Thinkimg of selling all of my Sony gear for the Q3 43. Thoughts.

[richard371]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been reading lots of reviews and forum post etc. in addition to going into a Leica store and checking it out.  Right now I have a 3 year old Sony A1, 24-70GM2, 55 1.8, 24-105F4, and the 40/2.5 which I enjoy the most.  I don't shoot any action, sports etc.  Mainly just general walk around/travel photography.  What's alluring me to the Q3 is the images I'm seeing online.  There is just something about them that pop.  I tried Leica profiles for the Sony and it's not the same. I'm also tired of lugging heavy gear around so sometimes it just stays at home. Also tired of deciding what lens to take/buy etc.  I'm going into this camera knowing its limitations and I know the AF is not in the same league as the Sony. Not only am I loving the IQ of the Q3 I also want a more enjoyable shooting experience. I feel like the Sony is like shooting with a computer.  Thoughts?  Any advice here?  It's a big trade/purchase that I hope I will not regret.  Thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

It could be an excellent decision, provided that you are aware that you are entering another part of the photographic universe. Reading through this forum can give  you an idea of the good and the bad. But beware! Reading your post you might end up with an M and a bag full of lenses in a few years time. 🤩

[Olaf_ZG]

Jaap is right. The Q is only the beginning…

[keithlaban.co.uk]

1 minute ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Jaap is right. The Q is only the beginning…

...or, in my case, the ending.

[bobtodrick]

I pared down my Nikon kit (lenses from 24mm-300mm) to a Q five years ago, for many of the reasons you’ve stated.

Too much weight and the vast majority of my shooting is personal stuff, friends, family and travel stuff.

Even motorsports, also a passion of mine…instead of photographing the action on the track I photograph in the pits.

[anonymoose]

How much do you need/rely on Sony's AF? How important are interchangeable lenses to you?

Edited July 19 by anonymoose

[Tarekith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would say maybe temper your expectations a little bit given your current camera gear.  I went from an A7CR with the 40/2.5 as my go to walk around set up, to the Q3 43 back in January.  I did a lot of side by side comparison shots on both cameras in the first few weeks, the results surprised me quite a bit.  When shooting RAW, every single photographer friend I know picked the A7CR images as their favorite thinking it was the Leica because the Sony had more color and contrast SOOC.  

Also, importing RAWs into Lightroom was a bit trickier than I was expecting, the Adobe profiles for the Sony were closer to what I saw in camera than what I got when importing RAW from the Q3 43.  None of the Leica looks transfer or can easily applied in Lightroom unless you shoot JPG, which is a lot different than how Creative Looks in the Sony work with Lightroom.  I do a lot of B&W with my Q3 43 using the B&W HC setting on the Leica, and it took me awhile to create my own preset in Lightroom that sort of mimics that, but not really.  Just a heads up depending if you like to shoot RAW or are planning to use the Leica Looks, and how much you like editing afterwards.

The biggest visible difference between the two is due to the APO lens on the Q3 43, but even then I really only see it if I'm shooting wide open or close to it.  Very soft bokeh, less busy and frantic compared to the 40/2.5 (which is nice in its own way too).  Once you start getting into F4 or F5.6 it can be hard to see the difference even pixel peeping.  Maybe a bit more CA on the 40/2.5, but the Q3 43 has more CA than than I was expecting given the APO name.  It's not bad by any means, absolutely beautiful lens and my favorite for sure.  But it wasn't a huge difference either unless I was wide open.

Anyway, I don't at all regret going to the Q3 43, but for me the biggest benefit was in handling, build quality, and camera controls, not image quality.  I think if you're going to sell all your Sony gear expecting to get a huge increase in perceived image quality with the Q3 43, you're going to be a little let down.  The difference compared to the a1 and a decent prime is likely a lot less than you're expecting.

Just my $0,02 though.

Edited July 19 by Tarekith

[Olaf_ZG]

The great thing of a one lens camera/setup is, that that’s it. It’s just you and the camera. I had the Q43, it’s a great camera. This is one of my last images. The lightning struck just when I clicked…

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[snijboon]

I am selling mine ""old A"" Sony gear because I have now Q3 48 for a week. I am happy with it and it is for me more simply too handle and a lot smaller. It give me more piece to shoot. But the other hand, I cover the red Leica logo with a piece of black tape to make it less conspicuous. I know mine old gear with a lot of the finest A-Mount lenses sellling gives me not enough money too buy this camera but I don''t regret it.

[Dazzajl]

As a swap, it makes absolutely no sense on paper. You’ll lose at just about every turn. 
 

I do think you’d have a camera that you’d enjoy more though and if you buy used, you can bail out without loss of it turns out to be a bad call. Which I doubt it will. 

[richard371]

14 minutes ago, Tarekith said:

I would say maybe temper your expectations a little bit given your current camera gear.  I went from an A7CR with the 40/2.5 as my go to walk around set up, to the Q3 43 back in January.  I did a lot of side by side comparison shots on both cameras in the first few weeks, the results surprised me quite a bit.  When shooting RAW, every single photographer friend I know picked the A7CR images as their favorite thinking it was the Leica because the Sony had more color and contrast SOOC.  

Also, importing RAWs into Lightroom was a bit trickier than I was expecting, the Adobe profiles for the Sony were closer to what I saw in camera than what I got when importing RAW from the Q3 43.  None of the Leica looks transfer or can easily applied in Lightroom unless you shoot JPG, which is a lot different than how Creative Looks in the Sony work with Lightroom.  I do a lot of B&W with my Q3 43 using the B&W HC setting on the Leica, and it took me awhile to create my own preset in Lightroom that sort of mimics that, but not really.  Just a heads up depending if you like to shoot RAW or are planning to use the Leica Looks, and how much you like editing afterwards.

The biggest visible difference between the two is due to the APO lens on the Q3 43, but even then I really only see it if I'm shooting wide open or close to it.  Very soft bokeh, less busy and frantic compared to the 40/2.5 (which is nice in its own way too).  Once you start getting into F4 or F5.6 it can be hard to see the difference even pixel peeping.  Maybe a bit more CA on the 40/2.5, but the Q3 43 has more CA than than I was expecting given the APO name.  It's not bad by any means, absolutely beautiful lens and my favorite for sure.  But it wasn't a huge difference either unless I was wide open.

Anyway, I don't at all regret going to the Q3 43, but for me the biggest benefit was in handling, build quality, and camera controls, not image quality.  I think if you're going to sell all your Sony gear expecting to get a huge increase in perceived image quality with the Q3 43, you're going to be a little let down.  The difference compared to the a1 and a decent prime is likely a lot less than you're expecting.

Just my $0,02 though.

Thanks this is helpful. The 40 2.5 on the a1 is not a bad.  It's about 200 grams more than the Q3.  I was hoping to have to do less editing in LR with the Q3 but it sounds like I may need to do more.

[gotium]

1 minute ago, richard371 said:

Thanks this is helpful. The 40 2.5 on the a1 is not a bad.  It's about 200 grams more than the Q3.  I was hoping to have to do less editing in LR with the Q3 but it sounds like I may need to do more.

I have both an a7RV with the 40/2.5 and the Q3/43. While the 40/2.5 is very good, I find images from the Q3/43 definitely more to my liking, particularly as you move away from the center of the frame. It's really a spectacular lens. I don't do action and don't find the Sony AF to be any better than the Q3/43 for my uses - they are both quite good for eye-detect and essentially perfect with spot AF. Handling, ergonomics, menus, pleasure of use all vastly better (for me) on the Q3/43 - like vastly. I also prefer the colors from the Leica, but that's personal - I fiddle quite a bit with the Sony files, almost not at all with the Leica. Files from the Q3/43 I find jaw-droppingly good. Lastly, I find the leaf shutter to be a huge advantage - it is super-quiet and you don't have to worry about banding under LED lights as you do with the electronic shutters. I can take photos in quiet places where I would never use the Sony. 

[richard371]

As far as AF I often shoot flowers that are moving in the breeze.  I keep the A1 on continuous AF because there is always some movement by the time the focus locks and I fully press the shutter.  Will the Q3 struggle here?

[richard371]

Has this issue been resolved?

The Leica Q3's viewfinder may not always accurately display the actual exposure, especially in certain modes like aperture priority or when using Auto ISO with limitations. This can lead to situations where the preview appears properly exposed, but the final image is over or underexposed due to the camera's settings or limitations. Users have reported this issue, particularly when using manual settings with AF-C and when exposure compensation is applied. 

 

[F-train]

For the Q3 43 I have, yes. The Q2 is a bit better. CL much better.

I still have my Nikon F100. AF-c seems 2.5 years apart iso 25…

But as mentioned, the big appeal in a Q is not only IQ, but the joy of using it. It inspires you to go taking pictures, and gets completely out of the way when you are.

i also work wood. I have a beautiful drill brace, fine wood, brass and blued steel. With a sharp auger bit it is a joy to use. And because of all the attention that goes into it, I make beautiful, superclean holes with it. No adjustments, no batteries needed, just my attention. Very satisfactory, for me, very “Leica”.

A Sony camera is a powered drill. Fast and effective. With lots of options. But for me, definitely less fun.

It’s the Indian, not the bow. You make your pictures, your tools make the process.

For me Leicas make the process more enjoyable, and because of that I think in the end I make better pictures.

 

From your first post it sounds like you are at the point a lot of us have been. The Q frees you of lots of choices and weight. You get a beautiful handmade tool, but you have to adjust to the way it needs to be handled.

 

EDIT: the above was about af-c. The post after that I have never experienced. Perhaps you mean the darkening of the EVF with af- c and low LV?

Edited July 19 by F-train

[Tarekith]

3 hours ago, richard371 said:

As far as AF I often shoot flowers that are moving in the breeze.  I keep the A1 on continuous AF because there is always some movement by the time the focus locks and I fully press the shutter.  Will the Q3 struggle here?

It can, I run into this doing photos of flowers sometimes.  The issue is not that it won’t be able to grab focus, it’s that it tells you it’s in focus lock but then when you get home and look more closely you can see the focus is actually a little in front or behind where you thought it was.  Doesn’t happen often, but enough that I tend to check a lot more after taking a photo than I ever felt the need to with my A7CR.  95% of the time the autofocus works just fine on the Q43 (even doing birds in flight), don’t get me wrong.  It just gets it wrong enough that it can be a little annoying if you’re coming from a newer Sony where the autofocus is almost 100%.

On the flip side, it also encouraged me to take more advantage of learning manual focusing the Q43’s lens too.  More often than not I’ll do that for critical shots now that I’m used to it and quicker at it.  If I’m slowing down the shooting process and going full manual anyway on the Leica, doing the same with focusing feels more natural than I expected.  If you wanted a simple walk around point and shoot style experience, then I think your A1 (or any new Sony body with the incredible AI autofocus) will be a far better option.

[Elliot Harper]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

It could be an excellent decision, provided that you are aware that you are entering another part of the photographic universe. Reading through this forum can give  you an idea of the good and the bad. But beware! Reading your post you might end up with an M and a bag full of lenses in a few years time. 🤩

I concur!

I started with a Q2 in 2019. Now I have 4 M’s and 10+ M lenses 

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, richard371 said:

Has this issue been resolved?

The Leica Q3's viewfinder may not always accurately display the actual exposure, especially in certain modes like aperture priority or when using Auto ISO with limitations. This can lead to situations where the preview appears properly exposed, but the final image is over or underexposed due to the camera's settings or limitations. Users have reported this issue, particularly when using manual settings with AF-C and when exposure compensation is applied. 

 

That is because the viewfinder is not the most accurate instrument to judge exposure . The brightness varies with the ambient light, but not precisely. The only reliable way is to have the histogram in the viewfinder and to adjust  using EV compensation. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[liggy]

I love my Q2 and the Q3 43 might be perfect for your needs.  I could not live without the amazing AF, tracking, tele options and 1.2 1.4 fast lenses.

For a more engaging experience I’d suggest picking up a CV 40 1.2.  You’d get a feel for being stuck at one focal length and get rendering with a bit more character than some of your lenses.  

[Cogito]

I also come most recently from Sony, and continue to use them for work, I’ve had the Q3 43 for about 10 months now and it’s been a pleasure to bring only one camera/lens (the Q343) for personal work, it’s a joy to use and I find it much less intimidating to subjects than a larger setup. I do wish AF was better, but that’s my only negative. it’s perfect for portraits if that’s what you’re into.

Where are you located, Richard? If you happen to be in Los Angeles area I’d be happy to let you test drive my Q343 when I get back to town.