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

[Switz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For most folks, there is a cellphone with camera on their body nearly every waking hour. So we use the camera we have with us.....   No bulky camera bag or weight hanging down from the neck with cellphones and some are cellphones getting very upmarket in camera capability.

I have to consciously think I want to carry a camera all day today everywhere I go. That puts sort of a damper on non-cellphone equipment of any size.

I have purchased the iPhone Pro Max model with max memory for many years and that has been my c camera "at the ready".  Starting again with a Leica means more planning on what and how to carry if the camera gets a road trip too. I can walk into a museum with my iPhone on my belt but maybe not carrying a camera in my hand or over my shoulder.

This camera activity will take me some time to alter my thinking about daily travels and what goes along.... Obviously, a single Leica Q3 43 is less of a bundle than a Leica M11 with multiple lenses in bag.

Edited yesterday at 01:33 AM by Switz

[Tseg]

I have different use cases for my Q3 43 and M11.   M11 for photo walks when I am trying to be artistic/creative.  The Q3 is my travel camera when I want to be enjoying the moment rather than playing photographer (but still want to properly document the moment).  Its macro mode is also good for documenting/sharing my various hobbies.

Time split with each is about 50/50.  Cost of the M11+4 lenses is about 4X that of the Q.

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, jakontil said:

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

The Q has dials for aperture and shutter speed as well. No dial for ISO, but then some Ms (M11-EV1) don't have this either.

[jakontil]

38 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The Q has dials for aperture and shutter speed as well. No dial for ISO, but then some Ms (M11-EV1) don't have this either.

Of course but their dials are plain… 

and yeah that’s why i most likely never get along well with the M EV1 

[LocalHero1953]

4 minutes ago, jakontil said:

Of course but their dials are plain… 

and yeah that’s why i most likely never get along well with the M EV1 

No, they have the same aperture and shutter speed markings as a M lens and M body.
You had me questioning my sanity - I had to go and check.

The M11-EV1 is missing the ISO dial - that's all. (Like the M8, M9, M240 - and a lot of film Ms)

Edited yesterday at 09:54 AM by LocalHero1953

[jakontil]

24 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

No, they have the same aperture and shutter speed markings as a M lens and M body.
You had me questioning my sanity - I had to go and check.

The M11-EV1 is missing the ISO dial - that's all. (Like the M8, M9, M240 - and a lot of film Ms)

You are right, big apology i have been ignorant… but yeah i will stick with my RF for as long as my eyes permit 🤣🤣🤣 sorry got confused with dials frm the Q they both look similar 

[Eoin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 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,

I think the dilemma here is more to do with the photographers skill level than a camera being technically more capable or giving a higher hit rate.

Granted I use my Q2/Q2M when I want a camera that doesn't necessarily need me to engage my photographic brain, but is fully capable should I choose to do so.
My M10 & M11 series are both my primary tools and tools I choose to use when I want to fully engage with my photography.

The Q is great, can't really fault it, but the simple fact remains, it is a fixed lens camera. My M's allow me to change the lens, alter perspective or choose faster aperture lenses for various needs. 

I would argue both cameras are capable of similar results with similar lenses, it is the photographer and the skill level with the equipment that will actually dictate the output rather than technical capability of the camera.

[DadDadDaddyo]

The equating of the desire for direct, manual control with romanticism is worth noting.  

It looks as if, for some, the desire for manual control is at first intriguing, but then dismissable as "romanticism."

For many photographers, on the other hand, manual control is a straightforward and simple prerequisite to making the photographs one has visualized. 

One: camera systems are highly capable, incorporating the skill of their programmers to reduce the effort it takes to have a picture "come out right." Exposure automation can be convenient in those settings in which conditions are well within the parameters that the automation is able to cope with. 

But two: sometimes the photograph you wish to make departs from the statistically average outcome baked into the automation. There is more to an effective image than simply "coming out right."

Even if operating under partial or full automation, we value the ability to intervene in the decision making with tools like "exposure compensation."

But if I have to start influencing the decision making of the automation to get the result I want, it starts to become less convenient. 

Exposure Compensation feels to me like having to make an appeal to some "Approval Board" to get the system to depart from its normal photometric analysis and programming. If you can think enough to apply the compensation to what the robot dictates, you can also simply put the exposure treatment where you want it to begin with. (Hence folks who dial in exposure compensation more often than not...)

But "romanticism...."

Perhaps some people make pictures, whereas some people "picture themselves making pictures." 

Maybe this is the source of concern over things like the appearance of the camera, the dismissive impression that anyone who uses a Leica is primarily concerned with how they look, not to mention the equating of manual control with "romanticism." 

[lct]

1 hour ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

[...] Even if operating under partial or full automation, we value the ability to intervene in the decision making with tools like "exposure compensation."
But if I have to start influencing the decision making of the automation to get the result I want, it starts to become less convenient. [...]

Or more convenient. In auto iso M mode, both apertures and shutter speeds can be set manually while iso settings are automatic. Hardly a practical issue for those considering iso as part of exposure, and even less so for those who deny that.

[marchyman]

I have the original Q which led to the purchase of an M 262 and later swapping that M for an M 11.  I still have the Q, but use it rarely

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, lct said:

Or more convenient. In auto iso M mode, both apertures and shutter speeds can be set manually while iso settings are automatic. Hardly a practical issue for those considering iso as part of exposure, and even less so for those who deny that.

Better replace "deny that" by "are aware that exposure is the amount of light hitting the sensor"

[pgk]

5 hours ago, DadDadDaddyo said:

For many photographers, on the other hand, manual control is a straightforward and simple prerequisite to making the photographs one has visualized.

I never use the 'A' setting on my Ms (and extremely rarely on other cameras). Manual exposure is surprisingly effective unless lighting is shifting dramatically and continuously and under such conditions it is eaqually difficult for autmation to adjust as I might want it to either. With manual exposure I understand what is happening and the interaction between lighting and exposure. With automation this is less easy. I don't really understand the logic of many automated features. They can work reasonably but have a tendency to become a solution rather than increasing understanding of exposure and what works and what does not. Not sure that there's anything romantic about manual exposure control though.

[Alexander108]

I had the Q3 (28mm) for one and a half year and was extremely happy with it. Until a friend got an M11 and I experimented with it and some of his glass. I had quite a few shots where the 28 was just not long enough like this one from Riomaggiore / Cinque Terre:

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!

I love the image but it is a tad too tight. It would have worked better with my M11 and my 24mm Elmarit. Which I often use.

I stayed a few days more in Barcelona after a Symposium I attended and took four lenses: 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 15mm.

I took not one picture with the 15mm lens as it mostly stayed in the hotel and I did not really miss it. We did not visit the Sagrada Familia Cathedral as we visited it last year. I mainly took if we find the time to visit it nonetheless.

Only 16 pictures out of 210 (after deleting the no-keepers) were taken with my 50mm Summicron. Love the lens. But for street photography (which I do most) it's just too long.

The 35mm and 24mm lens were used 50/50. I really love my 50y old 35mm Summicron. This one was taken with my M10-M and the 35mm lens. 

My move to sell my beloved Q3 and go for a preowned selection of M lenses and an M10 Monochrom worked out. The M10-M was followed by a preowned M11 (also sold all my heavy Canon R5 / 24-105 / 15-35 / 100-400 lenses). Regarding manual focusing I don't experience any problems. For street photography if often select f/8 + zone focusing. This is fastest and no "false positives" with the AF. I always use the Visoflex when shooting with the 24mm lens but also pre-focus with the RF. The EVF is great to check exposure in situations with bright skies. You cannot afford over-exposing with a monochrome camera. 

Image quality is absolutely nothing I miss on my M10-M nor on my M11. The only things I miss are image stabilization and the tilted screen that was extremely useful for my style of street photography. I do not switch lenses that often. But if I do it is necessary and useful. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Alexander108
Typo

[LocalHero1953]

13 hours ago, jaapv said:

Better replace "deny that" by "are aware that exposure is the amount of light hitting the sensor"

Does that precision in terminology help you take better pictures than those who in their ignorance assess the optimal balance of shutter speed, aperture and ISO setting?

[jaapv]

Yes it does. Exposure is one of the most basic photographic principles   Understanding it is one of the essentials on the road to a good photo. ISO setting is just amplification. further on in the process, nothing more. And yes, it influences the EV setting. But so does motion, for example, and DOF. 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 20 Minuten schrieb Alexander108:

I love the image but it is a tad too tight. It would have worked better with my M11 and my 24mm Elmarit. Which I often use.

Thats the dilemma when having a camera with only one lens, the Q series or a model with changeable lenses and the wrong lens with me, so if i use the SL2 i usually carry two, them most used is the 28 and 14mm and then i crop later. 
A zoom lens would be helpful but dislike them and prefer primes and use my legs as zoom if i can walk from/towards the scenery if possible.
It's a kind of murphy's law to have the wrong/subpar lens attached and not shorter/wider to change if possible. This is particularly boring in underwater photography as there is no way to change lens and the reason that many switched to zoom lenses with macro function.
It happen to me countless times to dive with my D800 and either the 105mm macro and encountered unexpected big fish or the 15mm diagonal fisheye attached and found rare macro stuff. Over the years i learned to concentrate to shoot what i planned and mounted the lens for that and don't get mad about the unexpected stuff showing up. That makes it for me a bit easier to carry my Q2 only and don't get too much angry about missed or subpar shots due wrong focal length.

Chris


 

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Yes it does. Exposure is one of the most basic photographic principles   Understanding it is one of the essentials on the road to a good photo. ISO setting is just amplification. further on in the process, nothing more. 

I agree,
however it depends on what is the scenery to photograph.
I find Auto Iso very useful if i want a particular aperture and shutter time but in 90% ISO is set to 100 as i can set the correct exposure with aperture and shutter speed. Having Auto Iso always on while using a exposure program function can lead to unexpected results as Iso may interfere with cameras aperture and shutter decision as it introduces a third parameter for exposure decision how to expose correctly.  
Chris

 

[lct]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

[...] Exposure is one of the most basic photographic principles   Understanding it is one of the essentials on the road to a good photo [...]

It is just a matter of words. For some people exposure is an amount of light, for others the amount of time the film or sensor is open to the light and this amount of time depends on aperture, shutter speed and iso.

[jaapv]

Sorry. No. It is a strictly defined process.” Some people “ simply lack photographic knowledge. Go back to film. ISO varies with development . That is not even in the camera. Twiddling ISO is equivalent to loading another film. Again an action outside the operation of the camera. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lct]

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sorry. No. It is a strictly defined process. Some people simply lack photographic knowledge. 

My own knowledge is limited to the Cambridge dictionary according to which exposure is "the amount of time a piece of film is open to the light when making a photograph". Matches my digital experience entirely but we discussed this already so it is probably one of the few (?) matters on which we will never agree. YMMV.