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 17 hours ago 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 9 hours ago 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.