q3 to AF-C, tracking and use the touch pad to set the focus point. Then just push the shutter halfway to lock on the subject and it sticks with the subject as it or you move. Really works well. But if you're expecting the Q3 to perform like the A1 locking onto a falcon diving from 1000 feet above in search of prey, then for you the Q3 AF will be lacking. 

[brickftl]

1 hour ago, BobsFirstLeica said:

Since I was mentioned, I am curious what I said that would indicate an unrealistic expectation?  In fact, other than a typo above (there is no A7V), I agree with everything you say..... except maybe for saying Sony is a "poor" choice" for landscape or travel.  I'm sure some would consider their Sony suitable but not desirable compared to the Q3.  

The Q3 is the cam in a small bag hanging over my shoulder wherever I go.  Unrealistic expectations?  Not really.  It is what it is..... and that's a damn good camera!

Bob

yeah, I agree, saying the Sony is a poor choice for landscape wasn't  correct. But I do feel the Q2 or Q3 are a BETTER choice for people who like the 27mm length (which I love) and therefore can dispense with the weight/bulk of carrying the Sony with multiple lenses. I've hiked all over western NC with my Q2 slung over my shoulder - it's weight and size make me forget it's there. And I absolutely love manual focus on the Q2/3 combined with focus peeking/magnification. 

See also my response to viramit above who doesn't love the Q3 AF because it doesn't compare to AF on the Sony A1 - duh

[viramati]

40 minutes ago, brickftl said:

well sure the A1 has fabulous tracking focus but do you really need that high octane for the Q3? 

Regardless of A1 focus, the Q3 AF is a HUGE improvement over Q2 AF. I set the Q3 to AF-C, tracking and use the touch pad to set the focus point. Then just push the shutter halfway to lock on the subject and it sticks with the subject as it or you move. Really works well. But if you're expecting the Q3 to perform like the A1 locking onto a falcon diving from 1000 feet above in search of prey, then for you the Q3 AF will be lacking. 

In fact I said I don't expect the Q3 to focus like the A1 and now for the type of camera that the Q series is I find focussing on the Q2 on the whole to be good enough. In fact it's continuous lock on AF is not so bad if you can live with the pulsing in and out of the contrast detect system. I was though slightly surprised to see a little of this behaviour still when I tried out the Q3 which has a hybrid pixel/contrast detect system.

[EJS73]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For me the differentiator with a Q is its form factor, nothing else. I've grown so fond of the size and shape of the M11 and the smaller M lenses (hadn't used a rangefinder after selling my last Ms over fifteen years ago). It makes me feel less conspicuous even if in reality I'm maybe not. The SL2S is a beauty in an industrial sense, but with its additional cm, power tool grip, prominent EVF hump and modern controls, even with a small lens mounted, not nearly as sleek in less formal / social settings. The Z8, the other big camera in the house, even more so: beautiful on the inside but a face only a mother could love. In this case, I think simplicity on the outside is a very real part of the specs, and it's what's drawing me towards a Q(2).

[JoshuaR]

38 minutes ago, EJS73 said:

For me the differentiator with a Q is its form factor, nothing else. I've grown so fond of the size and shape of the M11 and the smaller M lenses (hadn't used a rangefinder after selling my last Ms over fifteen years ago). It makes me feel less conspicuous even if in reality I'm maybe not. The SL2S is a beauty in an industrial sense, but with its additional cm, power tool grip, prominent EVF hump and modern controls, even with a small lens mounted, not nearly as sleek in less formal / social settings. The Z8, the other big camera in the house, even more so: beautiful on the inside but a face only a mother could love. In this case, I think simplicity on the outside is a very real part of the specs, and it's what's drawing me towards a Q(2).

I find that this is really true with the Q2. It's discrete. I was at a fancy event a couple of months ago—sort of a TED type thing, with talks, musical performances, cocktail hours, and so on. The photographer had a Q2. The camera was small and completely silent. (The silence was a big deal during the music.) And he had no camera bag and never changed lenses. I think that even an M camera would've been more intrusive.

[liggy]

2 hours ago, brickftl said:

yeah, I agree, saying the Sony is a poor choice for landscape wasn't  correct. But I do feel the Q2 or Q3 are a BETTER choice for people who like the 27mm length (which I love) and therefore can dispense with the weight/bulk of carrying the Sony with multiple lenses. I've hiked all over western NC with my Q2 slung over my shoulder - it's weight and size make me forget it's there. And I absolutely love manual focus on the Q2/3 combined with focus peeking/magnification. 

See also my response to viramit above who doesn't love the Q3 AF because it doesn't compare to AF on the Sony A1 - duh

Different strokes, I guess.  If the outing was purely for landscape I would choose my A1 + 24GM over my Q2.  Not much of a weight differential.  

Love the Q2 as a grab and go daily but I wouldn't characterize it as the killer app for landscape.

[adrianh]

On 7/30/2023 at 9:31 PM, tumanov said:

Since you got both Q3 and A7RV in hands right now (and a bunch of lenses), is there a lens that could fit on your Sony that would get it close in size to Q3 or is Q3 way smaller? Thanks!

I have been using the A7RV with the super light and small 16-35 PZ or the GM50 for walk around, the 16-35 came in very handy in NYC.  However, due to the arrival of the M11 with the Luxes, I didn't use the GM as much as it deserves. 

I've attached 2 Q&D pics for size comparison: Q3-M11+35-A7RV+16-35 and Q3-M11+50-A7RV+50

 

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!

[M11 for me]

OMG, what an asvantage for the Q3.

[liggy]

50 minutes ago, M11 for me said:

OMG, what an asvantage for the Q3.

It's pretty easy to go compact on the A1 if needed.  Voigtlander 15mm attached.

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!

[Segal]

1 hour ago, liggy said:

It's pretty easy to go compact on the A1 if needed.  Voigtlander 15mm attached.

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!

But aren't you forgoing AF by using a Voigtlander on A1? 

I own a Sony A1; it's a pretty hefty camera that draws attention. Q is a bit more discreet. 

I guess if you wanted something unobtrusive, you'd go with a GRIII. 

[liggy]

32 minutes ago, Segal said:

But aren't you forgoing AF by using a Voigtlander on A1? 

I own a Sony A1; it's a pretty hefty camera that draws attention. Q is a bit more discreet. 

I guess if you wanted something unobtrusive, you'd go with a GRIII. 

Yep - the Voigtlanders are MF.  I really don't care about af for landscape.  That's where a 9million dot EVF becomes very useful in obtaining focus.

Lol... if I want unobtrusive I use my iPhone.  Not really a fan of using the LCD for shooting unless it is a tilting/pivoting design and I'm shooting really low or high.

That's one of the reasons I'm happy with the Q2 - I really don't care *that* much about af for casual shooting so the improvement of the Q3 vs. the Q2 really isn't important for my use case.  It very well may be for others.

[Tomas Eriksson]

On 7/30/2023 at 12:29 AM, adrianh said:

OK, the lens is very sharp in the middle. However, I have noticed that for example, at 1.7 not everything that I expected to be  in focus was sharp ( eye sharp, bag in the hand and the watch on the wrist not sharp anymore, both beeing the the same focal plane as the eye). My wife also  complained instantly about her portraits beeing to sharp, so I took the M11 with the 35 and tried to shoot both and replicate the pictures as good as I could. Blind testing with 10 pics, she picked without hesitation all the ones shoot with the 35 Summilux. I can correct that in post of course, but then again, I am yet to see that Leica Look. 26mm (realistically), combined with "only" 1.7 is no match for the separation the 35 Summilux can provide, let alone the 50. 

Would love dig into the issues regarding optical quality. Would you mind sharing pictures on where details you expect being sharp aren’t so we could analyze?

In regards of subject separation comparing to 35 lux your experience sounds about right. Taking a photo of something 2m away you will have roughly about 30cm depth of field with the 35mm vs closer to 60cm with the 28mm.

[adrianh]

13 hours ago, Tomas Eriksson said:

Would love dig into the issues regarding optical quality. Would you mind sharing pictures on where details you expect being sharp aren’t so we could analyze?

In regards of subject separation comparing to 35 lux your experience sounds about right. Taking a photo of something 2m away you will have roughly about 30cm depth of field with the 35mm vs closer to 60cm with the 28mm.

It's probably due to the field curvature as her eyes were in focus but her purse and her watch were not. I might take new test shots (the old ones have not been cleared for publishing 😀 ) .

In terms of subject separation, it's probably not only about the focal length difference. I've seen the Q lens compared to the real 28 Summilux and the latter renders the out of focus areas differently, giving more of that 3D look.  

Edited August 2, 2023 by adrianh

[Qwertynm]

As someone coming from the Canon R5 I too had a bit of a sobering moment when I shot a lot of images with the Eye AF of the Q3. I mean it works if there is only one person in the frame but it doesn’t like little kids that much or multiple people. Random objects get detected as people and overall the Eye/Face AF is jumpy.

This is where I usually switch to single point and get the shot. The touch display is quick to move the AF point around and I don’t miss the joystick of the R5 anymore. The Q3 is small and relatively lightweight. It replaces my 24,28 and 40 f/2.8 lenses for the R5. 
 

Besides, there aren’t any weather sealed, fast wide angle primes for the Canon RF system yet and when they eventually get released they’re going to be f/1.4 or f/1.2 so heavy and huge like my 50 1.2. the Q3 covers my fast prime wide angle needs just fine and AF is only bound to get better with firmware (at least that’s what I keep telling myself). I can understand the criticism and feel you a bit on the underwhelming part in terms of AF. Compared to Sony and Canon Leica has to train their AF algorithm a bit better to keep up. I think thanks to the maestro 4 processor this will be possible in the Q3. Spot AF works fine and I really like the files coming out of this little cam!
 

If the lens is too sharp for you I suggest you try out a Black Pro Mist 1/8 or a Balck Satin 1/2 filter. Those will take off the edge and give a bit of a highlight bloom. I‘ve shot with a Black Satin 1 since I got my Q3 in may and never felt the lens too sharp with the diffusion filter on.

I decided to keep my Q3 because of the amazing 60MP files, the easy of use of the camera, small and fast lens in a compact system, one camera one lens setup to cover 28-50mm and the simple fact I enjoy shooting with it. There are still some quirks that need to be ironed out via firmware, but I‘m certain Leica will get there.

 

 

 

[FusionX.Photo]

21 minutes ago, Qwertynm said:

As someone coming from the Canon R5 I too had a bit of a sobering moment when I shot a lot of images with the Eye AF of the Q3. I mean it works if there is only one person in the frame but it doesn’t like little kids that much or multiple people. Random objects get detected as people and overall the Eye/Face AF is jumpy.

This is where I usually switch to single point and get the shot. The touch display is quick to move the AF point around and I don’t miss the joystick of the R5 anymore. The Q3 is small and relatively lightweight. It replaces my 24,28 and 40 f/2.8 lenses for the R5. 
 

Besides, there aren’t any weather sealed, fast wide angle primes for the Canon RF system yet and when they eventually get released they’re going to be f/1.4 or f/1.2 so heavy and huge like my 50 1.2. the Q3 covers my fast prime wide angle needs just fine and AF is only bound to get better with firmware (at least that’s what I keep telling myself). I can understand the criticism and feel you a bit on the underwhelming part in terms of AF. Compared to Sony and Canon Leica has to train their AF algorithm a bit better to keep up. I think thanks to the maestro 4 processor this will be possible in the Q3. Spot AF works fine and I really like the files coming out of this little cam!
 

If the lens is too sharp for you I suggest you try out a Black Pro Mist 1/8 or a Balck Satin 1/2 filter. Those will take off the edge and give a bit of a highlight bloom. I‘ve shot with a Black Satin 1 since I got my Q3 in may and never felt the lens too sharp with the diffusion filter on.

I decided to keep my Q3 because of the amazing 60MP files, the easy of use of the camera, small and fast lens in a compact system, one camera one lens setup to cover 28-50mm and the simple fact I enjoy shooting with it. There are still some quirks that need to be ironed out via firmware, but I‘m certain Leica will get there.

 

 

 

That's a very accurate and fair summary in my opinion.

Even though eye AF was nice to have on Sony I still found myself turning it off at times, I have it off on the Q3 as I hate the dumb multiple boxes jumping around with more than one person in the scene, but it doesn't mean you can't still get tack sharp shots of a face, what on earth did some people do before we had eye AF ? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Qwertynm]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb FusionX.Photo:

Even though eye AF was nice to have on Sony I still found myself turning it off at times

thanks for the nice reply
 

That’s the great thing about back button AF. I have my Canon setup with single point AF and have Eye-AF on the back AF button. I put the single point over the person I want in focus and hit the back AF button and boom, Eye is in focus. If the camera can’t find an eye I put the single point where I want it and nail focus this way. Never shot with Sony but I assume you could set it up similarly there too. Personally I think this is the best AF setup to have for people photography/portraits.
 

I hope they implement back button AF on the Q3. With two Fn buttons it certainly would be viable to do so and many people have been asking for it since the Q116. There is still room for improvement on the Q3 but overall it’s a great package. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by Qwertynm

[bobtodrick]

Sometimes I long for the old days when the big argument was…‘what’s better, a rangefinder patch or the split image focussing screen in an SLR’ 😀

But seriously I think a lot of issues in this thread can be summed up by saying the Q3 is different and you have to live with it for awhile…more than a week…to get to know its nuances.

Comparing it to your Sony/Canon/Nikon that you’ve used for years just isn’t fair…nor any indication of anything.

I deal with pros on a daily basis.  For whatever reasons they will make a brand switch and complain how the new system just isn’t what they were hoping…talk to them six months later and they are quite happy.

Same with many of my clients who used DSLR’s for the last 20 years and switched to mirrorless…many doubting their decision for the first month…now they wouldn’t go back.

Before you make rash judgments you have to live with the Q3 til it’s intuitive.  I know when I bought my first Q (coming from a DSLR) I thought I’d made a mistake…after a couple months I knew I’d made the right move.

That’s my story and I’m sticking with it 😂