The new Leica Q3 43 - Review by Jonathan Slack

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, aficionados said:

Somebody has compared DNG files from 28mm and 43mm, and yes 43mm pictures have distortion correction baked in DNG, like 28mm does.

So 43mm does heavily rely on software to correct distortion.

It was Sean Reid at https://reidreviews.com  but it isn’t heavy correction and as @SrMi says it isn’t baked in. You can remove if you want at the cost of some barrel distortion. 
It’s true of most modern lenses.

[NZDavid]

“The design of the Q is an evolution from Kaoru Mokunaka’s perfect concept in the Leica X1…”

Which is the essence of the original Leica and just proves that simple analog controls are still intuitive and effective. The X1 is also a classic and a really compact size, which may still be advantageous.

My first “serious” camera in the 70s was an Olympus 35RC, which had a 43.5mm lens — a popular focal length for rangefinder compacts at the time.

I’m afraid I don’t find many of those extra features, like tilting screen and app connectivity, of real use, but looks like a superb camera, and a nice review.

[jonoslack]

3 hours ago, hoppyman said:

Thank you for a thoughtful and informative review again Jono. I drank the Kool-Aid and have been enjoying the Q3 for some time, mostly for travel and family as well as the SL2 in studio. Very largely I shoot to use the 35 crop.
I was very close to changing to the SL3, now I really wish I hadn't read your excerpt quote there! Where's that Lotto ticket?

Thank you. I’m sorry to muddy the water!

on the other hand the SL3 is great. I have both cameras with me in Crete now, experimenting with the SL3 and a couple of lightweight Panasonic 🫣 zooms: 20-60 f3.5-5.6 and the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 — together they weigh just over a kilo and they seem to be very good!

 

all the best

[sls]

47 minutes ago, NZDavid said:

like tilting screen

I really don't like tilting screens and that helped me not want the Q3. On top of which we were in Florence a couple of years ago and I bought the lovely tan Q2 half case in the Florence Leica store, and I'm as much attached to that as the camera.

I have the 90 degree viewfinder for M10 and did a whole series of cathedral and church ceilings in Spain, the whole way down the west from Bilbao to Seville and then up to Toledo. quite a few with the 15mm Voitlander. Works a treat. Also used it in the Baptistery in Florence. We were in the Camera degli Sposi in Mantua a few weeks ago and it would have been helpful, but with a wide angle lens only. Tilting screens to me are just an accident waiting to happen.

[Viv]

I really like the camera, but I won't be substituting it for my Q2.

If I want 43mm, I can crop from 28mm.

[keithlaban.co.uk]

Many thanks, Jono, as always informative and fun.

I'm now back in the fold after a hiatus of five years!

Best wishes to you.

Keith

[Lucena]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for this very complete presentation.

I own a Q and a Q2. The Q3 didn't convince me, but I am temped by the Q3-43. Will give it a serious thought as I used the 35 or 50mm crop mostly.

[jonoslack]

2 hours ago, Viv said:

I really like the camera, but I won't be substituting it for my Q2.

If I want 43mm, I can crop from 28mm.

Quite right. The issue only really arises if you want more than 43mm (say 75mm) where the new camera will show limited depth of field and more than twice the resolution of the Q3 (and nearly 3 times that of the q2)

it’s a trade off, but either way the Q3 43 is much use if you want 28mm!

[M Street Photographer]

Yesterday I had the Q 43 in my hand and tested it. I take photos with an m10 r and the Q3. First of all, the 43 is absolutely the same camera as the 28 mm, only the focal lengths are different. My first impression when taking photos was that I missed the 28 mm, even though I usually take photos with 35 and 50 mm on the m. Cropping up to 75 / 90 mm is always possible, but wider than 43 is not. Unless you are taking panoramas. In terms of quality, the apo is beyond reproach. It gets more difficult with zone focus at 2.0 and 43 mm. In the end it is very simple: it is a question of personal taste, 28 or 43 mm. So calm down a bit, the hype is unfounded, but respect for Leica for meeting customer requests for a longer focal length. I understand the happiness  and yes, but not the playschool sound.

[db24fps]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

Quite right. The issue only really arises if you want more than 43mm (say 75mm) where the new camera will show limited depth of field and more than twice the resolution of the Q3 (and nearly 3 times that of the q2)

it’s a trade off, but either way the Q3 43 is much use if you want 28mm!

 

I really had to sleep on this ever since it was clear the 43 was a real thing and approaching release. I haven't owned a Q since the original. As a 50 lover it took me out of my comfort zone having a 28mm lens, but I enjoyed it a lot and began to photograph new things in new ways. I have, however, opted to go with the 43 as it's within the focal distance in which I feel I respond to the best, and it affords me something a little wider than the 50s I would so often lean on with an M which is welcome (since they increased the viewfinder magnification on the M10/11 I find it difficult to enjoy anything wider than a 50 with my glasses on an M, but it is nevertheless a focal length I love. I just also love 35 too. Being so limited makes it difficult to justify investing in another digital M however, much as I miss my M10P and having an optical viewfinder).

I do personally think that the 28mm+60mp combo makes for a more versatile camera when it comes to cropping options (having M9 resolution with a 50mm crop is more than acceptable), but I can't afford both and have to accept a compromise whatever my choice given that its a fixed lens camera. My hope is that, having never had a camera with this level of resolution before, that the 43 will still open me up to exploring things in new ways. 

Edited September 27 by db24fps

[Likaleica]

 

2 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

Yesterday I had the Q 43 in my hand and tested it. I take photos with an m10 r and the Q3. First of all, the 43 is absolutely the same camera as the 28 mm, only the focal lengths are different. My first impression when taking photos was that I missed the 28 mm, even though I usually take photos with 35 and 50 mm on the m. Cropping up to 75 / 90 mm is always possible, but wider than 43 is not. Unless you are taking panoramas. In terms of quality, the apo is beyond reproach. It gets more difficult with zone focus at 2.0 and 43 mm. In the end it is very simple: it is a question of personal taste, 28 or 43 mm. So calm down a bit, the hype is unfounded, but respect for Leica for meeting customer requests for a longer focal length. I understand the happiness  and yes, but not the playschool sound.

I think it's wonderful that we have so many options in photography, and that we all have our own vision.  Every day, billions of pictures are taken in the 24 to 28mm focal length range (35mm equivalent) with smart phones.  I think that is the reason I am not fond of the 28mm focal length - I'm tired of seeing the world that way.  That's the main reason the Q, clever as it is, never appealed to me.  In the last decade or so, my eyes have settled on the 35 to 50 range, which I also disliked for decades before that for similar reasons.  Needless to say, I am among the many who are excited about this new camera and am anxious for the FedEx man to arrive this morning!

[M Street Photographer]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb Likaleica:

I think it's wonderful that we have so many options in photography, ...

I congratulate you and hope you have a lot of fun with the new camera. You have found the right one for you. And I understand everyone's joy, I was talking about this sometimes sick hype, which is almost worse than when a new iPhone comes out.

The Q 43 does not revolutionize the world of photography, it is just a Q with a longer focal length than before. And I'm happy for those who have always wanted a Q with 35 or 50 mm.

[farnz]

Thank you, Jono, for your interesting, highly objective and professional review. 

For once, I am 'ahead of you' as RDC had a Q3 43 whizzing my way before I found your review.  Nevertheless your review answered some questions for me but, most of all, clearly illustrated what you've said through your wonderful pictures.

I was one of the ones who was always 'sold' on the Q but wanted and waited for a ~50 mm lens.  To be able to shoot up to 150 mm is just a bonus.

Pete.

[jonoslack]

5 hours ago, M Street Photographer said:

 

The Q 43 does not revolutionize the world of photography, it is just a Q with a longer focal length than before. And I'm happy for those who have always wanted a Q with 35 or 50 mm.

I hope my article wasn’t too superlative, I try to be measured, although in this instance I don’t have many reservations. 

But it isn’t just a Q with a longer focal length, that’s like saying the 35 APO is just a 28 summicron with a slightly longer focal length. 

[M Street Photographer]

vor 17 Minuten schrieb jonoslack:

I hope my article wasn’t too superlative, I try to be measured, although in this instance I don’t have many reservations. 

But it isn’t just a Q with a longer focal length, that’s like saying the 35 APO is just a 28 summicron with a slightly longer focal length. 

Have you compared the 43 with the M 35 or M 50 Apo? Are there any visible differences in any respect? Of course it is a bit difficult because the 43 is in the middle. Because Apo quality does not always have to be identical.

[Jeff S]

Thanks, Jono, as usual. I haven’t used the Q system, but use the SL2 to complement my M bodies. My understanding is that the Q system, including the Q3 variants, do not provide for back button AF like the SL2, etc. I use BBF and, if needed, set manual focus turn to magnify the image, with light shutter button press to restore full view. (I hate focus peaking.)
 

Do you, or anyone else here, find lack of BBF (if this is the case) to be a frustrating or limiting operational issue?  
 

The 28mm lens on prior Q variants never appealed to me, but as a 35/50mm user for my M bodies, the Q3-43 might have appeal for some situations. But since it wouldn’t replace my SL2, I could imagine that different shooting/focusing techniques might be annoying.

Jeff

[hoppyman]

18 hours ago, sls said:

I was looking at the SL3 as well as a general purpose camera with flexibility, but easily portable? We went to the world's maddest city, Venice, a few weeks ago for the day (to see the Biennale) and all I saw were Q2/Q3. Quite a few. The lack of availability of new models always lets me think about these things long term before making a decision I soon regret. I suspect I'm one of many who think the M10-R does everything I possibly want. 

I see you do a lot of studio portrait/fashion. I bought my first digital Leica (M9) from a fashion photographer who said it was his fun camera, but not for work. My best friend's daughter does fashion photography, she tried the SL system at one point, borrowed my Q and an M when she was a student 5 or 6 years ago. 85mm used to be the goto lens, but most of her work is extreme wide angle, with Canon.

Hi and thanks for your perspective. I am an amateur enthusiast. Except for travel and family, I shoot nearly all in a studio space. and on tripod. M9, M (typ 240), then S system. For how and what I shoot in studio the SL system offers a lot of advantages.... when I type that this is not an inexpensive pursuit!
I couldn't possibly shoot high volume rapid sequences with usually flow posing models/dancers as I do currently with the other systems.  After all of that I am hoping that the SL3 is noticeably lighter and smaller than my SL2. For me the SL system is larger and heavier than I want for travel. I guess Jono is younger and fitter than I am.

For fun I recently shot a project entirely with the Q3 using the full 28mm of the frame, weird angles and the like. Then I saw Jono's Q3 43 review just days before I am to visit the biggest Leica Camera store here (in Melbourne). This could be very bad.

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Do you, or anyone else here, find lack of BBF (if this is the case) to be a frustrating or limiting operational issue?  

I find it very annoying that Leica does not implement proper BBF in Q3s.

Therefore, I find myself often using MF with Q3, though it is much slower than BBF.

[Likaleica]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Thanks, Jono, as usual. I haven’t used the Q system, but use the SL2 to complement my M bodies. My understanding is that the Q system, including the Q3 variants, do not provide for back button AF like the SL2, etc. I use BBF and, if needed, set manual focus turn to magnify the image, with light shutter button press to restore full view. (I hate focus peaking.)
 

Do you, or anyone else here, find lack of BBF (if this is the case) to be a frustrating or limiting operational issue?  
 

The 28mm lens on prior Q variants never appealed to me, but as a 35/50mm user for my M bodies, the Q3-43 might have appeal for some situations. But since it wouldn’t replace my SL2, I could imagine that different shooting/focusing techniques might be annoying.

Jeff

I've never been a bbf shooter, but I can't imagine that it would take much more than a firmware update to program one of the two back buttons.  I hope so, because I need to find an alternative function for the video function on the back!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Likaleica said:

I've never been a bbf shooter, but I can't imagine that it would take much more than a firmware update to program one of the two back buttons.  I hope so, because I need to find an alternative function for the video function on the back!

The key is the functionality to disable the focus on the shutter button. With SL3, that is possible by switching to MF. With Q3 and L-mount lenses with MF clutch, switching to MF disables focusing and prevents BBF.