Q3 or Sony A7CR

[liggy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Voxen said:

It depends, do you want a computer or a camera?

That trope is about as tired as Leica being for dentists.

[idusidusi]

17 minutes ago, liggy said:

OP - since you have a tele option in place and it sounds like you're actually able to get a Q3 - I think moving forward with it would be the logical thing to do.

I have decided that the Q3 will be the one I go with and I keep the VLUX-5 too. My friend had piqued my interest in going back to Sony, but on balance thanks to the many comments and observations here, I think the Q3 will be more suitable for what I do. I just hope that I don't miss changing lenses.

[Advertisement]

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

[newtoleica]

7 hours ago, CalStanford said:

I was waiting for Sony to come out with an RX1R3. Slightly larger body, add IBIS or lens stabilization. Change the sensor up to the newer 61MP. Bit bigger battery. New lower power processor and displays. Basically update the tech since the eight years of RX1R2 release. Boom. But they abandoned the RX series. The A7C series isn't a replacement. 

This is so spot on. I have an RX1Rm2 that I bought last year in Shinjuku used. I've previously owned and RX1R and (briefly) a Q2. I have an M kit for my main camera so this is for the 'small, cheap, carry about for work travel, casual family stuff, not thinking photography' camera. The Q2 was a bit too big and a bit too expensive in that role for me. Also the Zeiss lens on the RX is lovely, a bit different to the Leica look, but very nice all the same. The achilles heel of the RX1Rmk2 is the battery life, its ludicrous.... I change batteries twice as often as a I do films in my M7, so I need a pocket full of 5 for a day's shooting.... and I'm not joking. Will Sony produce a M3? No, so its destined to be a bit of a quirky, niche collector's item. Hanging onto it.

Edited September 3, 2023 by newtoleica
typos!

[adrianh]

I think Liggy and bobtodrick summed it out very well. If you can live with the 26 1.7 lens as your one and only, the Q3 is going to be the better and way, way more desirable camera. with a nicer EVF and LCD Screen and superior haptics. Sony menus have come a long way and have become pretty good. For the A7C2 or A7Cr you might also want to check out the SIGMA Contemporary - 35 mm f./2.0 DG.  Beautiful made lens, all metal, similar DOF as the Leica and pretty compact. 

On top with the Sony you keep the option to put some other, truly magical lenses, the 20-70 is one of those (got mine yesterday and I am pretty impressed even having the 24-70 2.8 GM2 aside). 

But, if you don't need all of these, 26-28mm is your prefered lens and a slightly slower then the class leading Sony AF is fine with you , the Q3 will make you more than happy.  Probably more than a Sony. 

 

[FusionX.Photo]

Can't believe this is even a valid question, the two products couldn't be more different, the whole starting point of the Q's is having a fixed lens in a smaller footprint than any ILC with a prime attached, pointless comparison.

[idusidusi]

10 minutes ago, FusionX.Photo said:

Can't believe this is even a valid question, the two products couldn't be more different, the whole starting point of the Q's is having a fixed lens in a smaller footprint than any ILC with a prime attached, pointless comparison.

It is not a valid question, more a musing as what to go for. I sold my gear and I want to lighten my load and bulk. Am happy with the LUX-5 for telephoto and hope to be happy with the Q3 as its companion  the cost being covered.

[bobtodrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, FusionX.Photo said:

Can't believe this is even a valid question, the two products couldn't be more different, the whole starting point of the Q's is having a fixed lens in a smaller footprint than any ILC with a prime attached, pointless comparison.

The OP asked for a comparison as to what the strengths of each were.

Completely valid question.

[adrianh]

2 hours ago, FusionX.Photo said:

Can't believe this is even a valid question, the two products couldn't be more different, the whole starting point of the Q's is having a fixed lens in a smaller footprint than any ILC with a prime attached, pointless comparison.

Well that might have been the idea behind the development of the first Q, however fast forward and now you get a 60MP FF ILC in a very similar footprint. They are both NOT pocketable, the weight difference is negligible with the right lens, therefore a very vaild question in my opinion. The A7RC with the right lens does exactly the same as a Q3. With some advantages and also some disadvantages. The OP did not ask for a comparison with a Hasselblad...

Edited September 3, 2023 by adrianh

[FusionX.Photo]

8 hours ago, adrianh said:

Well that might have been the idea behind the development of the first Q, however fast forward and now you get a 60MP FF ILC in a very similar footprint. They are both NOT pocketable, the weight difference is negligible with the right lens, therefore a very vaild question in my opinion. The A7RC with the right lens does exactly the same as a Q3. With some advantages and also some disadvantages. The OP did not ask for a comparison with a Hasselblad...

OK 🤣

 

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!

[Voxen]

14 hours ago, liggy said:

That trope is about as tired as Leica being for dentists.

You know, when I started photography with a Canon AE-1, all I had to deal with is picking the right film, set my aperture and shutter speed, and click.

Now some users have to read 200 pages e-books to learn how to setup their camera.

I can scan my old landscape prints and compare them to photos I shot with any digital camera, they wouldn’t be that different.

Even though my message what a bit of a sarcasm, there is a truth behind it.

[student]

34 minutes ago, Voxen said:

You know, when I started photography with a Canon AE-1, all I had to deal with is picking the right film, set my aperture and shutter speed, and click.

Now some users have to read 200 pages e-books to learn how to setup their camera.

I can scan my old landscape prints and compare them to photos I shot with any digital camera, they wouldn’t be that different.

Even though my message what a bit of a sarcasm, there is a truth behind it.

I for one culdn't agree with you more

[idusidusi]

32 minutes ago, Voxen said:

You know, when I started photography with a Canon AE-1, all I had to deal with is picking the right film, set my aperture and shutter speed, and click.

I well remember that and how many failures I had to begin with. However today I usually have my camera in manual mode, auto ISO, AF and everything else manually set. I have a lot more keepers nowadays than in those early film days of mine with a Pentax K1000 - should have kept it! Every time I go past a camera shop now I see film for sale again! Also vinyl records in shops.......

[thighslapper]

I thought the whole point of the Q series as a rugged general purpose fixed focal length camera, simplicity of use/ergonomics and outstanding image quality.

Reportage/Travel/Street is Leica's mainstream DNA and that is what the camera is designed for. 

You either buy into that concept or you don't. 

[Voxen]

17 minutes ago, idusidusi said:

I well remember that and how many failures I had to begin with. However today I usually have my camera in manual mode, auto ISO, AF and everything else manually set. I have a lot more keepers nowadays than in those early film days of mine with a Pentax K1000 - should have kept it! Every time I go past a camera shop now I see film for sale again! Also vinyl records in shops.......

That was my point actually. Technology helps and I embrace it. The Leica Q has modern features while staying relatively simple to setup and operate, which is not the case with most other high end cameras.

I own a Nikon Z6, it is a nice camera but there are tons of options I never use or care about. Same for buttons with multiple functions. 

I’m not saying this is bad, but is this level of customization necessary for most users? 

Less is more, as they say 🙂

[R4p70r]

17 hours ago, newtoleica said:

This is so spot on. I have an RX1Rm2 that I bought last year in Shinjuku used. I've previously owned and RX1R and (briefly) a Q2. I have an M kit for my main camera so this is for the 'small, cheap, carry about for work travel, casual family stuff, not thinking photography' camera. The Q2 was a bit too big and a bit too expensive in that role for me. Also the Zeiss lens on the RX is lovely, a bit different to the Leica look, but very nice all the same. The achilles heel of the RX1Rmk2 is the battery life, its ludicrous.... I change batteries twice as often as a I do films in my M7, so I need a pocket full of 5 for a day's shooting.... and I'm not joking. Will Sony produce a M3? No, so its destined to be a bit of a quirky, niche collector's item. Hanging onto it.

Reminds me when I owned the Sony RX100 iii.
I loved that model with its particular lens: ultra compact camera body and the right focal range with the open aperture.
The only thing that was bad its the battery life. I had 7 batteries with me for one single day of shooting! That was so ridiculous!

Sony needs only do 2 things to win:
Either release a up-to-date sharper FE 28mm f/2.0 lens or a FE 28mm f/2.0 GM version
or
a RX1R iii with larger camera body so it can take a NP-FZ100 battery.

[adrianh]

This is more like it, if you use the lenses we suggested...

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!

[FusionX.Photo]

1 hour ago, adrianh said:

This is more like it, if you use the lenses we suggested...

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!

So now to try and win an argument you use a lens that’s f/2.5 when comparing to a camera with an f/1.7, how odd. It’s also an inferior lens when it comes to IQ. 

[rich_]

The Leica Q3 manual is 271 pages, so they're both pretty much similar from tech geekery. It's just how much you want to lean into learning all of the 6+ pages of options on the menu.

The sony looks like a great camera and if i wanted a small 60mp iLC with fantastic AF then i'd definitely be in the market for one. I enjoy the Q3 for my fixed lens fairly basic AF needs though

 

[Voxen]

2 hours ago, adrianh said:

This is more like it, if you use the lenses we suggested...

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!

 

If you match the size with a 40mm f/2.5 it is not a comparison anymore since the Q is 28mm f/1.7.

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[adrianh]

51 minutes ago, FusionX.Photo said:

So now to try and win an argument you use a lens that’s f/2.5 when comparing to a camera with an f/1.7, how odd. It’s also an inferior lens when it comes to IQ. 

First of all, there is no argument here. I am trying to help the OP, not fighting with you. I have already mentioned that both alternatives have their prons and cons. You put a huge lens on a small camera, not sure why as we were discussing small alternatives... Secondly, I don't think the DoF from a 40mm 2.5 is so much different than the one from a 26mm 1.7. It's going to give you even more subject separation if needed.  I also mentioned that if the OP loves the 26mm look, he should definitely go with Leica.  So no argument about rendering either. 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by adrianh