Q3 - underwhelmed after 1 week

[adrianh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

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.

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 😂

Thanks for your story and this is exactly what I am going to do, too. See if we can become friends 🙂

[hdmesa]

On 7/29/2023 at 4:29 PM, adrianh said:

...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 being too sharp...

 

• As was mentioned, the focus thing at close distance is field curvature. The focus plane bends backward away from the center toward the edges of the frame. This is the same thing that also makes the Q images pop out and look very 3D. Embrace it. No one cares about the bag or watch not being in focus, just the eyes. f/1.7 is very narrow focus anyway – even if the focus plane was flat, chances are nothing but the eyes would be in perfect focus anyway.
• When showing people their photos on your camera LCD or computer afterward: don't zoom into 100%, ever. Why would anyone want to see the pores on their face? Just use two fingers to pinch-zoom partially or use the zoom wheel a few notches if they want to get a better look at their face.
• Shoot with the B&W film style (regular, not high contrast). This way things like redness due to incorrect white balance, etc. won't show up until you've had time to make your edits in post. Everyone looks better in black and white.
• Many people are not flattered by wide angle lenses. This is not saying there is something off about their faces, but different face shapes are flattered by different focal lengths. People with short foreheads tend to like photos taken of them with wide angles. Tall foreheads look really bad with wide angles. If your subject thinks they look better with a 35mm FOV, then back up with your 28mm and crop in post (or shoot the 35-50 crop mode).

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by hdmesa

[1945 Mouton]

On 8/2/2023 at 5:48 PM, Qwertynm said:

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. 

I set up the right back button on the Q3 to back-button focus. Press it once on the focus point, then reframe and shoot. The focus will stay on the original focus point.

[brickftl]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:09 PM, liggy said:

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

 

really? I don't agree. 

I also have a Sony - A7iv which I think is about the same size as A1 (maybe a tad smaller?) and the fabulous 24GM. That said, I'd take the Q3 out on a landscape shoot over the Sony and 24GM any day of the week.

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!

[MindsEye]

On 7/29/2023 at 8:48 PM, BobsFirstLeica said:

I will do a +1 on this.  But i will add, at least for me, it is horses for courses.  I have mentioned on this forum I use Sony, Nikon, and Fuji GFX professionally.  For vacations I used to use my iPhone.  The last one, 3 months ago I wanted something small and capable that I could use as a point and shoot BUT maintain high quality.  The Q2 fit the bill.  That was sold in lieu of the Q3, knowing it was a brand new item.  There is no doubt with a few FW updates it will mature into something light to carry with high quality images and very few issues.  It will be a very nice pleasure cam far and above the imagery with my phone.

Expectations and hype with the Q3 have made it seem the answer to every photographer's and amateur's dream,  That was never the case with me and I will hold on to it because it does things I want it to do... and very well.  Horses for courses.

Suggestion to the OP:  There is a thread on this forum for people agonizing over when they are going to get their Q3.  Why don't you make one of those members extremely happy and offer to sell your almost new Q3 to them.  I'm sure you could find a buyer within 1 hour.  And just think!  You won't be holding onto an expensive item that is underwhelming you.  No reason to hold onto it.  Now please.... go to the other forum and find someone..... Christmas in the last of July!

Bob

Oh, here's the link:

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/377444-leica-q3-waitliststockshipment/

Ditto!

[o2mpx]

This thread has been an interesting read from an internal level setting perspective. It seems our expectations have tremendous impact on satisfaction vs or relative to the intrinsic merits of the gear. 

It confirms that more than 1 system is needed for different use cases, despite preference to have only 1. Mainly shooting landscapes during 2-4 trips a year, across different locales and activities, have built a M10-R set, added a Hasselblad x2D set (kept the 16-35/24-90 zooms while waiting for the SL3 - although having used the HB on 2 trips not sure if the SL3 fire is as strong). Additionally have a CL set with zooms (and a Sigma fp-l for FF and 61mp) for lightweight carry; finally Q2 Ghost despite knowing the Q3 was imminent. 

For use cases of travel landscapes in remote areas, city tours, and the occasional short day trips, the gear sets mentioned above aligns 1 to 1 but there are times when internal doubts emerge asking why can’t it be simplified and downsized, and always end up with dissatisfaction of the equipment (and sets off risky GAS cycles) - this is something I remind myself not to do anymore, unless Leica makes an autofocus M with evf, or the upcoming S4? medium format is sized like a SL etc etc. 

For the OP clearly having the means to keep the Q3, please do if there’s a definitive use case for it, and don’t look for it to satisfy another use case the Q3 wasn’t meant for, and take it out for great pictures!
 

 

[Paul B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Very interesting to read all these views, it appears Leica hasn't fixed the problems the Q2 had so I won't be spending a lot of money on a over price product that Leica expect you to pay. Just had a play with a top-of-the-range Nikon Z! and the results were stunning !!

[liggy]

1 hour ago, brickftl said:

really? I don't agree. 

I also have a Sony - A7iv which I think is about the same size as A1 (maybe a tad smaller?) and the fabulous 24GM. That said, I'd take the Q3 out on a landscape shoot over the Sony and 24GM any day of the week.

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.  Definitely different strokes.  

Curious as to why you prefer the Q2 over the 24GM for landscapes.  A1 and A7IV are pretty much the same size.  Really compact overall.

Honestly for landscape (unless I'm backpacking/hiking) I grab either the GFX with the 32-64 or 23 or the A1 with the 12-24 GM 2.8 which is a chonk

I love the Q2 as a walkaround and most of the time on trips I bring it along instead of the 35GM for my nighttime / low light / walkaround solution but never thought of it as the landscape go-to.    

 

Edited August 4, 2023 by liggy

[bobtodrick]

49 minutes ago, Paul B said:

Very interesting to read all these views, it appears Leica hasn't fixed the problems the Q2 had so I won't be spending a lot of money on a over price product that Leica expect you to pay. Just had a play with a top-of-the-range Nikon Z! and the results were stunning !!

Can you say what Q2 problems.  Seems everyone I have sold one to is quite happy with them.

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, bobtodrick said:

Can you say what Q2 problems.  Seems everyone I have sold one to is quite happy with them.

I have been happy with my Q2 from Day 1 and have had no issues or complaints about it whatsoever.

[Blackadder978]

4 hours ago, Paul B said:

Very interesting to read all these views, it appears Leica hasn't fixed the problems the Q2 had so I won't be spending a lot of money on a over price product that Leica expect you to pay. Just had a play with a top-of-the-range Nikon Z! and the results were stunning !!

I do not know which problems with the Q2 you refer to. I have a top of the range Nikon Z as well as a Q2 and I find the Q2 picture quality every bit as stunning as the Z. Both have specific usecases and I take the Q when I want the same picture quality as my Z but in a very small package. I have to live with the fixed lens in this case, but it bothers me much less than I thought it would when I bought the Q2. Now I find myself nearly always adding the Q2 to my Nikon outings as well. the majority of my pictures are still from my Nikons, but I really enjoy the Q2 and hope that my ordered Q3 will arrive soon.

[Mr.Q]

Honestly I was underwhelmed with the Q3 as well when I handled it at the Leica Store.  For me AF-C is still unusable.  It's probably on the same level as the second generation of A7's and 2 tiers below the current Fuji's. (currently, Sony > Canon/Nikon >> Fuji >> Q3)

I trust accurate AF-S more than unreliable AF-C, and for that I'm OK with my Q2 Reporter.

[viramati]

6 hours ago, Mr.Q said:

Honestly I was underwhelmed with the Q3 as well when I handled it at the Leica Store.  For me AF-C is still unusable.  It's probably on the same level as the second generation of A7's and 2 tiers below the current Fuji's. (currently, Sony > Canon/Nikon >> Fuji >> Q3)

I trust accurate AF-S more than unreliable AF-C, and for that I'm OK with my Q2 Reporter.

This was also my finding when I tried out the Q3, it is better than the Q2 but I was surprised to see it still pulsing a little which I thought odd seeing it has hybrid AF. I wasn't expecting it to be up with my Sony A1 but maybe firmware upgrades may help over time.

[M11 for me]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb bobtodrick:

Just had a play with a top-of-the-range Nikon Z! and the results were stunning !!

Of course the results are stunning with a Z or better with Canon R5 etc. But a Q is a fully different camera. I would not carry a Z or R with its heavy and bulky lenses around with me. The results of the Q are stunning as well and on top of that the Q is light and small and you have it with you all the time. 

I am a Canon R5 shooter. In another post a few weeks ago I wrote about my decision to make a journey with just 1 lens: I took the Q3 and nothing else (no leica M nor Canon R5 and no additional lenses). I never ever did that before (I thought that this was impossible). And I was extremely happy about my decision in favour of the Q3. My R gear I only use anyway only for special tasks (mostly paid assignements at big events with speakers and receptions). 

The Q3 certainly has still a few bugs. But all in all its a top performer. It has a top BSI cmos sensor (one of the best today) and a very capable hybrid auto focus system. The Q3 is light and beautiful and no comparision to a Z. Try it out!!

Edited August 5, 2023 by M11 for me

[Casey Jefferson]

A little different perspective...I have the Q2 alongside the M240, and expect to have the same Leica "vibe" to it but the Q2 surprised me with other things that the M240 couldn't achieve, namely the very fine resolution and 3D pop even with deep dof. However I start to dislike the color signature and the bokeh (lacking in the textured bokeh like the M lenses, which is subjective). The dynamic range is better than M240 but also makes it somewhat flatter looking, not a bad thing but I had a hard time get accustomed to it.

I've been busy recently so didn't shoot much for the past 3 months. Recently pick it up again and my eyes are somehow refreshed and took a fresh look into the files, and process them differently than what I did before. I also redo my personal tweak for the Q2 files and now I appreciate what it does best again like when I just got it - fine details and 3D pop even with deep dof, not to mention the quiet operation, and able to process the files to my liking and appreciate it more than ever.

So do let the eyes rest and get refreshed a little before jumping into conclusion, which at this time it's 2 weeks into owning for OP so not sure if it'll be helpful, but I do hope it'll help out whoever got stuck in adjusting the "emotional" side.

On the side note though, I'm guessing part of the charm of M lenses is that they don't have many elements in their design, whilst the Q has 11 elements (3 which are asph) so more corrections in Q lens, resulting different characters compared to M lenses.

[jaapv]

I think the main reason for your observation is different corrections due to the hybrid design ( optical and digital combined) There are  M lenses with comparably complicated optics, eg. Summilux 21 M: 10 elements in 8 groups 2 aspherical , 5 anomalous dispersion. 

[Casey Jefferson]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I think the main reason for your observation is different corrections due to the hybrid design ( optical and digital combined) There are  M lenses with comparably complicated optics ( eg. Summilux 21 M 10 elements in 8 groups 2 aspherical , 5 anomalous dispersion. 

Just my wild guess though! Not sure what's the design differences but to my eyes it feels like the M lenses have more characters, even those more recent ones.

But I've learned to appreciate the good things instead of focusing on the bad ones. 

[tumanov]

Thought I'd share my personal experience. I never owned a Q, but was always enamoured by small FF cameras, 3 years ago I bought Sony RX1R II and have been using it regularly on trips and city walkabouts. It is probably my favorite camera and the lens is phenomenal, but it is really old and is getting old in the tooth - AF is quite bad and I do get a fair amount of out of focus photos especially when I give it to someone to take a photo of me.

I've had Canon R5 and moved over to Sony primarily because of the size of both the camera and their respective lenses. Sony is always smaller and their 50 1.2 or 24-70 are significantly smaller than their Canon counterparts. 

I had the opportunity to try out Q3 in London while I still had my Sony RX1R II on me and have mixed feelings - on one hand I was really impressed with the screen - it really captures what I see well and is extremely fast, overall the build quality is exceptional and I definitely enjoyed it. But it felt so much bigger than Sony. So I started to do some research and was at a camera store the other day where I had Sony A7RV with a 24 2.8 lens and Q3 side by side. They are pretty much the same size  Q3 is taller and Sony has chunkier body, but overall their dimensions are almost identical except for the Sony grip. Based on that I ended up getting a 40mm 2.5 lens which is the same dimensions as 24.

Still on a wait list for Q3 but when the time will come I'm not sure if I will pull the trigger, current combo seems to be pretty good. I do want to feel this Leica experience so I might just do it for that.

[Cogito]

1 hour ago, tumanov said:

...I had Sony A7RV with a 24 2.8 lens and Q3 side by side. They are pretty much the same size  Q3 is taller and Sony has chunkier body, but overall their dimensions are almost identical except for the Sony grip. Based on that I ended up getting a 40mm 2.5 lens which is the same dimensions as 24...

Will be interesting to see the A7CR (or A7C2) which come out in the next couple months. Just sold an A7R3 in anticipation. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Woodstock]

I do so much agree with the “horses for courses” argument. I briefly had a Q2 some time ago but didn’t get on with it. Why not? - a combination of factors, including weight and size (small in comparison to my then Fuji XT2 and later XH2 with zooms, but significantly greater compared to the almost pocketable X100V which I used as a walk-around camera), disappointment with high ISO performance, and above all getting fed up with the constraints around long exposure images, which I knew about prior to purchase but wanted to believe would not be the tipping point that they turned out to be.

 

So why am I on the waiting list for a Q3? Primarily because my photographic interests have become somewhat simpler and require physically and technically less adventurous approaches, and secondarily because the long exposure issue has been addressed. The catalyst for simplification was purchase of the XH2, which despite being ergonomically and technically an excellent and enjoyable camera, made me realise that for the vast majority of my work (mainly landscapes, particularly post-industrial ones) I just did not need the functional abilities which it offered.

 

So out goes the XH2, together with my Rolleiflex and Pentax film cameras. I will hang on to my X100V until the time that the Q3 turns up, but the intent is to make the move (apart from my IR converted X100T) to a single camera which I think has the ability to do all that I now need to reasonably ask of it, and which, albeit it at a price, has image quality and build quality to die for, a straightforward menu system, is acceptably portable, and provides abundant pride in ownership. Of course it cannot do everything, but extrapolating from experience with the Q2, I think it is reasonable to hope it will do me well.