Reasons NOT to buy the Q3???

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

However, lens performance has nothing to do with resolution in this sense.  A better lens will improve sensor performance,a higher resolving sensor will improve lens performance. This is not a weakest link situation, but an additive one. There isn't such a thing as a lens "not being able to keep up with sensor resolution." I would suggest you look elsewhere for an explanation of your observation. My guess is that you were looking at 100% or more at both images not realizing that that would magnify the flaws that are always present. Had you investigated further and used the settings that you normally need for both cameras identically, you would have certainly noticed the improvement of the Q3. 

And no, it is not marketing fraud but a total ignorance of hybrid lens design and digital camera technology.

The optical part is designed to shift all errors into distortion and correcting the distortion digitally, making the whole hybrid lens. better than it would have been if it were designed completely optically.

All sensors of all brands render less effective pixels than the nominal MP because of the various technical uses of the edge pixels.

Digilloyd (not really considered serious in many places) once again exhibits his total lack of basic knowledge. Most knowledgeable photographers disregard his ramblings. This article comes under the heading of bollocks.

Read here about high resolution sensors and lenses. Scroll down for the relevant parts.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Sohail said:

I was a massive fan of the Q1. Shot a lot of my best pictures with it. I then bought the Q2. The lens, for me, never really lived up to the demands of the 47 MP sensor. And then when the Q3 came out with a 60MP sensor and a tilting screen, I was hoping for better optical performance. It was a disappointment not to mention the poor lowlight performance. So I ditched the whole Q concept and went with the following:

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!

Way better shooting experience! Looks nicer too!

Lloyd Chambers, serious camera gear reviewer, is very scathing of the Q2/3 and for good reason: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2023/20230524_2100-LeicaQ3.html

An excerpt:

 

AFAIK, Q3 has improved lowlight performance over Q and Q2 and is similar to SL2-S (do not compare at pixel level!).

I would nor recommend Lloyd for Leica reviews. Instead, check out Sean Reid or Jono Slack.

[SrMi]

59 minutes ago, jaapv said:

However, lens performance has nothing to do with resolution in this sense.  A better lens will improve sensor performance,a higher resolving sensor will improve lens performance. This is not a weakest link situation, but an additive one. There isn't such a thing as a lens "not being able to keep up with sensor resolution." I would suggest you look elsewhere for an explanation of your observation. My guess is that you were looking at 100% or more at both images not realizing that that would magnify the flaws that are always present. Had you investigated further and used the settings that you normally need for both cameras identically, you would have certainly noticed the improvement of the Q3. 

And no, it is not marketing fraud but a total ignorance of hybrid lens design and digital camera technology.

The optical part is designed to shift all errors into distortion and correcting the distortion digitally, making the whole hybrid lens. better than it would have been if it were designed completely optically.

All sensors of all brands render less effective pixels than the nominal MP because of the various technical uses of the edge pixels.

Digilloyd (not really considered serious in many places) once again exhibits his total lack of basic knowledge. Most knowledgeable photographers disregard his ramblings. This article comes under the heading of bollocks.

Read here about high resolution sensors and lenses. Scroll down for the relevant parts.

+1

Also, SDC works better with higher resolution images.

[Le Chef]

4 hours ago, Sohail said:

Lloyd Chambers, serious camera gear reviewer,

What a load of old cobblers! He clearly doesn’t understand the sophistication of modern lens design with combined optics and software to deliver performance. Presumably he’s blind to how other lens manufacturers use software to augment optical design.

[Sohail]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK, Q3 has improved lowlight performance over Q and Q2 and is similar to SL2-S (do not compare at pixel level!).

I would nor recommend Lloyd for Leica reviews. Instead, check out Sean Reid or Jono Slack.

Sean Reid and Jono Slack are great reviewers I respect. However, unlike Lloyd Chambers, they are Leica's go-to reviewers for Leica products. Chambers tests very rigorously. The evidence speaks for itself. BTW, and FYI he rates the SL APOs very highly.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Sohail

[Le Chef]

From DPR who I would trust over some hack: “The Q3 has the same lens as the Q2, and it's still a peach.”

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

What a load of old cobblers! He clearly doesn’t understand the sophistication of modern lens design with combined optics and software to deliver performance. Presumably he’s blind to how other lens manufacturers use software to augment optical design.

I posted an excerpt (#post 62). Could you fault his two specific claims about extreme barrel distortion and distortion correction? Curious to see if your charge of cobblers holds up.

[clasami]

5 hours ago, Sohail said:

I was a massive fan of the Q1. Shot a lot of my best pictures with it. I then bought the Q2. The lens, for me, never really lived up to the demands of the 47 MP sensor. And then when the Q3 came out with a 60MP sensor and a tilting screen, I was hoping for better optical performance. It was a disappointment not to mention the poor lowlight performance. So I ditched the whole Q concept and went with the following:

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!

Way better shooting experience! Looks nicer too!

Lloyd Chambers, serious camera gear reviewer, is very scathing of the Q2/3 and for good reason: https://diglloyd.com/blog/2023/20230524_2100-LeicaQ3.html

An excerpt:

 

Not my experience at all. While it is true that the Voigtländer APO 35f2 outperforms the Q3 lens on an A7cR at the sides a bit, the lens is perfectly capable of handling the 60MP sensor. From 28mm to the 90mm crop. You were hoping for better optical performance? How so? It is the same lens that is on the Q2!

[Sohail]

18 minutes ago, clasami said:

Not my experience at all. While it is true that the Voigtländer APO 35f2 outperforms the Q3 lens on an A7cR at the sides a bit, the lens is perfectly capable of handling the 60MP sensor. From 28mm to the 90mm crop. You were hoping for better optical performance? How so? It is the same lens that is on the Q2!

Not sure I understand your question.

[SrMi]

30 minutes ago, Sohail said:

Sean Reid and Jono Slack are great reviewers I respect. However, unlike Lloyd Chambers, they are Leica's go-to reviewers for Leica products. Chambers tests very rigorously. The evidence speaks for itself. BTW, and FYI he rates the SL APOs very highly.

I do not think he tested Q3. If that is the case, he has no evidence of any issues with Q3. While his public posts are often clickbait and unreasonable, his subscriber-only posts are more useful. I subscribe only to his MF reviews, therefore I cannot access his Leica-specific subscriber-only content.

I would never buy or skip a lens based on his reviews.

Edited October 28, 2023 by SrMi

[jaapv]

33 minutes ago, Sohail said:

Sean Reid and Jono Slack are great reviewers I respect. However, unlike Lloyd Chambers, they are Leica's go-to reviewers for Leica products. Chambers tests very rigorously. The evidence speaks for itself. BTW, and FYI he rates the SL APOs very highly.

The evidence is that he makes regular blunders. For instance he “tested” that there was something wrong with the M Monochrom as he experienced focus shift with a red filter, and wanted to investigate this flaw, obviously not knowing that that is normal on a non-APO lens Photography primer #1. He found “misfocus” on the SL not realizing he was measuring the far edge of a 45 degree test target and he obviously still keeps it up. Rigorously?  Amateurish I would say. Or, as SrMi puts it, clickbait. 

[Sohail]

6 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I do not think he tested Q3. If that is the case, he has no evidence of any issues with Q3. While his public posts are often clickbait and unreasonable, his subscriber-only posts are more useful. I subscribe only to his MF reviews, therefore I cannot access his Leica-specific subscriber-only content.

I would never buy or skip a lens based on his reviews.

He tested the Q1 and claimed the lens "was barely adequate on the 24-megapixel" sensor. He abandoned tests for Q2. If it's the same lens on the Q3, what's to test?

[Sohail]

5 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The evidence is that he makes regular blunders. For instance he “tested” that there was something wrong with the M Monochrom as he experienced focus shift with a red filter, and wanted to investigate this flaw, obviously not knowing that that is normal on a non-APO lens Photography primer #1. He found “misfocus” on the SL not realizing he was measuring the far edge of a 45 degree test target and he obviously still keeps it up. Rigorously?  Amateurish I would say. Or, as SrMi puts it, clickbait. 

The original post is about reasons not to buy the Q3, not your views on LC's testing abilities. I cite two of his claims about extreme barrel distortion and distortion correction. Do they hold up? 

[jaapv]

No because they are based on ignorance of hybrid lens design. 

[Sohail]

Just now, jaapv said:

No because they are based on ignorance of hybrid lens design. 

Fancy way of saying nothing. Of course, he gets it. The question is the extent of distortion correction.

[jaapv]

Actually if this were a fully optical lens he would be cutting off the rear element and then criticizing the result. The digital correction is an integral part of the lens design. You cannot judge the lens without it. He obviously does not understand this. 

[Sohail]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually if this were a fully optical lens he would be cutting off the rear element and then criticizing the result. The digital correction is an integral part of the lens design. You cannot judge the lens without it. He obviously does not understand this. 

It's not a trade secret that lens design is a trade-off between digital correction and optical performance. Here's what he has to say about the 28 SL Summicron, which he rates very highly: https://diglloyd.com/blog-2021-09.html#20210903_1524-LeicaSL2-LeicaSL28f2-distortion

Clearly, he is not ignorant here.

[clasami]

36 minutes ago, Sohail said:

Not sure I understand your question.

That's the problem 🙂

[bobtodrick]

24 minutes ago, Sohail said:

He tested the Q1 and claimed the lens "was barely adequate on the 24-megapixel" sensor. He abandoned tests for Q2. If it's the same lens on the Q3, what's to test?

Hmmmm…and yet your first post on the topic was how some of your best pictures were made with the Q(1).

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, Sohail said:

It's not a trade secret that lens design is a trade-off between digital correction and optical performance. Here's what he has to say about the 28 SL Summicron, which he rates very highly: https://diglloyd.com/blog-2021-09.html#20210903_1524-LeicaSL2-LeicaSL28f2-distortion

Clearly, he is not ignorant here.

So why is he spouting nonsense about the Q3?  FYI the Q uses exactly the same digital correction. Most if not all reviewers rate the image quality quite highly.