Q3 review - with images.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

The Q is perfect for its purpose. No discussion possible. No wider nor tighter version needed as there are other cameras that would be more suitable

 

There. I amended that for you 🙃

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb Emmanuel Nataf:

Every focal length is a radically different experience and geometry. You can't just crop, it's not how works…

Hi,

first nice write-up, even if do not totally agree with all, and definitely very nice pics. 

However, the above statement is just not correct, or it depends on what your target output is. And yes, cropping comes very fast to some limitations like e.g. if you want to have highly separated subject in a 50mm crop, that won't work very well. But in general cropping works very well, if you know what to expect or accept what to expect. And no, there is no geometry or distortion difference, please let's not argue on physics. 

You've written, that 35mm is your preferred focal length. With the Q3 you have a 35 f2.1 lens included.  If these is fine for you, you have a perfect 39mp 35mm camera in your hand. If you need or want to have the separation of a 1.4 35mm on full-frame, it will not satisfy you completely. Very simple. 

Ergonomics is of course a very individual topic and in my opinion not to debate. 

 

Overall, with your use case and expectation the Q3 is certainly not the right camera. Which is fine and fair. It is kind of a niche camera which needs a certain kind of acceptance and embracement. But your review is more or less a very personal evaluation in comparison with what you usually use plus we should just not mix subjectivity and objectivity too much.  The evaluation is understandable from your point of view, but it does not reflect a general truth (which is nothing you claimed, but sometimes others project into such write-ups from professionals, and therefore starting harsh discussions  - for me, it is just your opinion based on your use case and experience).

[Emmanuel Nataf]

26 minutes ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

Hi,

first nice write-up, even if do not totally agree with all, and definitely very nice pics. 

However, the above statement is just not correct, or it depends on what your target output is. And yes, cropping comes very fast to some limitations like e.g. if you want to have highly separated subject in a 50mm crop, that won't work very well. But in general cropping works very well, if you know what to expect or accept what to expect. And no, there is no geometry or distortion difference, please let's not argue on physics. 

You've written, that 35mm is your preferred focal length. With the Q3 you have a 35 f2.1 lens included.  If these is fine for you, you have a perfect 39mp 35mm camera in your hand. If you need or want to have the separation of a 1.4 35mm on full-frame, it will not satisfy you completely. Very simple. 

Ergonomics is of course a very individual topic and in my opinion not to debate. 

 

Overall, with your use case and expectation the Q3 is certainly not the right camera. Which is fine and fair. It is kind of a niche camera which needs a certain kind of acceptance and embracement. But your review is more or less a very personal evaluation in comparison with what you usually use plus we should just not mix subjectivity and objectivity too much.  The evaluation is understandable from your point of view, but it does not reflect a general truth (which is nothing you claimed, but sometimes others project into such write-ups from professionals, and therefore starting harsh discussions  - for me, it is just your opinion based on your use case and experience).

I was indeed inaccurate in my statement regarding focal length and this YouTube video is a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTXY1Se0eg. However, I did explain very clearly that I need a wide aperture to separate my subjects and a 35mm f2.1 (or 2.25 as someone noted on PetaPixel… no idea who's right) won't do it.

I'm not looking for workarounds anyway — I think the Q3 should come with a better lens and that's it. We're probably just one iteration away from a truly exceptional value proposition.

[colonel]

On 12/12/2023 at 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Nataf said:

Rest of the series on the Gorafe desert and cycling Badlands are on my website. I also wrote a longer review of the Q3 from the perspective of a Canon photographer on PetaPixel: https://petapixel.com/2023/12/11/leica-q3-review-from-a-canon-photographer-hit-and-miss/

 

I am not sure why someone who doesn't like 28mm buys the Q3, seems a bit self-defeating

 

[Pelu2010]

12 minutes ago, Emmanuel Nataf said:

I was indeed inaccurate in my statement regarding focal length and this YouTube video is a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTXY1Se0eg. However, I did explain very clearly that I need a wide aperture to separate my subjects and a 35mm f2.1 (or 2.25 as someone noted on PetaPixel… no idea who's right) won't do it.

I'm not looking for workarounds anyway — I think the Q3 should come with a better lens and that's it. We're probably just one iteration away from a truly exceptional value proposition.

So you are not processing the images? 
this camera is a compromise and if you need more separation you can get this easily with photoshop by selecting the subject/ duplicating and blurring the background a bit. 
the q3 is a compromise and maybe not for you. 

And maybe in the future we get a 40 mm Q3.1 😀

Edited December 13, 2023 by Pelu2010

[Emmanuel Nataf]

3 hours ago, Pelu2010 said:

So you are not processing the images? 
this camera is a compromise and if you need more separation you can get this easily with photoshop by selecting the subject/ duplicating and blurring the background a bit. 
the q3 is a compromise and maybe not for you. 

And maybe in the future we get a 40 mm Q3.1 😀

I have done a fair bit of that with the Q3, but really I'd like to be doing something else with my time than add blur to the background 😅

[Emmanuel Nataf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, colonel said:

I am not sure why someone who doesn't like 28mm buys the Q3, seems a bit self-defeating

 

I wrote: "Adapting to the 28mm wasn’t easy." Not that I didn't like it. The real issue for me is the aperture more than the focal length. Hope that's clear to everyone now :). Toda.

Edited December 13, 2023 by Emmanuel Nataf

[Pelu2010]

51 minutes ago, Emmanuel Nataf said:

I wrote: "Adapting to the 28mm wasn’t easy." Not that I didn't like it. The real issue for me is the aperture more than the focal length. Hope that's clear to everyone now :). Toda.

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!

[Pelu2010]

Just made a small test with my color puppet. 

I can't see that the bokeh isn't enough. 

But maybe I am doing it wrong. 

I did not use this feature until now, because if I shoot somebody that I wish to go closer I just crop in later. 

cheers Peter 

 

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Nataf said:

I have done a fair bit of that with the Q3, but really I'd like to be doing something else with my time than add blur to the background

That’s what the wide open aperture is for: set to 1.7 and there’s no background at close distances.

Not processing in post is a huge loss of the camera’s potential: you’re throwing away a lot of IQ just shooting jpg.

As Jaap says the lens is optimized digitally to get the best IQ with the smallest dimensions and weight. If you want better quality shooting jpg then you would either have to accept an SL lens which would be bigger, heavier and more expensive, or an M lens which would mean manual focus only.

Simply put, there’s no free lunch: you take you pick and pay the price.

And those are the kinds of questions you would expect a buyer of a $6,000 camera to research and answer before buying.

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Emmanuel Nataf:

I was indeed inaccurate in my statement regarding focal length and this YouTube video is a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTXY1Se0eg. However, I did explain very clearly that I need a wide aperture to separate my subjects and a 35mm f2.1 (or 2.25 as someone noted on PetaPixel… no idea who's right) won't do it.

I'm not looking for workarounds anyway — I think the Q3 should come with a better lens and that's it. We're probably just one iteration away from a truly exceptional value proposition.

Fair enough. I would just alter the general statement that the Q3 should come with a better lens to be excellent more towarts that it should come with a different lens to be excellent for you, and maybe others with a similar need. The Qs with the 28mm f1.7 are than just not the right tool for you. 

 

My view:

I for example totally understand people asking for a 50mm f2 (or better f.1.4) on a Q50-body, because they love this focal length, they love the Q-concept, but a 50mm f2 or f1.4 is hard to emulate or crop with a current Q. With this target in mind, a crop from a current Q would just not be sufficient. The gap to 28mm is also so large, that it might make no sense at all as you also would give so much dearly paid resolution. But I am not sure if the market for a Q50 would be large enough. I also like 50mm very much, but I would never go on holiday or a hike with solely 50mm, as it is just very tight and therefore limiting. With 28 or 35mm I am happy to go on holiday, an expedition or whatever. 

To ask for a 35mm f2 (like the Sony RX-camera) is from my point of view a mute point, because here, a crop is so damn close and comparable, that a Q35 would just not make any sense. Except, if it would be a f1.4, which might help a bit 😉 - still, I meanwhile would surly choose the 28mm variance. But that's me.

 

In the past, I was always more a 35mm shooter, but I learned to love the 28mm (with the original Q and the 28mm Elmarit and Summaron on a M).  I still crop quite often to my liking and in most cases the separation is fine for me. But more often than not I stick within the 28-35mm range in my crops. So a nearly perfect tool for me and my needs. 

BTW: I am also selling my 35mm apo-summicron-SL, as I just don't see a big enough benefit over the Q3 anymore.

 

Another lucky thing: Separation is luckily not the only thing defining a great picture 😉 - and I come more and more to the point to close the aperture and have less blur .. but heck, do I love the cinematic look of the Q at open aperture 😊

 

To just emulate the separation via software in PP, would definitely not be my choice. This solution always looks for me very artificial and is far from the original rendering of a lens. So this is no solution for me. But a workaround if the result is accepted. 

 

In your case: Get a good as small as possible and for you ergonomically camera with a 1.4 35, live with the bulk and be happy with a tool which fits better to your needs 😉 - no shame in this 😁

 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Daniel C.1975

[Emmanuel Nataf]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

That’s what the wide open aperture is for: set to 1.7 and there’s no background at close distances.

Not processing in post is a huge loss of the camera’s potential: you’re throwing away a lot of IQ just shooting jpg.

As Jaap says the lens is optimized digitally to get the best IQ with the smallest dimensions and weight. If you want better quality shooting jpg then you would either have to accept an SL lens which would be bigger, heavier and more expensive, or an M lens which would mean manual focus only.

Simply put, there’s no free lunch: you take you pick and pay the price.

And those are the kinds of questions you would expect a buyer of a $6,000 camera to research and answer before buying.

I obviously shoot in RAW. I wrote in the article the Q3 makes me spend a lot more time post-processing. Have you even read the piece? Please…

[Le Chef]

9 minutes ago, Emmanuel Nataf said:

I obviously shoot in RAW. I wrote in the article the Q3 makes me spend a lot more time post-processing. Have you even read the piece? Please…

Please…I read it and was surprised about the discontinuities in your piece vs accepted reality. I’m not going to attack you - not worth the effort - but you might want to research some of the accepted wisdom e.g “spending time blurring backgrounds” Please…

Edited December 13, 2023 by Le Chef

[Olaf_ZG]

7 hours ago, Pelu2010 said:

And maybe in the future we get a 40 mm Q3.1 😀

You are fueling my hopes… though 43mm would be perfect. Question is when will the future arrive?

Edited December 13, 2023 by Olaf_ZG

[jaapv]

30 minutes ago, Blues Bird said:

Well, you've obviously misunderstood something here: The quality of the jpgs that the Q currently delivers has of course nothing to do with the Q lens, nor with SL or M lenses, but exclusively with the RAW engine in the Q itself, which produces these jpgs.  If Leica were to step up a gear here, there would also be better jpgs sooc.

And this is the kind of knowledge  you would expect a buyer of a $6,000 camera to research and answer before buying...

The OP just stated that he shoots raw. Three posts back. I don’ t quite follow what jpeg quality has to do with a complaint about a lens. 

[MikeD70]

Wow, tough room!  I guess I'm in the minority here.  I really like the lens.  My professional background was in sports and reportage stuff, and some wedding work on the side.  I was always looking outside the intended frame, and cropping to bring it home.  I think it all depends on individual perspective, and how you "see" your final image at the time.  I admit to cropping about 98% of the time.  But then, my stuff was usually different looking.

Carry on shooters.

[jaapv]

Wel, there is nothing wrong with the second paragraph and it bolsters the opinion that the OP misinterpreted the camera. Which is a thing that happens regularly to niche cameras irrespective of brand. 

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, Blues Bird said:

: The quality of the jpgs that the Q currently delivers has of course nothing to do with the Q lens, nor with SL or M lenses,

Obviously…but if the OP is complaining about the time spent in post and the quality of the lens then he has choices. Leica, as it typically does, focuses on RAW output rather than offering jpgs as the priority. If you want nicely prepared jpg images OOC then Fuji might be a better choice.

[Le Chef]

26 minutes ago, Blues Bird said:

Well, neither do I. But you should better ask our friend @Le Chef  because  already seven posts earlier he insinuated out of the blue that the OP would shoot jpgs.

Not true btw. You need to understand conditional words in sentences.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[ianforber]

35 minutes ago, MikeD70 said:

Wow, tough room!  I guess I'm in the minority here.  I really like the lens.  My professional background was in sports and reportage stuff, and some wedding work on the side.  I was always looking outside the intended frame, and cropping to bring it home.  I think it all depends on individual perspective, and how you "see" your final image at the time.  I admit to cropping about 98% of the time.  But then, my stuff was usually different looking.

Carry on shooters.

You’re not alone. I find the Q2 lens ideal for my needs and crop almost 100% of the time. I know that sounds like I should get a camera with a longer focal length but I also crop almost all the time when using a 50mm on my M11. I’m just addicted to cropping.