Taking the romanticism aside - is Q3 43 the technically more capable camera with higher image quality?

[finance0402]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

 

I have both the Q3 43 and the M11 right in front of me right now - (i will need to sell one) and I know that these are very different shooting experiences - and I sometimes find myself either thinking about either liking the one or the other but purely objectively the Q3 43 is a technically more capable more camera right, with better image quality in the end (or at least significantly higher hit ratio of making the right shot?) 

 

Best,

[jaapv]

That depends.

a. Your technical skills (are you able to use  your M11 to its full potential?)

b. Your need for versatility. Does the limited use case of the M43 fit your photography?

In terms of image quality, unless you are somebody who looks for the last 1%, irrespective whether it makes a difference, there is nothing to choose between the two. 

Edited yesterday at 05:12 PM by jaapv

[Chris W]

^^ Totally agree ^^

It really DOES come down to your happiest workflow and your creative needs. 

Do you prefer autofocus to a manual rangefinder? Are you happy with a fixed 43mm lens (albeit croppable).

[LocalHero1953]

In terms of image quality, that depends on the lens you put on the M11 - if it's one of the latest 35 or 50 M lenses, then I doubt one would notice the difference for most shots.

As for technical elements, it depends on how much value you assign to such things as autofocus and image stabilisation, set against the ability to use a range of different lenses, and the ability to use advanced opto-mechanical rangefinder forcusing. But I'm sure all this stuff has occurred to you already.

For day to day practical photography, I have the Q3 43. I have various film cameras (incl. M) for when I want to be romantic......

Edited yesterday at 01:47 PM by LocalHero1953

[lct]

There is indeed one difference: the lens. If you're not interested in lenses for their character and/or properties, better chose a fixed lens camera, and the Q series are probably the best available. I have no experience with them though and i will never have since i'm an M lens user in the first place. The pleasure to use an M camera with a modern Summicron 50/2 apo or a Summicron 50/2 DR from the 60s, or a tiny Elmar or Summarit which IQ or handling you might prefer to anything else, or not. Impossible to do that with any Q camera, whatever its merits otherwise. Happy snaps with what fits best for you

[pgk]

What exactly is the question?

[Homo Faber]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes.

[jaapv]

56 minutes ago, pgk said:

What exactly is the question?

Resolving a dilemma - which outsiders cannot.  Aside: what is technically more capable? I can't assign a meaning to the question. 

[PhotoCruiser]

Yes
But technological advantage is not necessary a reason to sell the M11.
You have both and know the dis/advantages of both,
if you can live with only 43mm and for other focal lengths either stitch or crop then keep the Q3, also if you travel frequently and want a small camera with awesome reproduction quality

If you use the M11 much more and/or frequently change lens and use either less than 43 or tele then you may should sell the Q3.

Or sell something totally different than photography gear and keep both....

Chris

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, lct said:

There is indeed one difference: the lens. If you're not interested in lenses for their character and/or properties, better chose a fixed lens camera, and the Q series are probably the best available. I have no experience with them though and i will never have since i'm an M lens user in the first place. The pleasure to use an M camera with a modern Summicron 50/2 apo or a Summicron 50/2 DR from the 60s, or a tiny Elmar or Summarit which IQ or handling you might prefer to anything else, or not. Impossible to do that with any Q camera, whatever its merits otherwise. Happy snaps with what fits best for you

Very true. Quite often the "best" lens in terms of MTF etc. is not the best lens for your photograph. 

[Markey]

Yes ..

[steve edmunds]

if you sell the M11 you will only end up buying another M in the future.

[Smogg]

6 hours ago, finance0402 said:

Hi all,

 

I have both the Q3 43 and the M11 right in front of me right now - (i will need to sell one) and I know that these are very different shooting experiences - and I sometimes find myself either thinking about either liking the one or the other but purely objectively the Q3 43 is a technically more capable more camera right, with better image quality in the end (or at least significantly higher hit ratio of making the right shot?) 

 

Best,

Have you ever tried taking a portrait of a woman over 40 with the Q3 43? You'd be one step away from death if she saw it without significant pre-processing. Even the slightest imperfections on her skin would be visible. With the M11, you have the option of using a lens that produces softer images and requires less post-processing.

[Stuart Richardson]

If you are only interesting in the 43mm range, then yes, on average you are probably more likely to get better technical results out of the Q3 43 than an M11. It mainly comes down to stabilization, AF and lack of shutter vibration. It is simply more demanding to get techincally perfect results out of an M11, and the aids the Q provides just improve your chances. Is this difference large or important? Probably not...at least not unless you are routinely shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds or with erratically moving subjects, in which case it is likely to out do most people with an M11. I am sure there are some who shoot really well with rangefinders who can beat the odds, but for most people most of the time, stabilization and accurate AF will give a higher hit rate. The real answer to this question is that it is a question of taste which camera to use. 

[Stuart Richardson]

8 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Have you ever tried taking a portrait of a woman over 40 with the Q3 43? You'd be one step away from death if she saw it without significant pre-processing. Even the slightest imperfections on her skin would be visible. With the M11, you have the option of using a lens that produces softer images and requires less post-processing.

Is that really a metric to use? If you used any modern M mount lens the result would probably be the same. You could also just smear some vaseline on a filter or use a softar...even then, not everyone is in denial about how they look. I mean I am, but I have heard that some people aren't. 

[lct]

8 minutes ago, Smogg said:

Have you ever tried taking a portrait of a woman over 40 with the Q3 43? You'd be one step away from death if she saw it without significant pre-processing. Even the slightest imperfections on her skin would be visible. With the M11, you have the option of using a lens that produces softer images and requires less post-processing.

Same with the Summicron 50/2 apo TBH so i would never use it for that. My relatives much prefer the Summicron 50/2 v1 from this viewpoint. I would not have such choice with any Q camera.

[Smogg]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Is that really a metric to use? If you used any modern M mount lens the result would probably be the same. You could also just smear some vaseline on a filter or use a softar...even then, not everyone is in denial about how they look. I mean I am, but I have heard that some people aren't. 

On the M11 you have a choice, you can put another lens for portrait photography

[Derbyshire Man]

Indeed, on my M I can decide if I want to use the summilux pre-asph v2, the 35mm FLE, the summicron apo and the 40mm Rocker and they are all very different in look and purpose.

In terms of sharp images of eyes the Q43 is probably going to win but there's more to photography than more sharp images of eyes...

[Kiwimac]

The Q camera is weather sealed, which might be useful to you. Or not. 
 

I had the original Q and it did not really work for me. I think that a 28mm is too wide for me to use all the time, mainly. 
 

The 43 is of much more interest. However. When it inevitably dies, will it be feasible to fix? Or will I be forced to bin the lens and the body because Leica don’t fix them anymore?

 

At least with the M I can keep the lens. 
 

I prefer the look of the RX1R and if I wanted that kind of camera I’d probably get that. Or the FF GFX100RF. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jakontil]

For my use case, the Q never been a more capable camera than the M11

Coz i have more control with dials which essential for me.. image quality i doubt too