So If I buy the Leica Q3 43, what do I do with my SL2-S?

[Markey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

55 minutes ago, 2M6TTLs said:

 

The SL2s is not heavy and awkward if you use compact lenses on it. For AF you can use the Sigma contemporary series or lightweight Lumix series ( plasticky but good optically ) or you could use a used 40mm lens originally designed for the CL from the film days with an adaptor. That would be only 3mm difference from the Q3 43's lens.

 

You`re right .... you can.

I did use my CL lenses on the SL2s and sometimes my M lenses but for the equestrian stuff there is no avoiding a long lens which is why I use the 90280.

For everything else I  just reach for a lighter body .There is nothing which compels me to use the SL2s  ... maybe I need to re evaluate that.

Having said all that I did intend to get a 35APO for the SL2s before they released the Q43 so now I`m going to hunt down that Hugh Brownstone comparison 

Edited October 5, 2024 by Markey

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[microview]

It's at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1tKWCj6jMM

Skip to 14m for lens comparisons. HB also suggests the 43 lens is better than the 50 Summilux M (which I rather regret having to concur over!).

[aficionados]

Leave SL2S alone, you won’t get too much money out of it.

It’s heavily discounted. b&H sells a bundle with big discount plus free battery and adapter 

[RTP]

Im in a similar boat. Ima Lumix S shooter and jumped at the Q3 for it checked all the boxes for me. Especially when traveling and on the streets. I even used it for editorial shoots. However, I can see the distortion of the 28mm lens despite crop and lens angle point of focus. My inspiration and childish mind response to the 43 as a small portrait and travel kit was a bit more hesitant and yet I ordered it. I’m scrounging gear to sell to compensate this gross purchase and even consider refusing delivery because it is ridiculous to think about. However, I also visualized at the time of “buy” and still do today, both of these cameras are desert-island choices if not both on the same shoot. I’ve had sensor dust on lens changes in the field and have to say one lens-one body is the way to go. Also, Auto Focus and lens Stabilization is a big deal. Given the Q is faily compact, why not…life is short…

[quiet.seattle]

I am in the same boat as the OP. I have the Q2 (and love it and will keep it), but desired different focal lengths without cropping or distortion and bought an SL2S and Panasonic 35 and 50 1.8s. It's a great camera and the lenses are fine. But, I too am older, just had my second hand surgery, rely on autofocus, and consider 50mm to be my way of seeing the world, generally. I am on the wait list for the Q3 43. I think keeping the SL2S and the two Panasonic lenses seems superfluous, right? It's unfortunate that I would probably lose so much money on selling virtually brand new equipment, but that Q3 43 seems so enticing and smart, given my circumstances.

[JoshuaR]

@lencap, I've followed your posts on this subject as I have a similar conundrum (though not exactly the same) which I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that I have an SL2-S, like a lot about it except for the bulk, and see that the Q3 43 could replace it in many aspects while being much smaller and lighter.

It sounds like you are basically a 50mm shooter. Although I'm a fan of crop-to-zoom, I agree with you that the resulting images are not necessarily satisfying if you're a stickler for certain image characteristics and aren't super-careful about putting subjects in the exact center of the frame. I suspect that the Q3 43's 43-to-50 crop will be relatively painless compared to the 28-to-50 crop on the regular Q. So it stands to reason that a Q3 43 would be an excellent replacement for an SL2-S with 50mm.

If that's the case, then I think you really have to answer two questions: (1) Would selling the SL2-S + 50 make a genuine difference in terms of your budget; and, (2), will you be able to live with 43mm as your widest focal length?

If the answer to both questions is 'no,' then you might consider selling only the 50 Summicron-SL and replacing it with something like the Sigma 24 f/3.5, or perhaps a wide-angle zoom, in order to create a nice two-body kit. (You could leave your heavier, SL-based wide-angle body at home, unless you think you'll need it.) If the answer to both questions is 'yes,' then just sell the SL2-S and lens and enjoy a simpler photographic life!

(For what it's worth, I've decided not to pursue a Q3 43 for three reasons: first, I don't like autofocus, and have found manual focusing with 50mm M lenses on my SL2-S to be a great experience; second, I think I really do require the ability to shoot 90mm, 135mm, and 180mm lenses from time to time; and third, as much as I like 40mm, I use 28mm and 35mm quite a lot, and so would rarely be able to carry a Q3 43 as my only camera for the day. Maybe these conclusions highlight how different your priorities are, and how suitable the Q3 43 would be for you?)

Edited October 6, 2024 by JoshuaRothman

[huwm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm happy with my Q3 28 and SL2 S combo

I would really miss the APO SL 35 and 75 for 'serious photos' and tbh it isn't really that heavy plus it feels absolutely 'right' in my hand as well as allowing for occasional forays into zooms (I picked up the 28-200 recently for a trip and was pleasantly surprised)

I carry the Q most days and would miss the 'wide view' if I switched to 43 as I have become a 28-35 shooter predominantly

 

[LanceR]

@lencap it seems like our photography journeys are similar: experience with other manufacturer systems, shooting with M, aging eyes, not preferring 28mm, migrating the SL system, don't really shoot video, etc.  My primary M lenses for years were an 35mm APO and 50mm Summilux.

While I realize cameras and lenses are just tools, I want to feel an emotional connection to the process, like I am in flow.  I just do not get that with the SL system.  I feel removed from it.

@lencap that is a bit of a long winded way to get to responding directly to your post.  The Q3 43 is an M successor for me, in a way that the SL system is not.  I want to carry my camera again.  The versatility of the camera the macro mode, weather sealing, decent auto focus, reasonable manual focus, OIS, etc.  The focal length feels just right.  The lens performance is fantastic for me so far.  Using it is very intuitive.  I feel inflow again.

I will likely keep my SL3 kit for special projects.  The SL system is extremely competent, but I expect that vast majority of my photos will come from the Q3 43 going forward.

Based on what I heard you say in your original post and relating to my own experiences, I think you should absolutely give the Q3 43 a shot.  Maybe you can rent one before your camera arrives?

[nemendes]

I don't have q3 43, but i have q2 mono and sl2-s. I have my q2 mono or m10 mono with me everywhere. About sl2-s and its weight, it depends on my plans and my mood. I take with me q2 or m10, not sl2-s because yes its heavy to carry whole day without purpose. but if i have plan for specific shooting like landscape or portrait or work, even sl2-s with 2 sl lenses dont bother me at all. I dont feel their weights in my bag. IMO i kind a prepare myself for using sl2-s psychically when i have plans with it.

So you can keep your sl2-s and i think at some point you would like to shoot with it and maybe its weight wont bother you as well. 

[Markey]

On 10/6/2024 at 6:38 PM, nemendes said:

I don't have q3 43, but i have q2 mono and sl2-s. I have my q2 mono or m10 mono with me everywhere. About sl2-s and its weight, it depends on my plans and my mood. I take with me q2 or m10, not sl2-s because yes its heavy to carry whole day without purpose. but if i have plan for specific shooting like landscape or portrait or work, even sl2-s with 2 sl lenses dont bother me at all. I dont feel their weights in my bag. IMO i kind a prepare myself for using sl2-s psychically when i have plans with it.

So you can keep your sl2-s and i think at some point you would like to shoot with it and maybe its weight wont bother you as well. 

I take my SL2s only when I need to shoot longer FL .

I should perhaps refine my previous comments on weight .

The SL2s isn`t heavy per se simply imo heavier than it needs to be .

I must prefer the size and weight of an M body and the new Q would approximate that .

 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Life is short. Buy what you want..

1. Remember, it's mostly you, not the gear that needs to change. Are you frustrated with the gear or the fact you should carry it more.

2. You won't get better photos with new gear.

3. Making a SL camera lighter involves just buying Sigma DGDN primes. They are simply fabulous.

4. The menus aren't wildly different on the Q3 cameras from the SL ones.

5. There are downsides to a smaller camera. No joystick, for one. And you may need to add a grip/thumb thingy. The SL's are easier to set up for no menu diving.

All changing gear does is *maybe*, you carry a camera more. That will happen with a Q3 if 28 or 43mm are focal lengths you like compared to a SL body.

I have not found the Q to replace the SL. More compliment it. I'd have no issues getting rid of the SL2-S and picking up a S5II instead. It's a better camera in every way except the red dot and menus. Maybe have that along side the Q3-43 when you want to shoot outside the limitations of a 43mm lens.

Gordon

[Jeff S]

4 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

3. Making a SL camera lighter involves just buying Sigma DGDN primes. They are simply fabulous.

 

Which do you have?

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

59 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Which do you have?

Jeff

20, 24, 50 and 90mm. All excellent. Note the 45 (which I don't have) is a character lens and not super sharp wide open but the rest are just excellent. I like the 50 more than the Leica non APO. Originally got them in E mount for my A7CR but liked them so much I got the L mount versions. They do lack the Leica level of weather sealing, which is about their only downside. But they make a really nice travel set, generally. If it's wet I usually prefer a zoom (no lens changes) anyway, so, for me it's not an issue but should be noted.

And they have aperture rings.

Gordon