Landscape: Leica Q3 or M or yet another?

[JNK100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Alexander108 said:

Who would fly over from Europe to visit the Grand Canyon, and all the other places with a Q3/D-Lux 8 combination only? 

I would but leave the DL8 at home

[Advertisement]

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

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, JNK100 said:

I would but leave the DL8 at home

DL8 takes so little space; I always have it in a pocket of my backpack.

[AdrianTurner]

I would take only the Q3 and, beforehand, learn to use the Pano capability.  For Monument Valley I would study the films of John Ford, especially The Searchers, though he shot that wonderful location in all ratios from Academy to 1.85:1 to Super Panavision 70.  Also study Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West.  I did road trips like this back in the 1980s.  Fantastic memories.  

[Alexander108]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb AdrianTurner:

I would take only the Q3 and, beforehand, learn to use the Pano capability.  For Monument Valley I would study the films of John Ford, especially The Searchers, though he shot that wonderful location in all ratios from Academy to 1.85:1 to Super Panavision 70.  Also study Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West.  I did road trips like this back in the 1980s.  Fantastic memories.  

Thank you. I a certainly aware of these movies. I already did quite a few handheld panos with my Q3 and other cameras. The challenges with trying to mimic a wider lens is that this is not a pano. It means that you probably need 3x3 (three lines and three columns reasonably overlapping) shots. But I will bring a tripod. 

I am actually more concerned with longer focal lengths. I will use exiftool.exe to extract the focal lengths of all my shots over the last 5y. This will take hours. Let's see what the outcome will be. I have to admit that I have no real feeling for that. On the R5 I mainly used the 24-105 lens.

Thinking about this is an interesting exercise.

[Oxfordian]

I think that you know what the answer is, and it is not to buy a M plus lenses, you already have the solution.

You are worried that the Q3 won't be as flexible as your Canon set up, and you're right it won't, but the Q3 isn't there to replicate a DSLR or Mirrorless equivalent it is a totally different beast, the Q3 will be absolutely perfect for 90% of what you plan to photograph or those moments that appear in front of you but it will not do those ultra wide or those telephoto shots.

You're planning a big trip, take the Canon and use it only on those occasions where you know in advance that it is going to be required otherwise leave it in the hotel, car, bus or whatever and just use the Q3.

If you use the Q3 for pano's and find out when you get back to base that it hasn't worked what are you going to do?

I use my Q3 for the majority of my digital photography but every now and then I need a wider or longer lens and the SL2 gets woken up and put into service, and yes its a fair bit heavier than the Q3 but it is a weight I have to accept in order to get the picture.

To combat your weight concerns why not pick up an ultra wide prime like the Canon 16mm (under £300 atm) which weighs a mere 165g you could then leave the wide angle zoom at home. When you bought the Q3 you didn't sell your existing kit so I guess that you sort of knew that the Q3 wouldn't be the answer to everything, well this is one of those times.

It's a big trip, it maybe the last time you do this trip so you need to have the kit with you to ensure that those memories are captured. If you are adamant that the Canon kit is too heavy to carry then buying a Leica M is not the answer, picking up a Fuji XT-5 plus wide angle zoom (10-24) and Standard Zoom (16-55) or (18-120) would be more logical comes in at 1.3kg for the whole kit, less than the weight of your R5 plus beloved 24-105.

In fact I would go as far as saying that as you find the Canon kit too heavy to lug around you should sell it and pick up a Fuji kit which is far lighter yet wouldn't result in images that lack any quality.

Keeping your Q3 and adding the Fuji kit would give you a very flexible set up potentially allowing you to carry the Q3 and the Fuji with either zoom in a small shoulder bag, this is the route that I will go down when I find that I no longer want to carry the SL2 plus a lens or two.

Whatever you decide to do have a great trip and let us know how it went.

[AdrianTurner]

3 hours ago, Alexander108 said:

.

Thinking about this is an interesting exercise.

It is indeed.  I'm shortly off to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia and plan to take the Q3, my wife's D-Lux 7 and an iPhone.  

[Alexander108]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 40 Minuten schrieb Oxfordian:

I think that you know what the answer is, and it is not to buy a M plus lenses, you already have the solution.

You are worried that the Q3 won't be as flexible as your Canon set up, and you're right it won't, but the Q3 isn't there to replicate a DSLR or Mirrorless equivalent it is a totally different beast, the Q3 will be absolutely perfect for 90% of what you plan to photograph or those moments that appear in front of you but it will not do those ultra wide or those telephoto shots.

You're planning a big trip, take the Canon and use it only on those occasions where you know in advance that it is going to be required otherwise leave it in the hotel, car, bus or whatever and just use the Q3.

If you use the Q3 for pano's and find out when you get back to base that it hasn't worked what are you going to do?

I use my Q3 for the majority of my digital photography but every now and then I need a wider or longer lens and the SL2 gets woken up and put into service, and yes its a fair bit heavier than the Q3 but it is a weight I have to accept in order to get the picture.

To combat your weight concerns why not pick up an ultra wide prime like the Canon 16mm (under £300 atm) which weighs a mere 165g you could then leave the wide angle zoom at home. When you bought the Q3 you didn't sell your existing kit so I guess that you sort of knew that the Q3 wouldn't be the answer to everything, well this is one of those times.

It's a big trip, it maybe the last time you do this trip so you need to have the kit with you to ensure that those memories are captured. If you are adamant that the Canon kit is too heavy to carry then buying a Leica M is not the answer, picking up a Fuji XT-5 plus wide angle zoom (10-24) and Standard Zoom (16-55) or (18-120) would be more logical comes in at 1.3kg for the whole kit, less than the weight of your R5 plus beloved 24-105.

In fact I would go as far as saying that as you find the Canon kit too heavy to lug around you should sell it and pick up a Fuji kit which is far lighter yet wouldn't result in images that lack any quality.

Keeping your Q3 and adding the Fuji kit would give you a very flexible set up potentially allowing you to carry the Q3 and the Fuji with either zoom in a small shoulder bag, this is the route that I will go down when I find that I no longer want to carry the SL2 plus a lens or two.

Whatever you decide to do have a great trip and let us know how it went.

@Oxfordian You are spot on with your reasoning and I have to say that I came to the same conclusion since I started looking into it. One thing that I was struggling with was the heavy 15-35mm lens. Your suggestion of the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM did not even occur to me. Just saw a PetaPixel review of that rather cheap and light lens and Chris was rather impressed. So for the few occasions where I want to go wider than 24mm of my 24-105 I can use this one. Going to sell my 15-35 f/2.8 and get this one. 

In the meantime I did my research on my used focal lengths. A rather crude approach but it gives me some ideas:

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!

During the years I took mainly landscapes only 1/3 were in the range that my Q3 could cover. What surprised me was that 1/3 was wider that the Q3 could get. Another 1/3 was way beyond the Q3s range. It is clear to me now that the Q3 would not be sufficient for visiting these great places again. I bought the Q3 for street photography and I am extremely happy with it. Could not do street with the R5.

I may buy an M11 one day but not necessarily for that trip but because I am interested in this special approach to photography. 

Replacing the R5 with any other system would be a waste of money . I am happy with the results of the R5. It's a great camera. With replacing the 2kg 15-35mm with a 165g RF 16mm is the most important outcome of this thread for me.

This is it. I'll take my R5 to the US.

Thank you for all your great contributions that helped me tremendously make up my mind. This was extremely helpful.

[Oxfordian]

16 minutes ago, Alexander108 said:

@Oxfordian You are spot on with your reasoning and I have to say that I came to the same conclusion since I started looking into it. One thing that I was struggling with was the heavy 15-35mm lens. Your suggestion of the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM did not even occur to me. Just saw a PetaPixel review of that rather cheap and light lens and Chris was rather impressed. So for the few occasions where I want to go wider than 24mm of my 24-105 I can use this one. Going to sell my 15-35 f/2.8 and get this one. 

In the meantime I did my research on my used focal lengths. A rather crude approach but it gives me some ideas:

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!

During the years I took mainly landscapes only 1/3 were in the range that my Q3 could cover. What surprised me was that 1/3 was wider that the Q3 could get. Another 1/3 was way beyond the Q3s range. It is clear to me now that the Q3 would not be sufficient for visiting these great places again. I bought the Q3 for street photography and I am extremely happy with it. Could not do street with the R5.

I may buy an M11 one day but not necessarily for that trip but because I am interested in this special approach to photography. 

Replacing the R5 with any other system would be a waste of money . I am happy with the results of the R5. It's a great camera. With replacing the 2kg 15-35mm with a 165g RF 16mm is the most important outcome of this thread for me.

This is it. I'll take my R5 to the US.

Thank you for all your great contributions that helped me tremendously make up my mind. This was extremely helpful.

Don't forget to pack the Q3, it will be the perfect small carry everywhere camera. 😁

[Alexander108]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Oxfordian:

Don't forget to pack the Q3, it will be the perfect small carry everywhere camera. 😁

Of Course!

[Qwertynm]

expect to crop the 16mm a bit. This lens never gets sharp in the far corners. I'd consider exchanging your 24-105 for the RF 70-200/4. It's the same size and really small for a tele. This is what I'd do, take the Q3, R5 with 16mm and 70-200/4.

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!

[Alexander108]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Qwertynm:

expect to crop the 16mm a bit. This lens never gets sharp in the far corners. I'd consider exchanging your 24-105 for the RF 70-200/4. It's the same size and really small for a tele. This is what I'd do, take the Q3, R5 with 16mm and 70-200/4.

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!

Good idea. I still have my EF 100-400 but there are very few occasions where I went >200mm . I could sell it and get the 70-200 as it weighs much less. I'll consider that.

[Oxfordian]

7 minutes ago, Alexander108 said:

Good idea. I still have my EF 100-400 but there are very few occasions where I went >200mm . I could sell it and get the 70-200 as it weighs much less. I'll consider that.

I don't think that a 70-200 is a good idea, if you really must have that longer reach a 24-200 would be better or you'll be carrying two lenses again.

The question you need to ask is what do I plan to photograph whilst on this trip, will I need to be picking out distant subjects on this trip if so would a 200 be long enough?

The biggest problem is trying to cover every possible aspect as a result you carry a huge bag with loads of gear for those just in case moments and use hardly any of it, something that you've already admitted that you don't want to do.

I don't believe that buying a 70-200 to take with you will be the right way to go, in my view the 70-200 would be under used compared to the 24-105.

Here's another suggestion, take the R5, 24-105 plus the 16mm and then add a 28mm Canon STM lens, it is dirt cheap (£300) and weighs a miserly 120g. You would probably have used the Q3 for your street photography instead use the R5 plus 28mm, you can crop the resulting image in post to get a narrower view the same as you would on the Q3. If you did this your trip would consist of one camera R5, one charger, one style of memory cards and a consistent set-up throughout the trip.

Yes, I do mean leave the Q3 at home (sorry Leica lovers).

Going with the Canon setup you would have maximum pixel coverage at all times, you decide post trip what you want to crop out, if you added the 28mm your bag weight would still be less than R5/24-105/16 + Q3, in fact you could add Canon's 50mm STM as well and still be well under the weight.

There are now howls of anger as I've suggested leaving Leica at home and this is a Leica forum but I'm just trying to be practical, you don't want to be carrying a lot of weight in terms of camera gear so you have some hard choices to make.

Personally, I would take just my Q3, if I had the funds I would buy a Q343 and take just those two cameras, one charger, one style of memory cards and a consistent interface, oh and I would visit the gift shops to pick up some of the picture packs that they are bound to sell at the places that you want to visit, I wouldn't be worried about getting the perfect image just creating memories of the adventure, the perfect image can be purchased.

[Qwertynm]

9 minutes ago, Oxfordian said:

Yes, I do mean leave the Q3 at home (sorry Leica lovers).

personally I wouldn't do that. The Q3 to me is the much more inspiring camera to use than the Canon R5 and I own both. I think it really comes down to personal preference regarding what to bring - I'd never leave the Q3 on such a trip and would consider bringing only the Q3. I brought up the 70-200 because it's distinctly different from the Q3 and because Alexander already thought about bringing two cameras - it's always good to have a backup and I agree about the RF 28 2.8 pancake just for a backup. 1/3 of @Alexander108's images are shot above 50mm so pairing the Q3 with a 70-200 makes sense (imho) - if you like some variety in your landscape shots. Both are weather sealed, both cameras take SD cards and can be charged with a USB-C cable - I wouldn't even bother taking the chargers but that's me. 

If you don't want to lug around two cameras, Just grab the Q3 and an iPhone/Android Pro with ultrawide and tele lens - in good light and from a tripod the images from phones are pretty good these days. If it's not primarily a photo-trip less is more. Ansonsten gilt: Mut zur Lücke and enjoy your trip.

[Alexander108]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Qwertynm:

If you don't want to lug around two cameras, Just grab the Q3 and an iPhone/Android Pro with ultrawide and tele lens

No, no and nochmals no! 🤣

Since I now found some peace of mind as I decided to take both, I really like the idea of freshen up my Canon gear to make it fit for purpose. 

Sell the 15-35 f/2,8 and the EF 100-400 II and buy the 16 f/2.5 + the 70-200. This covers 95% of my used focal lengths of the past 5y.
Covering the 28-70mm with the Q3 makes sense. 

There are few things I cannot do, like this one (Taughannock falls Ithaca, NY, 321mm f/5.6). But that was such a rare occasion and my wife hated me for waiting 1h and 50 shots until this one was nailed.

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!

[Qwertynm]

Sounds like a solid plan and btw the Canon R5 has a crop mode too: 200mm x 1.6 = 320mm eq.
 

I‘m sure you‘re going to like the RF 70-200/4. Size to performance ratio is outstanding!

 

btw: great shot and worth the wait (and hate from the wife 😂)

Edited July 24 by Qwertynm

[Alexander108]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Qwertynm:

Canon R5 has a crop mode too: 200mm x 1.6 = 320mm eq.

Thank you. But what do you mean? 1.6 sounds like APS-C. The R5 has a full format sensor just like the Q3

Edited July 24 by Alexander108

[F-train]

The Canon RF 16mm is a great lens, and minimal weight.

But I understand you will also bring a tripod?

[Alexander108]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb F-train:

The Canon RF 16mm is a great lens, and minimal weight.

But I understand you will also bring a tripod?

Of course. I have this wonderful Manfrotto 190 Go Carbon. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Qwertynm]

2 hours ago, Alexander108 said:

The R5 has a full format sensor just like the Q3

Yes, I‘m well aware. But it has a crop mode too and that is 1.6x. It’s under the Q menu where you can choose aspect ratios as well. It leaves you with approx. 19MP files but it’s not reversible like in the Q3!

[Qwertynm]

2 hours ago, Alexander108 said:

The R5 has a full format sensor just like the Q3

Yes, I‘m well aware. But it has a crop mode too and that is 1.6x. It’s under the Q menu where you can choose aspect ratios as well. It leaves you with approx. 19MP files but it’s not reversible like in the Q3!