Q3 or Sony A7CR

[Voxen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This one is more accurate, with a 28mm f/2

https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/fa3926a3-feb6b053_75d43589-t80

 

[Qwertynm]

To me personally the Q is not an X or Q choice but rather an X and Q. It‘s certainly a niche camera and I wouldn’t want it to be my only camera for what I do. YMMV 

[nicelynice]

Was kinda waiting on this camera before picking up a Leica Q3, but the announcement of the A7CR caused me to pull the trigger on a Q3 (which arrived today!).

I wanted a somewhat rugged, weather sealed camera for specifically mountaineering (and general travel photography) that is an upgrade over my Ricon GRIIIx. I usually carry a Makina 67 or Leica M4 film camera, but lately want a better digital option. M11 was unfortunately out due to the lack of weather sealing (and I still don't trust a 61mp camera with no image stabilization).

A7R is gonna take great photographs, but the following were dealbreakers:

- No lens I remotely want to use (35 F1.4, 50 F1.4, 20-70 F4) is going to fit on this body. Might as well get an A7RV
- The 40 F2.5 lens is intriguing (and I love 40mm), but I'm not buying a whole camera system for it
- I'd be happy to use a manual focus Voigtlander E mount lens, but not with a viewfinder like that

Better viewfinder in the next revision and hopefully some lighter lenses in the system, and maybe next time I'll give it a look. Cool piece of technology, though, hopefully this pushes other camera makers to innovate because I think there is a market for lighter bodies for photographers. Just think they missed the thing (I think) a lot of photographers care about - a great viewfinder, for, y'know, taking pictures

 

[bobtodrick]

1 hour 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. 

Well, if we’re going to argue…that extra 1/2 stop is going to cost you about $4500 more dollars, in most shooting situations you won’t see a quality difference and you have a vast selection of other lenses.

Again, I’ve been a Leica shooter for nearly 50 years and the Q will hopefully be my last camera…but to argue that for the ‘average’ person their aren’t better alternatives is no argument at all.

The fact that the OP is asking this question leads me to believe that he would likely not be satisfied with the constraints of a fixed lens camera.

Edited September 4, 2023 by bobtodrick

[Qwertynm]

vor 46 Minuten schrieb nicelynice:

(and I love 40mm)

just and FYI from soneone who also shoots the Q3 and also loves 40mm. I hope I can get the point across in english…

The pixel height of the Q3 (approx 6300) is the approx. 40mm aeq. crop of the Q lens. 40/27= 1.48, 9520/1.48 = 6400.  So if you want to know how a 40mm crop will look like in the viewfinder you can take the vertical height of the EVF as a guide. I find that really useful for portrait shots where I can shoot in landscape and crop the edges of in post to go from landscape to portrait. I know there are crop lines but knowing this was kind of an aha moment and an easier workaround for me. Maybe that helps somewhat in your shooting. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Qwertynm

[nicelynice]

Ahh, super helpful, will give that a try! Would love for Leica to make a 40mm Q, though I'm going to give 28mm a good try

[Voxen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

59 minutes ago, bobtodrick said:

Well, if we’re going to argue…that extra 1/2 stop is going to cost you about $4500 more dollars

If you add the A7RC to the lens you think it’s still $4500 more? 🙂

[bobtodrick]

10 minutes ago, Voxen said:

If you add the A7RC to the lens you think it’s still $4500 more? 🙂

I based that price on the A7Cll.

in Canada the A7RC with the 40mm is $5200.  The Q3 is $9000.

So still nearly$4000 difference.

[SrMi]

Leicas were never the most cost-efficient cameras when you compare the cameras by written specs only.

[bobtodrick]

21 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Leicas were never the most cost-efficient cameras when you compare the cameras by written specs only.

Actually that is not always been the case.

Our company has been in business 70 years (https://www.mcbaincamera.com)

We have catalogues going back to the late 50’s, early 60’s.   M2’s and M3’ were within a few dollars of Nikon F’s.

It was in the 69’s that rangefinder’s started to become niche cameras and the prices increased

[liggy]

9 hours 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.

Glad to see you admit that there is some sarcasm in your post because I would have a difficult time with an argument that the Q3 with:

 

• CMOS backside illuminated sensor with 60.3 MP resolution
• Leica Maestro processor (Maestro IV)
• Selectable resolution 60, 36 or 18 MP in DNG / JPEG
• Phase Detection Auto Focus (PDAF)
• Electronic viewfinder with 5.76 MP resolution / 0.79x magnification
• Sensitivity ISO 100-100,000
• 3" TFT LCD, 1.8 MP
• Flip display
• Inductive charging with optional handgrip
• 8k video
• USB-C with charging
• HDMI port
• New battery with 2200 mAh
• Faster connection with Bluetooth
• Improved GPS
• GPS tracking with app in background
• Leica Looks loadable via FOTOS

 

is somehow not a computer with a terrific lens attached compared to the Sony.  

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by liggy

[Simone_DF]

I really don’t get this “the Sony is a computer” argument. 

- current Sony menu have improved a lot and are ok. Not as good as Leica’s, but decent

- you can set up a list of favorite menu items, just like your Leica. It takes 10 minutes and then you can forget the remaining menu options for good

- if you can use Capture One or Photoshop you can for sure use a Sony camera

- don’t want to shoot with “a computer”? Shoot film, because your Leica Q is basically a computer too

 

[adrianh]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

- don’t want to shoot with “a computer”? Shoot film, because your Leica Q is basically a computer too

 

Exactly. People tend to forget that the Q is NOT a M. Some of the creature comforts of the Q3 are not even yet available on ANY Sony 🙂

[CalStanford]

13 hours ago, Voxen said:

This one is more accurate, with a 28mm f/2

https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/fa3926a3-feb6b053_75d43589-t80

 

I looked into that but the old 28 f2 doesn't get sharp until you stop it down to F4 or 5.6. Doesn't compare to the Summilux which is tack sharp at 1.7 already

[CalStanford]

12 hours ago, bobtodrick said:

I based that price on the A7Cll.

in Canada the A7RC with the 40mm is $5200.  The Q3 is $9000.

So still nearly$4000 difference.

That's in a different currency for a very different camera (33MP vs 61). How is this even a comparison, sorry but I can't follow. Why not compare a Ricoh or X100V then? Much smaller, lighter. Lower resolution too, which it seems doesn't matter.

[bobtodrick]

44 minutes ago, CalStanford said:

That's in a different currency for a very different camera (33MP vs 61). How is this even a comparison, sorry but I can't follow. Why not compare a Ricoh or X100V then? Much smaller, lighter. Lower resolution too, which it seems doesn't matter.

You'll notice I also included the A7RC which is still nearly 1/2 the price and does have a 61MP sensor.

Good grief, the OP asked for a comparison between the the two brands, which as I stated, if he isn't aware of why you would purchase a Q3 likely means he would be better off with the Sony for it's versatility.  Like I said I've been a Leica user for 50 years...I still realize they aren't the be all and end all for every person.

I mean if we’re going by sensor size as the only criteria everyone should trade in their Q3 for the less expensive Fuji GFX 100.

Edited September 5, 2023 by bobtodrick

[vkdev]

I think there are two choices here.
1. I want to buy a product (q3) or a set of technologies (sony)?
2. Do I want a versatile item or a well-made item for a specific purpose?

I like sony technology. I like some of their products. they make great sensors, PlayStation. but no matter how good their cameras are, I can't use those cameras. I am annoyed by the scattering of buttons like rhinestones on a schoolgirl's dress. I don't like the viewfinder. I start to panic when I get to the menu.
but it is a very very versatile camera. but not for me.
I can't give advice. you either buy not the best thing and a good result, or a good thing for one specific purpose.

Edited September 5, 2023 by vkdev

[MindsEye]

14 hours ago, nicelynice said:

Better viewfinder in the next revision and hopefully some lighter lenses in the system, and maybe next time I'll give it a look. Cool piece of technology, though, hopefully this pushes other camera makers to innovate because I think there is a market for lighter bodies for photographers. Just think they missed the thing (I think) a lot of photographers care about - a great viewfinder, for, y'know, taking pictures

@nicelynice Well said!

Different cameras for different purposes so the whole conundrum seems (to me), a bit moot. However, if you forced me to pick one, the viewfinder alone would be a deal breaker. I think the Q3 EVF is excellent and I thoroughly enjoy using it. I only classify the 3.69M dot EVFs on my Fujifilm X-T5 bodies as just adequate. So I wouldn't even consider the 2.36M dot EVF on the A7Cr. I understand Sony using old tech in this body so it doesn't compete with their higher end bodies. And there is a lot of promise for future iterations. 

Side note: Here is a good comparison and explanation of EVFs. Much like sensors, the dot count is only part of it and seemingly big increases are (relatively) incremental

Edited September 5, 2023 by MindsEye

[idusidusi]

1 hour ago, bobtodrick said:

You'll notice I also included the A7RC which is still nearly 1/2 the price and does have a 61MP sensor.

Good grief, the OP asked for a comparison between the the two brands, which as I stated, if he isn't aware of why you would purchase a Q3 likely means he would be better off with the Sony for it's versatility.  Like I said I've been a Leica user for 50 years...I still realize they aren't the be all and end all for every person.

I mean if we’re going by sensor size as the only criteria everyone should trade in their Q3 for the less expensive Fuji GFX 100.

I decided for the Q3 as I want portability and I like the simplicity of the lack of buttons etc on the Leica. Plus of course the lens is an excellent one. Years ago I had Sony. I was just taken by my friends thoughts on the Sony or the Leica. The more I thought and compared reviews etc of both, I realised the Q3 should be the one to go for.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Voxen]

2 hours ago, vkdev said:

I think there are two choices here.
1. I want to buy a product (q3) or a set of technologies (sony)?
2. Do I want a versatile item or a well-made item for a specific purpose?

I like sony technology. I like some of their products. they make great sensors, PlayStation. but no matter how good their cameras are, I can't use those cameras. I am annoyed by the scattering of buttons like rhinestones on a schoolgirl's dress. I don't like the viewfinder. I start to panic when I get to the menu.
but it is a very very versatile camera. but not for me.
I can't give advice. you either buy not the best thing and a good result, or a good thing for one specific purpose.

This is exactly what I mean when I say camera vs computer. It is more of a feeling than a reality though.

Yes the Q3 has a lot of technology which makes it a computer too, but it remains simple to use, it has simple buttons layout, has much simpler menus and still looks like an old good Leica camera.