New: Leica Q3 Monochrom

[S Maclean]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Markey said:

That would be interesting.

As a 43 owner I`m very pleased with that lens .

It leaves me thinking how the Q3 mono would stack up against an M11 mono with an M 28.

I currently have a 28 Summicron ASPH.

I haven`t seen any comparisons ..... is it simply a matter of compactness and AF ?

 

I actually have shot my m11 mono with a 28 many times . And it works perfectly well. Very well actually because at 28 hyper focusing is very easy. 

so, in terms of IQ an m11 mono would match the Q ( plus you can exchange lenses.)

the Q is not, therefore about IQ but about use.  AF, IBIS, weather sealing EVF. It becomes a different tool. A BIG difference is close focusing on a lux lens ( you can get it with voigtlander , but, different lens. And Macro mode)

For me, if I’m in the mood to craft and image, to “be” the camera in a way, I take the M’s

If feel More like walking and talking. I’m with family or walking the dogs. If I want to just shoot, I take the Q

If I’m in studio or an event where I want to dedicate 100% of my attention to subject and form: the SL

Thats the decision walking  out the door…. If things change while I’m out all three systems can give me the same results if I just work around their compromises.

Edited November 23 by S Maclean

[Markey]

3 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

I actually have shot my m11 mono with a 28 many times . And it works perfectly well. Very well actually because at 28 hyper focusing is very easy. 

so, in terms of IQ an m11 mono would match the Q ( plus you can exchange lenses.)

the Q is not, therefore about IQ but about use.  AF, IBIS, weather sealing EVF. It becomes a different tool. A BIG difference is close focusing on a lux lens ( you can get it with voigtlander , but, different lens. And Macro mode)

For me, if I’m in the mood to craft and image, to “be” the camera in a way, I take the M’s

If feel More like walking and talking. I’m with family or walking the dogs. If I want to just shoot, I take the Q

If I’m in studio or an event where I want to dedicate 100% of my attention to subject and form: the SL

Thats the decision walking  out the door…. If things change while I’m out all three systems can give me the same results if I just work around their compromises.

Thank you .... succinctly put.

It helps when somebody can lay it out although I should be able to do that for myself I`ve been at it long enough ... age creeps up on you though 

That was helpful.

[S Maclean]

 

@Markey, Here's a perfect example.  I took this picture on vacation, on the walk from our room to breakfast. This picture could be taken with an M, a Q or an Sl. Mono or color...and, because of the distance and the ample room; it could be taken with any number of lenses.  But, I'm on vacation: Didnt want an extra case just for the SL system.  I'm on a sandy beach, I don't want to deal with lens changing, nor do have the time to "figure the best shot" becasue I have a hungry wife (that's her with a D) and it's "too early" to ask for anything complicated from her.... So I really have to make the best out of the 3 minutes she will indulge me.  A Q is perfect for this scenario. In this case the Q43. 

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!

Edited November 23 by S Maclean

[Markey]

3 hours ago, S Maclean said:

 

@Markey, Here's a perfect example.  I took this picture on vacation, on the walk from our room to breakfast. This picture could be taken with an M, a Q or an Sl. Mono or color...and, because of the distance and the ample room; it could be taken with any number of lenses.  But, I'm on vacation: Didnt want an extra case just for the SL system.  I'm on a sandy beach, I don't want to deal with lens changing, nor do have the time to "figure the best shot" becasue I have a hungry wife (that's her with a D) and it's "too early" to ask for anything complicated from her.... So I really have to make the best out of the 3 minutes she will indulge me.  A Q is perfect for this scenario. In this case the Q43. 

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 understand that.

With me its a case of I`ve been doing it (M) for so long I wonder if I want to try an easier option.

Reminds me of the guitarist Billy Gibbons who on picking up BB Kings guitar was surprised that it had light gauge strings .

He commented saying  that he was surprised because he thought BB King`s sound was due to the fact that he used heavy gauge strings and that was why he (Gibbons ) had strung his guitar with heavy gauge strings.

King thought for a moment and said "Why are you working so hard ... get some light gauge strings ).

I sometimes feel that myself and wonder if there might be an easier option .... for me after 30 years of shooting M bodies.

I do like an M or I wouldn`t have used them for so long and I`ll always have them around.

Thanks its been a useful conversation .

[S Maclean]

47 minutes ago, Markey said:

I understand that.

With me its a case of I`ve been doing it (M) for so long I wonder if I want to try an easier option.

Reminds me of the guitarist Billy Gibbons who on picking up BB Kings guitar was surprised that it had light gauge strings .

He commented saying  that he was surprised because he thought BB King`s sound was due to the fact that he used heavy gauge strings and that was why he (Gibbons ) had strung his guitar with heavy gauge strings.

King thought for a moment and said "Why are you working so hard ... get some light gauge strings ).

I sometimes feel that myself and wonder if there might be an easier option .... for me after 30 years of shooting M bodies.

I do like an M or I wouldn`t have used them for so long and I`ll always have them around.

Thanks its been a useful conversation .

Makes sense.

To me, the M is actually easier to work with. I focus faster and don't worry about anything other than ISO, SS and Aperture. Except for some specific cases I focus faster on rangefinder than EVF. Autofocus sometimes forces me to "check".

The convineance of the Q for me is the integrated lens, the IBIS, and, yes, sometimes the AF for point and shoot. Also the fact that I just toss it in the bag when traveling, without a secnd thought. 

But, If I had to choose only one system between them I'd keep the M. no question.  Fortunately I don't ahve to choose, though.

[Markey]

5 minutes ago, S Maclean said:

Makes sense.

To me, the M is actually easier to work with. I focus faster and don't worry about anything other than ISO, SS and Aperture. Except for some specific cases I focus faster on rangefinder than EVF. Autofocus sometimes forces me to "check".

The convineance of the Q for me is the integrated lens, the IBIS, and, yes, sometimes the AF for point and shoot. Also the fact that I just toss it in the bag when traveling, without a secnd thought. 

But, If I had to choose only one system between them I'd keep the M. no question.  Fortunately I don't ahve to choose, though.

That`s the conundrum .

On one level the M is easier to work with.

For years I shot equestrian sports with either an M3/DW or an M2 .

I`m just a happy snapper so its all down to enjoyment and the M system (whatever else it may be ) is most certainly enjoyable..

Thanks again for the input... its been useful.

[Kiwimac]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, Markey said:

I find myself reaching for the Q343 most for street stuff although I pair it with the 246 if I feel there is a mono "opportunity ".

I confess that despite a 28 year love affair with the M system, the 43 really made me think “I could probably do everything I need with one of those - or two if there was a Monochrom version!”

 The biggest thing for me is that I don’t like the idea of having nothing but a paperweight if they died. With M I can just stick the lenses on another body which feels less wasteful. 
 

Also I won’t ever shoot video, so I object to paying for the capability!

[Markey]

4 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

I confess that despite a 28 year love affair with the M system, the 43 really made me think “I could probably do everything I need with one of those - or two if there was a Monochrom version!”

 The biggest thing for me is that I don’t like the idea of having nothing but a paperweight if they died. With M I can just stick the lenses on another body which feels less wasteful. 
 

Also I won’t ever shoot video, so I object to paying for the capability!

Yep ... that`s  exactly my dilemma.

 

 

[Kiwimac]

4 hours ago, Markey said:

Yep ... that`s  exactly my dilemma.

 

 

Maybe - now that they have broken the dam by incorporating an EVF instead of the RF - they will come up with autofocus!

 

A long long time ago, before AF really was a thing (yes, children - there was a time when everything had to be focused manually!) there were a couple of out of the box attempts (I forget by whom but I think at least one was Contax) to create it using MF lenses.

 

One involved (I think - this is me dragging up memory from the mid 1980's or so!) setting the lens to infinity and then the AF system actually moved the film plane back and forth to achieve focus.

Now all they need to do is design an M that can move the sensor....!! 🤣

[gbealnz]

10 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

Maybe - now that they have broken the dam by incorporating an EVF instead of the RF - they will come up with autofocus!

 

A long long time ago, before AF really was a thing (yes, children - there was a time when everything had to be focused manually!) there were a couple of out of the box attempts (I forget by whom but I think at least one was Contax) to create it using MF lenses.

 

One involved (I think - this is me dragging up memory from the mid 1980's or so!) setting the lens to infinity and then the AF system actually moved the film plane back and forth to achieve focus.

Now all they need to do is design an M that can move the sensor....!! 🤣

Certainly possible. The camera you elude to is the Contax AX. I had one, and a fantastic camera it is/was.

However, I can also recall the posts when the first digital Leicas came out, many were annoyed/dismayed/peeved about the "extra thickness" of the digital cameras, compared to the film counterparts. Mere millimetres at most.

Check how "fat/deep" the Contax AX was. This will kill the idea for many/most Leica aficionados I reckon. 

[SrMi]

10 hours ago, Kiwimac said:

Maybe - now that they have broken the dam by incorporating an EVF instead of the RF

This may be misunderstood. The EVF version is not replacing the RF version, and the future of the M-EV line is not yet guaranteed.

[eleven24]

 

On 11/23/2025 at 4:26 AM, Markey said:

That would be interesting.

As a 43 owner I`m very pleased with that lens .

It leaves me thinking how the Q3 mono would stack up against an M11 mono with an M 28.

I currently have a 28 Summicron ASPH.

I haven`t seen any comparisons ..... is it simply a matter of compactness and AF ?

 

I've been searching for comparisons between the M11M and the Q3M, but have only found the RedDotForum comparison between the Q2M and M10M. Logic would tell me the difference, or lack thereof between the two would also apply to the M11M/Q3M.

I predominantly shoot my M11M with the 24mm Summilux, I'm considering selling the M11M for the Q3M. I still have an M11 (color) that could use the M lenses, while the Q3M would give me almost the same 24mm B&W I'm getting with my M11M, but add in autofocus. 

Then again... looking through my LR catalog at the 50 Noct f/1 B&W I've shot give me pause. 

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, eleven24 said:

 

I've been searching for comparisons between the M11M and the Q3M, but have only found the RedDotForum comparison between the Q2M and M10M. Logic would tell me the difference, or lack thereof between the two would also apply to the M11M/Q3M.

I predominantly shoot my M11M with the 24mm Summilux, I'm considering selling the M11M for the Q3M. I still have an M11 (color) that could use the M lenses, while the Q3M would give me almost the same 24mm B&W I'm getting with my M11M, but add in autofocus. 

Then again... looking through my LR catalog at the 50 Noct f/1 B&W I've shot give me pause. 

The main reason I pick a Q3 over M is OIS in Q3, which gives me a couple of stops more for static scenes. The tiltable LCD can also be useful.

[Barralad]

On 11/24/2025 at 1:33 AM, Kiwimac said:

 The biggest thing for me is that I don’t like the idea of having nothing but a paperweight if they died. With M I can just stick the lenses on another body which feels less wasteful. 

But replacing a Q paperweight will cost considerably less than replacing an M paperweight, no? Unless you currently have other camera bodies ready, in which case the cost (for the M body, the M lenses, plus the other body/bodies) is already probably way above what a Q camera costs to buy 2 or even 3 times. Both cameras will die, eventually, and one could argue that it’s less wasteful to have a camera with just one lens than buy multiple lenses.

[Markey]

1 hour ago, eleven24 said:

 

I've been searching for comparisons between the M11M and the Q3M, but have only found the RedDotForum comparison between the Q2M and M10M. Logic would tell me the difference, or lack thereof between the two would also apply to the M11M/Q3M.

I predominantly shoot my M11M with the 24mm Summilux, I'm considering selling the M11M for the Q3M. I still have an M11 (color) that could use the M lenses, while the Q3M would give me almost the same 24mm B&W I'm getting with my M11M, but add in autofocus. 

Then again... looking through my LR catalog at the 50 Noct f/1 B&W I've shot give me pause. 

There`s this .Recently posted . It digresses a little to much for my taste but I sat through it.  My conclusion was that there was little in it other than the Q3 was more effective in the shadows .

 

Edited November 25 by Markey

[jonoslack]

4 hours ago, eleven24 said:

 

I've been searching for comparisons between the M11M and the Q3M, but have only found the RedDotForum comparison between the Q2M and M10M. Logic would tell me the difference, or lack thereof between the two would also apply to the M11M/Q3M.

I predominantly shoot my M11M with the 24mm Summilux, I'm considering selling the M11M for the Q3M. I still have an M11 (color) that could use the M lenses, while the Q3M would give me almost the same 24mm B&W I'm getting with my M11M, but add in autofocus. 

Then again... looking through my LR catalog at the 50 Noct f/1 B&W I've shot give me pause. 

Hi There 

I've been 'lucky' enough to try all of these cameras - fundamentally a Monochrom camera isn't for me, because I shoot a lot of colour, but I really like the discipline that shooting Monochrom imposes, and I'm usually pleased with the results (I'm pleased with lots of these images https://www.slack.co.uk/articles/the-leica-q3-monochrom.html )

But if I was in your position with an M11M (and also an M11) I really REALLY wouldn't change the M11M for a Q3M - have one as well, by all means, but not instead! 

( a word from the not-very-wise!)

[Kiwimac]

23 hours ago, SrMi said:

This may be misunderstood. The EVF version is not replacing the RF version, and the future of the M-EV line is not yet guaranteed.

I’m not sure why. They’re clearly different things. 
 

I could envisage a time when the RF bodies attain status and price akin to becoming the Patek Philippe of the camera world with concordant pricing and availability.

 

 However to do that, first the EVF technology would have to improve to the point at which it became so indistinguishable from looking through glass that it made no more than a nugatory difference and also offered benefits such as easier and more reliable focusing, more visible information options and a lower cost.

 

I certainly don’t think that is remotely imminent, but I do think it’s possible. The Hasselblad X2D EVF for example is quite impressive and the SL3 probably is but I’ve not looked through one.

 

[SrMi]

3 minutes ago, Kiwimac said:

I’m not sure why. They’re clearly different things. 
 

I could envisage a time when the RF bodies attain status and price akin to becoming the Patek Philippe of the camera world with concordant pricing and availability.

 

 However to do that, first the EVF technology would have to improve to the point at which it became so indistinguishable from looking through glass that it made no more than a nugatory difference and also offered benefits such as easier and more reliable focusing, more visible information options and a lower cost.

 

I certainly don’t think that is remotely imminent, but I do think it’s possible. The Hasselblad X2D EVF for example is quite impressive and the SL3 probably is but I’ve not looked through one.

 

I much prefer M-EV1's EVF implementation to X2D's. While X2D's EVF is excellent for magnified manual focusing, using it with exposure simulation enabled is often unusable. I have to shoot it mostly in M mode with exposure simulation disabled; otherwise, when relevant highlights need to be preserved, the shadows in the EVF are too dark to discern necessary details. With M-EV1, I can enable exposure simulation only with a shutter half-press, which I need to determine exposure.

[gotium]

2 hours ago, jonoslack said:

...But if I was in your position with an M11M (and also an M11) I really REALLY wouldn't change the M11M for a Q3M - have one as well, by all means, but not instead! ...

Why is that? Presumably for the feel of the camera in-hand? Or for the choice of lenses?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[SrMi]

20 minutes ago, gotium said:

Why is that? Presumably for the feel of the camera in-hand? Or for the choice of lenses?

I believe most M owners can think of a Q camera as an additional camera, but not a replacement.