Q3 with 43mm APO f2

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nothing wrong with 40 mm but why not use a Summicron 40/2 C on an M  or SL instead of spending something like 10.000 $ on such a Q? 

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, CptSlevin said:

Odd choice.
Not wide as 35, too far from 50.

With Q3 sensor size, we now get really versatile crop camera with capabilities of wide 28, widish 35 and 20mp of sensor for 50mm users.

40mm is not versatile at all

It is not really an odd choice. Fixed lens cameras have a long long history of offering two versions: one close to 28mm and one close to 40mm. Leica's own fixed lens cameras in the film days were often 40mm. The CL came with a 40mm...it is also the standard angle of view for cameras like the Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 series, Fuji rangefinders, Plaubel Makina, Bessa RF and many many others. Ricoh has been very successful with the X version of the GR which is 40mm. As others have said, 40mm is a focal length that is very close to the field of view we experience in our vision. Personally, I find the lens in the Q too wide. Though listed at 28mm, it is closer to most 25 or 26mm lenses, and my experience of having a Q2 was twofold: 1. How much I loved the camera itself. 2. How I got hardly any pictures I liked from it because it was too wide. Here in Iceland, landscapes with very wide angles tend to make the mountains and landscape features seem very small and distant, and portraits with wide angles like 25-28mm lenses tend to distort features and be unflattering.  I had hoped I would be happy with cropping, as Leica theorized, but it was not a good user experience to frame the images past 35mm, and the quality rapidly drops as you crop in as the noise is increasingly apparent and the lens is more and more strained.

A 43mm APO Q would be a dream for me at least. I know I am not alone given how many people posted in favor of one in the 40mm Q threads. What continues to baffle me is how against it people who prefer a 28m Q are. No one is coming to take away your version, this is a camera to compliment it, not replace it.

[Stuart Richardson]

36 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Nothing wrong with 40 mm but why not use a Summicron 40/2 C on an M  or SL instead of spending something like 10.000 $ on such a Q? 

10.000 dollars? What makes you think that it would cost 10k? I can't imagine that it would not be priced similarly to the existing Q3...

As for your question, it doesn't really make sense. Why not a 28mm on an M or SL? Because the point is having it on a Q platform -- compact, integrated and weathersealed with AF.

[Lelmer]

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Nothing wrong with 40 mm but why not use a Summicron 40/2 C on an M  or SL instead of spending something like 10.000 $ on such a Q? 

And why not use a Summilux 28mm on a M or SL instead of buying a Q?

[intermediatic]

I truly dislike 40mm. I accidentally packed a 40 on a recent trip and was cursing myself the entire time. Why not 50, a much more classic size? And if there is no Q3M, it is likely I have bought my last Leica for the foreseeable future. I have the Q3, Q2M, M11 and M11M. The Q2M is my favorite of these. While I scoff at the idea that 24 megapixels is enough for serious photography, 60 is enough for a 35mm sensor, especially as in the case of the Ms, if it does not have IBIS. I’ll stick with my favorite system, the Hasseblad 100c for that. So this might be it for me. I suppose some kind of M that had a hybrid rangefinder, IBIS, and could support autofocus lenses could be tempting but I don’t see that coming for many years, if ever. So this news is sad for me. I will treasure the Q2M, but printing at 48” was something I had hoped to do.

[Le Chef]

Rumor is the big word. Every enthusiast category (cars, cameras, watches, you name it) has guys like this that dream up new variants, new models, new something. It makes them feel important for 15 minutes. They provide no factual basis for their argument, just a belief that their idea is worth making and promoting.

The reality is this guy has simply imagined a Q3/4 he would like. There’s no factual information. No clues from Leica. No new reference numbers or names registered on international registries. No sightings. It’s simply pure imagination at work by a graphic designer with time on his hands.

And from a business perspective it doesn’t make sense. It would eat share and margin from the SL and L lens lines, and quite possibly from the M line too. There are other gaps Leica should fill as a priority before even contemplating adding something like this.

Edited August 25, 2024 by Le Chef

[nemendes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

If you don't wish to crop, why would you buy a camera that is designed for cropping use?? And why wouldn't  you wish to crop on a 60 MP camera??

And why do you suggest to crop images all the time? Maybe we just dont want to crop it, just that simple. 

[jaapv]

Because that is the essence of the Q series. The cropping replaces the zoom lens of other compacts. How you want to use the camera is of course your privilege. However if you buy a Q with the intention not to crop, you buy it for the 28 mm lens and a 40 mm one would be of little interest. 

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Rumor is the big word. The reality is this guy has simply imagined a Q3/4 he would like. There’s no factual information. No clues from Leica. No new reference numbers or names registered on international registries. No sightings. It’s simply pure imagination at work by a graphic designer with time on his hands.

And from a business perspective it doesn’t make sense. It would eat share and margin from the SL and L lens lines, and quite possibly from the M line too. There are other gaps Leica should fill as a priority before even contemplating adding something like this.

Maybe as a special edition @ 17.500 Euro? 

[01af]

vor einer Stunde schrieb jaapv:

... why not use a Summicron-C 40/2 on an M ...?

No 40 mm frame lines. Unfortunately.

.

vor 47 Minuten schrieb Stuart Richardson:

As others have said, 40 mm is a focal length that is very close to the field of view we experience in our vision.

No, contrary to common myths, it isn't.

Instead, 40 mm (or, more precisely, 43 mm) is the focal length that—on 35-mm format—will match the perspective-of-view for prints looked-at from a distance that matches the print's diagonal. In other words, when the focal-length-to-sensor's(or negative's)-diagonal ratio matches the viewing-distance-to-print's-diagonal ratio then the perspective will appear 'natural.' It has nothing to do with our eyes' vision's field-of-view ... which, in fact, basically resembles a full-frame-view fish-eye lens'.

[elmars]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Stuart Richardson:

It is not really an odd choice. Fixed lens cameras have a long long history of offering two versions: one close to 28mm and one close to 40mm. Leica's own fixed lens cameras in the film days were often 40mm. The CL came with a 40mm...it is also the standard angle of view for cameras like the Hasselblad and Mamiya 7 series, Fuji rangefinders, Plaubel Makina, Bessa RF and many many others. Ricoh has been very successful with the X version of the GR which is 40mm. As others have said, 40mm is a focal length that is very close to the field of view we experience in our vision. Personally, I find the lens in the Q too wide. Though listed at 28mm, it is closer to most 25 or 26mm lenses, and my experience of having a Q2 was twofold: 1. How much I loved the camera itself. 2. How I got hardly any pictures I liked from it because it was too wide. Here in Iceland, landscapes with very wide angles tend to make the mountains and landscape features seem very small and distant, and portraits with wide angles like 25-28mm lenses tend to distort features and be unflattering.  I had hoped I would be happy with cropping, as Leica theorized, but it was not a good user experience to frame the images past 35mm, and the quality rapidly drops as you crop in as the noise is increasingly apparent and the lens is more and more strained.

A 43mm APO Q would be a dream for me at least. I know I am not alone given how many people posted in favor of one in the 40mm Q threads. What continues to baffle me is how against it people who prefer a 28m Q are. No one is coming to take away your version, this is a camera to compliment it, not replace it.

Well said, thanks!

[jaapv]

18 minutes ago, 01af said:

No 40 mm frame lines. Unfortunately.

.

 

True but for an experienced M user the framelines are no more than a guideline. You will know exactly how far outside the 50 or inside the 35 one needs to be. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

True but for an experienced M user the framelines are no more than a guideline. You will know exactly how far outside the 50 or inside the 35 one needs to be. 

Not everyone is an experienced M user. An experienced M user does not need AF and automatic metering because he can nail the distance and metering by looking 🤪.

It reminds me of the document "Real Programmers Don't Eat Quiche."

[intermediatic]

3 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Rumor is the big word. Every enthusiast category (cars, cameras, watches, you name it) has guys like this that dream up new variants, new models, new something. It makes them feel important for 15 minutes. They provide no factual basis for their argument, just a belief that their idea is worth making and promoting.

The reality is this guy has simply imagined a Q3/4 he would like. There’s no factual information. No clues from Leica. No new reference numbers or names registered on international registries. No sightings. It’s simply pure imagination at work by a graphic designer with time on his hands.

And from a business perspective it doesn’t make sense. It would eat share and margin from the SL and L lens lines, and quite possibly from the M line too. There are other gaps Leica should fill as a priority before even contemplating adding something like this.

Who is “this guy”? Anyway, Leica Rumors is accurate enough that if you don’t get on your dealer’s list when a camera is rumored to be announced, you will be way in the back of the pack when the actual announcement is made. How do I know? Ask me about the M11. 

[T25UFO]

7 minutes ago, intermediatic said:

Leica Rumours is accurate enough

🤣

[goodbokeh]

Leica's Q marketing strategy is to compliment (not compete) with M sales by, in part, not having equivalent popular focal lengths like 35mm or 50mm. Accordingly they are now providing a homage to the original film era Leica CL that had a 40mm/2 Summicron. It was the Q camera concept of its day.

I knew this Q 40mm concept was likely going to happen over a year ago. I mentioned this (no-brainer) design on the Leica Q Forum and Jono Slack laughed...he was likely already testing it 🙂

Edited August 25, 2024 by goodbokeh
Typo

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

10.000 dollars? What makes you think that it would cost 10k? I can't imagine that it would not be priced similarly to the existing Q3...

Small market, development costs must be amortized and there must be a profit there -The red dot, after all. 

[jaapv]

You mean like they killed off the homage to the Barnacks in the form of the CL? And you mean the film CL that they had to sell off to Minolta because they could not make it profitable?

 

7 minutes ago, goodbokeh said:

Leica's Q marketing strategy is to compliment (not compete) with M sales by, in part, not having equivalent popular focal lengths like 35mm or 50mm. Accordingly they are now providing a homage to the original film era Leica CL that had a 40mm/2 Summicron. It was the Q camera concept of its day.

I knew this Q 40mm concept was likely going to happen over a year ago. I mentioned this (no-brainer) design on the Leica Q Forum and Jono Slack laughed...he was likely already testing it 🙂

 

[Le Chef]

And in between punters smoking recreational chemicals and offering their views on what they would like, Leica still has to launch an SL3-S, an M11-D, a Q3M. With that in mind you would argue Mr. Burmeister’s fantasies (read his full flowing regurgitation of what he idealizes) are a very long way towards the bottom of Leica’s money-making priority list.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Dr. G]

I’ve bought and sold every iteration of the Q I’ve had - Q, Q2, Q2M, Q3.  All because I don’t like the 28mm (or 24-26 depending on what you believe) for daily shooting.  That’s not to say I don’t like wider angles for travel, etc. but I am primarily a 50mm shooter and one of my favorite lenses is the Voigtlander 40 1.2.  I’m going to assume that if it’s a 40-43mm f2 APO, this camera will also have a 50mm crop mode at around f/2.2-2.3, and probably 75/90/105 as well.  
 

Instant buy for me and for travel I could rent a Q3 for wider shots, and carry two Q bodies in a very small bag.  I currently travel with my SL3 and the 21/35/50/75 APO Summicron-SL lenses - so this would be much lighter and more versatile setup.