Doubting My Leica Choice

[JMPerona]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

I find that I enjoy the process of photography as much as the results I achieve.  I enjoy using my Leica cameras more than my Nikons. While the Nikons produce very nice images, they are as much fun to use as a socket wrench. With the Leica I enjoy the build quality, and the user interface. They give the impression of being designed by people who actually use them.  In an age where most digital cameras have become computers with lenses, the Leica bodies still feel like cameras.  If all I cared about was my images, I believe any brand would do, and at a lower price point.  I'm willing to pay the Leica premium for the experience.

I have a clear example about this: last year I bought a Q2 and an SL2-S. Both took the best images I could think about, though the process was slower than other similar cameras. I sold both because, as like today, I felt I have put so much money and effort on something I could achieve relatively easy with other cameras. That’s when I got the Nikon ZF and Z6III. The Z6 was an incredible machine, but not as fun as the SL2-S. The ZF was an incredible camera capable to take wonderful photos in a more manual way, but it was big and with bad ergonomics. It wasn’t in any shape of form a substitute of the Q2. I decided then to take the jump to the next iteration of the Q camera: the Q3. It has everything I wanted from the Q2 and more: better autofocus and more mp for cropping, if needed. The thing is that the Leicas were (are) a joy to shoot with. The SL2-S, which I miss incredibly, was a low ISO monster. The Z6 was just a… I don’t know… a computer?

so yes, That is what I think about the Leicas. Someday in the future I would like to get the SL2-S agan or the SL3-S and buy those M lenses to get the best of both worlds, including the video capability.

ps: how is the SL2-S in terms of video recording and autofocus? Is it worth to get a SL3-S instead?

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

15 minutes ago, JMPerona said:

ps: how is the SL2-S in terms of video recording and autofocus? Is it worth to get a SL3-S instead?

I use the SL2-S for video recording, but mainly as a second camera to the Blackmagic CC6K (also L-mount, also 24mp). I don't rig them up with external monitor/recorders. I don't use either with AF except as back-button focussing. The clips from the SL2-S are excellent, but as hybrid cameras go I notice the limitations of the Leica compared to the BM, which is more video-centric. The BM has a bigger screen and is optimised for touch; it records to SSD drive via USB-C, which the SL2-S cannot (but the SL3-S can); finally, the BM can record to BRAW on the SSD drive, while the SL2-S cannot (nor can the SL3-S). I could not see a good reason to upgrade from SL2-S to SL3-S except for SSD drive recording. Of course if you want to use an external monitor/recorder then the comparisons may be different (the BM CC6K appears designed to be a standalone video unit - the Pyxis appears to be its core piece for a full rig). 

[jaapv]

57 minutes ago, JMPerona said:

I have a clear example about this: last year I bought a Q2 and an SL2-S. Both took the best images I could think about, though the process was slower than other similar cameras. I sold both because, as like today, I felt I have put so much money and effort on something I could achieve relatively easy with other cameras. That’s when I got the Nikon ZF and Z6III. The Z6 was an incredible machine, but not as fun as the SL2-S. The ZF was an incredible camera capable to take wonderful photos in a more manual way, but it was big and with bad ergonomics. It wasn’t in any shape of form a substitute of the Q2. I decided then to take the jump to the next iteration of the Q camera: the Q3. It has everything I wanted from the Q2 and more: better autofocus and more mp for cropping, if needed. The thing is that the Leicas were (are) a joy to shoot with. The SL2-S, which I miss incredibly, was a low ISO monster. The Z6 was just a… I don’t know… a computer?

so yes, That is what I think about the Leicas. Someday in the future I would like to get the SL2-S agan or the SL3-S and buy those M lenses to get the best of both worlds, including the video capability.

ps: how is the SL2-S in terms of video recording and autofocus? Is it worth to get a SL3-S instead?

The SL2S is heavily discounted - now is the time to get one.

[JMPerona]

10 hours ago, jaapv said:

The SL2S is heavily discounted - now is the time to get one.

I’m sooo tempted. If I only knew how the AF works with the latest update…

[LocalHero1953]

I've owned the SL2-S since new, and had the SL before that. I've been reading about the SL3/SL3-S AF since they were launched. The only thing I've learned is that everyone has a different view whether the AF of any of these bodies is good/bad/indifferent. And that's before you take lenses into account.

[jaapv]

42 minutes ago, JMPerona said:

I’m sooo tempted. If I only knew how the AF works with the latest update…

I have no complaints. Some others haver…Depends on your lenses as well. I have the impression that it is more than sufficient for photographers who are prepared to put some effort and shooting technique into getting focus, usually by having longtime experience with difficult manual work, whilst others who expect their camera to do all the irk in the background want more. 

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 hours ago, willeica said:

This type of thinking usually disappears with age .

William 

It's not the way *I* think. It's a description of the social media chatter about Fuji in general and the X100VI in particular.

It has become THE cool camera with a certain demographic despite not being as good as the Q series in my opinion.

It's a religion for some, not a tool to be used.

[Derbyshire Man]

On 4/19/2025 at 8:27 AM, skahde said:

The X100 is a nice line of cameras and does it for me with respect to a carry-everywhere digital solution which is not just a phone. And the V-model absolutely does it for me while the F-model with the older lens didn't (too uneven sharpness over the field). What the system doesnt do for me is provide longer focals, object separation aso. while the 65 deg angle of view of the Q can be achieved via the excellent tcw. So coming back to the Q the Leica would add up in quality where I feel I'm already sufficiently covered by a previous model of a  - in this regard - less capable camera with a smaller sensor and lower resolution. And this is the point I suppose: What's your need and expectation? Everything else will fall into place. 

I’ve got a canon r5mk2, a stable of Fuji’s including x100vi, and a clutch of leica M’s, had but now sold q2m for a m11m, I don’t know why but for portrait, landscape, city photography I get many more excellent images from the Leicas. If I was going to a wedding or shoot sports the canon is coming. Whenever I’ve taken the x100vi on holiday with me along with the Leicas I get hardly any shots from the Fuji that I want to keep and mostly I don’t want to take it out, the user experience on the Leicas is simply better. 

[Viv]

If you feel the Fuji would suit you better, return the Leica and buy the Fuji.

[willeica]

3 hours ago, Chris W said:

THE cool

What does 'cool' mean in this context? To me 'cool' means 'slightly cold'.

William 

[earleygallery]

On 4/19/2025 at 9:43 AM, JMPerona said:

I won’t be losing money as I still am in the return period, so I can get all my money back. 

Return it, buy the Fuji and stop worrying.

[JoshuaR]

Here is my perspective as a parent of two small kids (6 and 1) who has shot family photographs extensively with Fuji and Leica Q and M cameras.

• The X100V and VI are very very nice and will get you some beautiful pictures. I spent the first few years of parenthood using only an X100F and have no regrets. At that time I wasn't comfortable spending Leica money, and I wasn't sure of my own preferences in photography, and the Fuji was a perfect camera for me.
• The Fuji X100 series cameras have three main weaknesses. (1) You're stuck at 35mm unless you use the clunky adapters. (2) The AF software is better than the lens motors—so the camera is always whirring away as it attempts to focus. (3) APS-C image quality can be good, but there is ultimately a lack of detail in the images from the X100 lens, even the new version in the latest cameras. You don't always see it, but sometimes you do, especially in faces, which can have a plasticky look.
• The pictures from a Q2 and Q3 will be noticeably more beautiful, from a simple image quality perspective. Noticeably! No matter what people say on social media.
• The high resolution crop modes will enable you to simulate 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and perhaps even longer focal lengths, and this will be genuinely useful, especially for photographing tiny people, for whom you will want 50mm and 75mm-equivalent fields of view. Yes, you'll lose out on shallow DOF, but if you crop into the center of the frame (as the framelines encourage you to) you'll have less facial distortion.
• The real killer feature of the Q series for family photography isn't the autofocus, but the manual focus system, which is excellent. The more you teach yourself to take advantage of manual focus, the more you can shift your attention from getting the focus point right to getting the moment right. Ideally, the focus is set, and your decision-making is about when to make the frame, not where in the frame to focus.
• For me, personally, I didn't find making family video using a camera other than my smartphone worth it. The problem is the workflow. Importing and editing and exporting video--especially editing--is a pain, unless it's your "thing." Audio is especially troublesome. I've accepted that the simplest path, for me, to a hybrid setup is a great camera for stills and an iPhone in my pocket with iMovie.
• People who say things like "no one can tell the difference between pictures taken on an iPhone 16 and a Q2" aren't people you should listen to about photography. They simply don't know what they're talking about. I see a *lot* of family pictures taken on iPhones and, almost universally, they are terrible. Especially for pictures of people.
• I have since left the Q2 behind for the M system, and am happier for a variety of reasons. But I could've stayed with the Q2 forever (which was my original intention). And my total outlay for a good M kit has turned out to be several times the cost of what I would have spent on a Q3.
• My family pictures are a genuine source of value to my family. Everybody loves them, and will only appreciate them more with time. So don't feel bad about owning a wonderful camera if you can afford it.

Edited April 21 by JoshuaR

[Archiver]

On 4/19/2025 at 5:14 PM, Barralad said:

I was discussing this very issue last night with a mate in the pub. I was telling him I’d bought the Q3 last year and how much I enjoyed using it etc. He said that I could probably get comparable results with an iPhone 16. In return, I pointed out that he would be able to get around just as well in a much cheaper car; he didn’t need the Aston Martin that he’d spent a while telling me all about.

Hahaha, the audacity of an Aston Martin owner telling you that an iPhone could give you comparable results to a Q3! Not to mention that the current latest iPhone could not at all give you results comparable to a Q3, which shows how much/little he understands about cameras.

I went through a similar decision recently when I weighed up the Panasonic S1 and the Leica SL2-S. On paper, a secondhand S1 was a much less expensive and more useful option, but I ended up with both (gulp) because I find they serve different purposes and offer different types of enjoyment. I use the S1 primarily for paid work, and the SL2-S for personal and paid work. I'm not saying to buy a bunch of other kit on top of the Q3, but that for me, the Leica has both quantifiable and unquantifiable qualities that make it worth having alongside a functionally identical and much cheaper camera.

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, Archiver said:

Hahaha, the audacity of an Aston Martin owner telling you that an iPhone could give you comparable results to a Q3! Not to mention that the current latest iPhone could not at all give you results comparable to a Q3, which shows how much/little he understands about cameras.

 

Such comments are usually made by people who only look at photos on a phone screen.

[Chris W]

For me the lack of control using a phone makes it a utilitarian option, not personally satisfying.I definitely agree, videos absolutely fine and much more instant experience than shooting on mirrorless and editing post.

 

[Chris W]

6 hours ago, JoshuaR said:

 

• The pictures from a Q2 and Q3 will be noticeably more beautiful, from a simple image quality perspective. Noticeably! No matter what people say on social media.
•  

This 100%.

I bought an X100T and happily used it for a couple of years travelling. I was happy with the images and enjoyed the film simulations etc.

Then I bought a Q. After couple of similar travel instances I compared my Q output to my X100T images. I was quite shocked at the difference.

The Q images were more beautiful, had micro-contrast, lovely colour and sharpness out of camera without having to do much editing.

(I'm not talking jpegs with either camera)

[JMPerona]

6 hours ago, JoshuaR said:

Here is my perspective as a parent of two small kids (6 and 1) who has shot family photographs extensively with Fuji and Leica Q and M cameras.

• The X100V and VI are very very nice and will get you some beautiful pictures. I spent the first few years of parenthood using only an X100F and have no regrets. At that time I wasn't comfortable spending Leica money, and I wasn't sure of my own preferences in photography, and the Fuji was a perfect camera for me.
• The Fuji X100 series cameras have three main weaknesses. (1) You're stuck at 35mm unless you use the clunky adapters. (2) The AF software is better than the lens motors—so the camera is always whirring away as it attempts to focus. (3) APS-C image quality can be good, but there is ultimately a lack of detail in the images from the X100 lens, even the new version in the latest cameras. You don't always see it, but sometimes you do, especially in faces, which can have a plasticky look.
• The pictures from a Q2 and Q3 will be noticeably more beautiful, from a simple image quality perspective. Noticeably! No matter what people say on social media.
• The high resolution crop modes will enable you to simulate 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and perhaps even longer focal lengths, and this will be genuinely useful, especially for photographing tiny people, for whom you will want 50mm and 75mm-equivalent fields of view. Yes, you'll lose out on shallow DOF, but if you crop into the center of the frame (as the framelines encourage you to) you'll have less facial distortion.
• The real killer feature of the Q series for family photography isn't the autofocus, but the manual focus system, which is excellent. The more you teach yourself to take advantage of manual focus, the more you can shift your attention from getting the focus point right to getting the moment right. Ideally, the focus is set, and your decision-making is about when to make the frame, not where in the frame to focus.
• For me, personally, I didn't find making family video using a camera other than my smartphone worth it. The problem is the workflow. Importing and editing and exporting video--especially editing--is a pain, unless it's your "thing." Audio is especially troublesome. I've accepted that the simplest path, for me, to a hybrid setup is a great camera for stills and an iPhone in my pocket with iMovie.
• People who say things like "no one can tell the difference between pictures taken on an iPhone 16 and a Q2" aren't people you should listen to about photography. They simply don't know what they're talking about. I see a *lot* of family pictures taken on iPhones and, almost universally, they are terrible. Especially for pictures of people.
• I have since left the Q2 behind for the M system, and am happier for a variety of reasons. But I could've stayed with the Q2 forever (which was my original intention). And my total outlay for a good M kit has turned out to be several times the cost of what I would have spent on a Q3.
• My family pictures are a genuine source of value to my family. Everybody loves them, and will only appreciate them more with time. So don't feel bad about owning a wonderful camera if you can afford it.

This post is invaluable and helped me coming to some kind of peace of mind with the Q3. Thanks for that.

 

16 minutes ago, Chris W said:

For me the lack of control using a phone makes it a utilitarian option, not personally satisfying.I definitely agree, videos absolutely fine and much more instant experience than shooting on mirrorless and editing post.

 

I will be using the camera to film YouTube videos, so I will need some kind of easy editing .

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb JMPerona:

I will be using the camera to film YouTube videos, so I will need some kind of easy editing .

What software do you use or plan to use?

I used for many years Adobe Premiere Elements for "easy editing" of my business social media short videos, it's buy once version, not pay per month.
There are also many other cheaper and/or more capable video editing software in the wild, the best but complicated is the free DaVinci Resolve what is absolutely pro level.

I have also a reasonable small and unused Gimbal for the Q2 as i thought to do some video with her, but finally never used it as Video is not really my thing.
Chris

Edited April 21 by PhotoCruiser

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JMPerona]

9 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:

What software do you use or plan to use?

I’m using Final Cut. Easy and powerful for what I do.

[LocalHero1953]

.

Edited April 21 by LocalHero1953