The Q3 43mm and Q3(2,1) 28mm - an ideal combo?

[Photollery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve had the Q3 for sometime now and love it. Unlike the majority of what I’ve read here, I prefer the 28 for everyday shooting. 
I agree with others that using the 28mm for portraits isn’t great (I use Nikon/Fuji) so I’ll probably (very carefully) inform the boss when she gets back from her latest business trip that I’ll be buying again.

I’m now only part time (one-two days a week max), with early arthritis and a serious back problem, so a Q3 and Q3 43 will cover my needs going forward for a little work and a lot of travelling.  I think I’ll be contented enough to sell anything else I have that’s not film (including about 15 camera bags 🤷‍♂️)

 

[jgbossert]

Does anyone of you have a Q2/Q3 28 and a Q3 43?

Would be great to see a 75mm crop comparison of both 28 and 43. If done with a tripod framing and everything should be quivalent.
Sure resolution is different. But interesting would be depth of field.

I assume Q3 43 with F/2.0 to have around equivalent F/3.5 DOF at 75mm, while Q2/Q3 38 at F/1.7 would be around equivalent F/4.5 DOF at 75mm. Sounds like a minor difference, but would be interesting to see it in direct comparison with the same person in same framing.

Hope anyone could post a comparison 🙂

[Qwertynm]

17 hours ago, jgbossert said:

Would be great to see a 75mm crop comparison of both 28 and 43.

Irrespective of the image quality results, as a Q3 28 user I can assure you that using the 75mm croplines, as it’s currently implemented, sucks. 

[ianforber]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:49 PM, Qwertynm said:

Irrespective of the image quality results, as a Q3 28 user I can assure you that using the 75mm croplines, as it’s currently implemented, sucks. 

Is that how it looks while using the camera or the resulting image? I don’t use the in-camera crop function in my Q2 but I tend to crop heavily and have no problem with the post-crop images. Each to their own, obviously!

Edited November 26, 2024 by ianforber

[Le Chef]

Does the Q3 combo make sense?

You reasonably can shoot from 28 to 75mm at f2.8 or less. MP's range from 60Mp down to 19.8MP at 75mm end of the Q3 43. The combo weighs in at just over 1.5kgs.

An SL3 + 24-70 will give you slight greater reach at the wide end, but you get 60MP all the way. The down side is it weighs just over 1.7kgs.

So. the trade off is lower MPs for 200gs lower weight vs 60MP, and in favor of the SL3 you can go both wider and longer if you wan to.

What do SL3 owners think?

[LocalHero1953]

I’m a SL2-S owner, not SL3 owner, but I acknowledge your logic. On the other hand it ignores the benefit of a smaller, lighter, quieter camera in the hands, even if the bag weight is similar. 

[gotium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can make sense if you appreciate the user interface and how the cameras feel in the hand (I do). 

However, you are carrying two camera bodies for two lenses.

For the same weight you can carry an a7cR (or for 200g more an a7RV) with two G-master lenses (ex. the 24/1.4 and either the 35/1.4 or the 50/1.4) and get better AF, MUCH better eye AF and better image quality, especially compared with the 28 mm lens of the Q3. If you are able to manage the Sony interface and the need to change lenses, louder mechanical shutter and (for the a7cR) the flip instead of tilt screen.

For now, I'm going back and forth. 

[ktmrider2]

Or Ricoh GR3 and GR3X.

[Qwertynm]

15 hours ago, ianforber said:

Is that how it looks while using the camera or the resulting image?

Yes, that’s the main reason for me. The 50mm croplines I already find borderline useable. The image quality should be fine even cropped that heavily. 

43/2 is too close for the Q3 28 1.7 imho. I’d prefer a 65/2 for portrait. But that’s an odd focal length and therefore it doesn’t make sense to own both the Q3 43 and 28 imho. 

[viramati]

I agree a Q3 65mm would make much more sense as a combo as really 43mm is too close to 28mm but then not many would buy a Q3 65mm as it would be limited as a standalone camera. For me the obvious combo is something like the Sony A7rc and something like the Sigma 65mm DG lens or Sony Zeiss FE55/1.8

Edited November 27, 2024 by viramati

[jmschuh]

I have both cameras and I've been shooting with the Q since 2015.

Before I had the Q3 43, I was cropping with the Q3 28. I don't do that anymore. I only crop with the Q3 43 for the longer virtual focal lengths. The Q3 28 is now used almost exclusively with 28mm, unless I don't have the Q3 43 with me.

The difference when taking a portrait of a person, for example, is clear:

Q3 28mm

75mm f4.5 = crop factor 2.68x - 8 MP (3552 x 2268) - the same size as a 1” sensor

Q3 43mm

75mm f3.5 = crop factor 1.7x - 19.8 MP (5,456 x 3,632)

 

For portraits, this is already a clearly noticeable difference in quality and depth of field.

I bought the Q3 primarily for the additional purpose of photographing people. I would prefer a Q3 with 75mm lens, but that will probably never happen.

[JTLeica]

46 minutes ago, viramati said:

I agree a Q3 65mm would make much more sense as a combo as really 43mm is too close to 28mm but then not many would buy a Q3 65mm as it would be limited as a standalone camera. For me the obvious combo is something like the Sony A7rc and something like the Sigma 65mm DG lens or Sony Zeiss FE55/1.8

43 is nowhere close to 28. A 65 becomes almost a no go for a one camera only setup too, I would never just take a 65mm lens with me, but a 43 I can. So a 65 needs to be paired with another camera.

 

[viramati]

22 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

43 is nowhere close to 28. A 65 becomes almost a no go for a one camera only setup too, I would never just take a 65mm lens with me, but a 43 I can. So a 65 needs to be paired with another camera.

 

Basically what I was saying no one would buy a 65mm Q3 as a one camera setup and of course 43mm is not close to 28mm but if you're buying the Q3 43 to mainly use at that focal length then for me it doesn't really add up. 

[Qwertynm]

2 hours ago, JTLeica said:

So a 65 needs to be paired with another camera.

for me the same is true with both Q3s. I could live with only 43 but would miss out on 28-43mm. With the 28 I miss out on >50mm. I think 43/2 is too close to 28/1.7, especially with 60MP. The cropped 43 file out of the Q3 28 is still >20MP and eq. DoF of about f/2.5-2.8 - a minor difference imho. Now if the 43 would've been a 1.4 or 1.7 that would've been a different story. Again, this all boils down to personal preference. I pair my Q3 28 with a 50 1.2 which gives me more of distinctive look.

I'd love to see some side by side portraits out of both the Q3s. I bet there isn't that much in it if you crop to eq. focal lengths.

[Olaf_ZG]

22 hours ago, Le Chef said:

Does the Q3 combo make sense?

You reasonably can shoot from 28 to 75mm at f2.8 or less. MP's range from 60Mp down to 19.8MP at 75mm end of the Q3 43. The combo weighs in at just over 1.5kgs.

An SL3 + 24-70 will give you slight greater reach at the wide end, but you get 60MP all the way. The down side is it weighs just over 1.7kgs.

So. the trade off is lower MPs for 200gs lower weight vs 60MP, and in favor of the SL3 you can go both wider and longer if you wan to.

What do SL3 owners think?

Not owning the SL3, but both SL2’s. My SL’s are paired with either the original zooms or the Lux. Heavy stuff, and therefore I use a BIG strap. The Q has a tiny leather strap. Taking both into consideration, the SL feels huge, whereas the Q is easily hang across my shoulder. The difference might be small, but big enough to make a difference between daily carry and goal specific. The SL belongs to the later category.

That said, for certain hikes, I could see me walking with a SL plus 21 and the Q3 43…

For now, owning two Q’s doesn’t make sense to me.

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

I'd love to see some side by side portraits out of both the Q3s. I bet there isn't that much in it if you crop to eq. focal lengths.

I'm sure you're right at a technical level. For me, though, there is a world of difference between framing a 28mm at two metres for a portrait and doing the same with a 43mm or longer. The connection with the subject (which of course is 'subjective') is different. I would rather use a longer lens still, but the 43mm is better for portraits than the 28mm on these grounds, not on IQ grounds, IMO.

[pacnwleica]

As someone who has a Q2M and a Q343 I'm still finding myself grabbing the Q2M most of the time for when I go shooting.

Not willing to let go of the Q343 yet, it is a wonderful camera and lens.

One major benefit of the Q system is that the camera is not intimidating to the public around you, it's quick and easy to use. plus I use them with a wrist strap and can casually shoot.

When you pull out a bigger camera body and lens then you can receive more negativity and pushback, scares people more - and they put a guard around them.

Not in a studio situation / model shoot then the bigger bodies and lens can deliver better results.

Edited November 28, 2024 by pacnwleica

[aldam]

Hi all

look at SL 28 apo, it’s amazing lens. Next q4 will be 26/28 apo. 
If not q3/q343 combo, maybe q343 and s9 with small, wide sigma primes or 16-28zoom

[Qwertynm]

11 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

For me, though, there is a world of difference between framing a 28mm at two metres for a portrait and doing the same with a 43mm or longer.

if we're talking headshots or upper body shots, I agree. I'm not a fan of how Leica decided to implement the crop modes at all. Now if the crop modes on either camera were to be implemented with WYSIWYG it would equalize the experience up to a point where IQ would suffer on the Q3 28 in comparison. But yes, for headshots and upper body shots you'd want the 43.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[keithlaban.co.uk]

If Leica introduced a 21mm version Q I'd buy it like a shot to pair with my Q3 43.