Long awaited: Leica Q3 43 with APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH.

[My1stLeicaCam]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

29 minutes ago, SrMi said:

By how much?

43 at iso 5000, 28 at iso 4000

[RobW0]

39 minutes ago, My1stLeicaCam said:

I’m holding the 43, another person standing next to me was holding the 28. 
We were almost standing shoulder to shoulder. 
Initially it was in a dimly lit room. 
I requested to perform the same test outdoors. 
The result is always the 43 having higher iso. 

This was my point. If you are standing in the same place the 28 has a wider view and most likely has a light source that it sees that the narrower view 43 does not. 

[Dr. G]

11 hours ago, ramarren said:

For whatever the common wisdom might be, I personally would NEVER choose 28mm as my only lens. I did that with a Ricoh GR1 many years ago and almost immediately bought another Rollei 35S because of its 40mm lens, sold the GR1 a couple of months later. Focal length equivalents with a wider FoV than 35mm are what I keep alongside my "standard" camera outfitted with something between 35mm and 50mm FoV as complementary tools ... Same way I used to always want a Hasselblad SWC in my bag alongside a 500CM fitted with 80 to 120 mm lens. Even with my iPhone 15 PRO, virtually every time I turn on the camera I switch it from the default 1x (28mm equiv) to 2x or 3x lens setting. 

The Q3 43 is thus the first Leica Q series camera that piques my interest seriously. I'd rather add a wide-converter to the front of the lens occasionally than constantly reduce resolution to obtain my more comfortable FoV setting.  Here's to hoping that Leica a) produces a monochrom version of the Q3 43, and b) produces a matched ~0.6x to 0.5x wide-converter to allow for an ultra-wide FoV. 

 

 

How much would/could they charge for the wide converter, and how much would you pay?  Forum members have suggested that producing the Q3 43 was not the smartest move by Leica as it would potentially cannibalize the sales of some other products.  If Leica made a converter that could produce a 24-28mm field of view on the Q3 43 then there would be people that wouldn't by an additional Q28.  Would you spend $2k or $3K for a converter instead of $6k for a Q28?

Although, there may be people that already have a q28 and now have a Q3 43 that may give up their Q28 and get the converter to save size and weight.  In that case Leica sells an additional product to someone who already bought the Q28.

 

Edited September 28, 2024 by Dr. G

[My1stLeicaCam]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Well, multi-field on the Q3 presumably includes a broader field than multi-field on the 43.  I wonder if spot metering (or a bit bigger, on same subject) would yield the same ISO.

Jeff

This does make sense. 
At least it sounds logical. 
A random Leica guy told me it’s due to the APO lens getting light rays simultaneously hitting the lens, which I couldn’t really relate to his analogy. 

[BWColor]

1 hour ago, Dr. G said:

How much would/could they charge for the wide converter, and how much would you pay?  Forum members have suggested that producing the Q3 43 was not the smartest move by Leica as it would potentially cannibalize the sales of some other products.  If Leica made a converter that could produce a 24-28mm field of view on the Q3 43 then there would be people that wouldn't by an additional Q28.  Would you spend $2k or $3K for a converter instead of $6k for a Q28?

Although, there may be people that already have a q28 and now have a Q3 43 that may give up their Q28 and get the converter to save size and weight.  In that case Leica sells an additional product to someone who already bought the Q28.

 

It seems to me that those lusting after a top quality APO lens would, as a group, be reluctant to degrade the optics with a wide converter.  Perhaps, a limited range zoom would be a better approach, but again, not sure if this is what the Q buyer is looking for.  You can do a lot of zooming with your feet and the crop modes.

[Dr. G]

13 minutes ago, BWColor said:

It seems to me that those lusting after a top quality APO lens would, as a group, be reluctant to degrade the optics with a wide converter.  Perhaps, a limited range zoom would be a better approach, but again, not sure if this is what the Q buyer is looking for.  You can do a lot of zooming with your feet and the crop modes.

True, but if the resulting image on the sensor when taken with a wide converter on the 43 APO has the same acuity as the 28mm Summilux, then it's even again since there is no 28mm APO available on a Q body.  I doubt that would ever be possible but, if it was, I could see it as an argument against carrying two cameras. 

It's all theoretical anyway - it's never going to happen.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, My1stLeicaCam said:

This does make sense. 
At least it sounds logical. 
A random Leica guy told me it’s due to the APO lens getting light rays simultaneously hitting the lens, which I couldn’t really relate to his analogy. 

I call BS on that comment! (not you).

From your description, I am sure it is because the metered scene was different between the two cameras held almost side by side. It only takes a slightly different light pattern to change the metered exposure.

You can check this with just one Q: point it at a scene with the same multi-field setting; make sure there is a bright light in one corner. Then change the zoom/frame lines. You will see the metering change as the metered area changes: the central part of the scene will get brighter as the frame lines get smaller. (It's more obvious when you do the same for AF, because you can see that the focus points are constrained to within the frame.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Special new break...

Different cameras meter slightly differently. Different focal lengths see different things. Different lenses have slightly different light transmission factor. This is why still camera use F-stops and video/cinema lenses use T-stops.

Now back to your regular programming....

Gordon

[Dr. G]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Special new break...

Different cameras meter slightly differently. Different focal lengths see different things. Different lenses have slightly different light transmission factor. This is why still camera use F-stops and video/cinema lenses use T-stops.

Now back to your regular programming....

Gordon

Still camera lenses have T stops, too.  I don’t remember where, but there was a website where you used to be able to look it up for various mainstream lenses.  F stop is more accurate for determining depth of field and T stop for light transmission.  Two lenses wide open at f/1.4 May have different T stops and will, therefore, need different ISO values for the same exposure.  Alex Barrera did a video a while back comparing the 50mm Summicron-SL, 50mm APO Summicron-SL and 50mm Summilux-SL and found that there were light transmission difference between those lenses that were noticeable when reviewing images.

[farnz]

8 hours ago, My1stLeicaCam said:

A random Leica guy told me it’s due to the APO lens getting light rays simultaneously hitting the lens, which I couldn’t really relate to his analogy. 

I suspect that he was clumsily* trying to explain it with Apochromaticity, which is the property of Apochromatic lenses to focus (3) wavelengths of light in the same plane and thereby produce a smaller/the smallest dot in the image.  'Non-apochromatic' lenses will cause the wavelengths to focus slightly in front or behind the image plane and result in fuzzier spots in the image plane because the light rays are long and conical after leaving the lens.  *I accept that what I've written might be viewed as clumsy but at least it contains fact.

The term "APO" that was applied to lenses by Leica used to mean that they were Apochromatic (for example, the 280/4 APO-Telyt-R and the 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R) but Stephan Daniel confirmed a couple of years ago that the "APO" label applied to a lens now means more or less "as high-performing as we can make it" but the lens might only be Achromatic (2 wavelengths focussed on the image plane) but other factors such as low-dispersion elements, aspherical surfaces, 'superior' lens coatings, and computational light-path design all add to the lens's high performance.  (It sounds to me like the marketing team must have had a hand in this.)

With respect to the random Leica guy's explanation, it is nonsense.  Light travels at 671 million mph so, even using the fastest shutter speed, all of the light rays will "hit the lens" simultaneously. 

The difference in exposure value between the Q3 (28) and Q3 43 mentioned here will have been caused by using multi-field metering, which only produces an average of the exposure value across the frame.  Since it's an average it will be heavily affected by high and low values, and since the field of view from the 28 and 43 mm lenses is quite different, the high and low values collected by the lenses and used in the average are likely to be different and give the difference in Auto-ISO values that was experienced.

Using spot metering (and aiming the cross-hairs at the same spot) should produce much closer results.

Apologies for the lengthy post.

Pete.

[Alberti]

Other topic.

I looked at the #43 to replace my LumixS+ 45mm combo. Great idea isn’t it?

But I also happened to have had a look at the #43 manual - and it is just as cluttered as the Lumix, or D-LUX. Not a DeLight I can say.

On the other hand I saw N Rains films on the M11-D. Focus on Das Wesentliche. The #43 is just the opposite. Two thoughts, two ways of use (film and video) ; many levels of use. That makes it hard to onboard. And use. - why not simplify things? How many Q-users really are selfie makers, panning filmers?

[LocalHero1953]

Has anyone seen any trade-in offers from official Leica stores? (Trade your Q2, Q3 for a Q3 43)

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Alberti said:

But I also happened to have had a look at the #43 manual - and it is just as cluttered as the Lumix, or D-LUX. Not a DeLight I can say.

 

The Leica Q3 manual is 264 pages and is simple.

The Panasonic S5 manual is 803 pages and as complicated as those for most cameras (except Leica and Hasselblad).

[Alberti]

18 hours ago, jjroroek said:

haha i was just thinking f that same option   but then not tri-elmar but tri-summicron 

But not bulky 😥

[Mikep996]

Interesting.  I always thought the Q2 was the perfect fixed lens camera BECAUSE of the excellent 28mm lens.  I don't get the concept of a Q with a longer lens but clearly many people do!  

[LUF Admin]

Sorry folks, I had to hide a lot of recent comments.

This thread is about the Leica Q3 43 – please leave out off topic like EU regulations, complaints about dealers etc.

Andreas

[S Maclean]

14 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Has anyone seen any trade-in offers from official Leica stores? (Trade your Q2, Q3 for a Q3 43)

Not as such, but any Leica store will trade. Up to you what you use your credit for.  I don’t think the trade value of a Q2 or 3 (28) would vary if used to get another Q3 (43)

 

I just traded my wife’s Q2 ghost for a D8 + some cash to me. Would have used it towards a Q3 but she wants something simpler.

[ramarren]

On 9/27/2024 at 7:37 PM, Dr. G said:

How much would/could they charge for the wide converter, and how much would you pay?  Forum members have suggested that producing the Q3 43 was not the smartest move by Leica as it would potentially cannibalize the sales of some other products.  If Leica made a converter that could produce a 24-28mm field of view on the Q3 43 then there would be people that wouldn't by an additional Q28.  Would you spend $2k or $3K for a converter instead of $6k for a Q28?

Although, there may be people that already have a q28 and now have a Q3 43 that may give up their Q28 and get the converter to save size and weight.  In that case Leica sells an additional product to someone who already bought the Q28.

I don't think I can imagine honestly that Leica's formal intent and financial plan includes selling more than one Q camera to a particular customer other than as an occasional happenstance.  

Back in the dawn of Time (in digital camera terms ...), there was an Olympus DSLR that had a fixed zoom lens. I had one of them, it was a fine, solid camera with professional quality build and top notch imaging for its day (5/8 sensor with 5 Mpixel if I recall correctly, 2000-2002 time period), and a typically excellent Olympus lens. Olympus sold both a teleconverter and a wideconverter for it, and they were premium quality, matched optics  ... and fairly expensive. I had them. They didn't degrade the performance of the original lens to any amount visible without an optical test bench doing the evaluation. They were probably $400-$600 or so for each when I bought them, which in today's Leica terms would likely be $2000-$3000. A $3000 Leica lens accessory for a $7000 camera shouldn't be all that unusual to anyone used to buying Leica M lenses at $4000-$6000 apiece, if it performed well. 

(In fact, if I were to acquire a Q3 43, I might even try the old Olympus converters on it because I have a bunch of thread adapters and I still have the converters lost in a drawer around here somewhere, including at least one or two that go from 49mm to the thread size on these front element converters. Such a thought might horrify the Leica enthusiasts, but eh? If it worked well, and I got some interesting photos because of it, what's the difference? It's a camera, it makes photographs....  )

G

Edited September 29, 2024 by ramarren

[Miltz]

Odd behavior for sure… I compared the Q3 with the Q3 43 both at f2, and the q3 had lower iso. I suspect the t stop value of the 43mm lens is higher than F2. Not good news for low light shooters like me. I will do more scientific tests next week. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[LocalHero1953]

5 minutes ago, Miltz said:

Odd behavior for sure… I compared the Q3 with the Q3 43 both at f2, and the q3 had lower iso. I suspect the t stop value of the 43mm lens is higher than F2. Not good news for low light shooters like me. I will do more scientific tests next week. 

It's normal behaviour, unless you're shooting a perfectly evenly lit scene (e.g. a large grey card filling the frame), or exactly the same frame of the same scene.