Q2M vs Q3M …

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found that Q2M has two advantages:

• The original lens cap is easier to remove
• Focus peaking is active only in the magnified view.

The second one is quite a significant advantage for me, though I can quickly switch focus peaking on/off with center button (toggle info levels).

Q3M advantages (IMO):

• Higher resolution sensor
• Higher resolution EVF
• Modern  UI
• Better button location
• USB-C port
• Shutter with thread
• Tiltable rear screen
• One-stop better DR

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:25 PM by SrMi

[SrMi]

Both Q3M and Q2M exhibit weird ISO 100 behavior (excessive clipping), so it's best to avoid it. Q3M has one stop higher max ISO (200k), but I am not sure if that matters.

[viramati]

If I traded in my very well used and battle scared Q2M I would only get around £2200 so with a new one costing £5800 in the UK that would mean having to layout £3600 which is really hard to justify. Tilting screen would be nice but I know that the upgraded AF on the Q3M will still disappoint me as I am used to the  tracking and face detect on my Sony A1ii and A7r5. In reality I like the simplicity and rathe basic nature of the Q2M and it's IQ is really superb and as it is so well used I don't worry about it getting more paint or corners knocked off. Anyway I will go into Leica Mayfair and test out the new one with the hope that a severe case of GAS doesn't get to me😄

[Stuart Richardson]

I will play Devil's advocate and say that change sucks. The sensor in the Q2M and the body styling and interface were, for me at least, really really nice. I prefer them to the newer camera with the tilting screen and other changes. You already have something which is great...better than was even dreamed possible in the film days. Is it really worth the thousands of euros to make the change to gain a incremental advantage at ISO 50,000? If it were me, I would just use the camera until it was no longer practical. And at that point there will probably be a Q5 or Q6 that doesn't even have a lens and creates a technically perfect photo with AI of whatever you describe to it as you whisper in its very expensive German microphone. 

[nicci78]

yes Q2M is still the best looking Q to date.

Q3 are too ugly with its tilting screen.

By the way do you think that Leica lay off its entire design team ? No texture innovation, no new color, no new materials, no new design whatsoever? Crazy for a luxury brand...

Q3M has the exact same finish as Q2M.

SL3 reporter has the same finish as SL2 reporter

M EV1 is just an M11 without rangefinder window with Qs diamonds leatherette. 

Etc... why such lazyness ? Last innovation is anodized aluminum top of M11... since then absolutely nothing new... except D-Lux 8 which just a scale down Q3 without tilting screen. 

Edited yesterday at 10:05 AM by nicci78

[jaapv]

On 11/22/2025 at 8:52 PM, SrMi said:

I have yet to see a digital camera with film-grain-like noise

M9M gets closest.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

M9M gets closest.

I do not have that camera, but I assume M9M still exhibits the characteristic digital noise: repeatable, structured, pixel-based artifacts, non-organic, non-chaotic. 

Yes, I have read from others that M9M gets closest.

Edited yesterday at 04:31 PM by SrMi

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Q3 are too ugly with its tilting screen.

Placing them close together, I doubt most would agree on the "too ugly" characteristics.

6 hours ago, nicci78 said:

By the way do you think that Leica lay off its entire design team ? No texture innovation, no new color, no new materials, no new design whatsoever? Crazy for a luxury brand...

No monochrom version varied in those points. Why should they suddenly do it for Q3M? Different finishes are reserved for special editions, such as Reporter and Hodinkee.

 

 

 

[viramati]

What really interests me to know is how much an improvement there is in eye/face detect in continuous AF over the Q2M. I found that when I tried out the Q3 which has PDAF it still pulsed in and out a little  when trying to detect focus in continuous AF so I imagine the Q3M without PDAF is pretty bad in this department. the Q2M will detect a face and eye if your pretty close and the person is looking right at you but it is limited in it's effectiveness. So I would be interested in hearing  anyone who now has the Q3M in this respect

Edited 7 hours ago by viramati

[Stuart Richardson]

Jono wrote in his review that he did not see a difference vs the Q3 43, despite looking hard for it.

[SrMi]

7 hours ago, viramati said:

What really interests me to know is how much an improvement there is in eye/face detect in continuous AF over the Q2M. I found that when I tried out the Q3 which has PDAF it still pulsed in and out a little  when trying to detect focus in continuous AF so I imagine the Q3M without PDAF is pretty bad in this department. the Q2M will detect a face and eye if your pretty close and the person is looking right at you but it is limited in it's effectiveness. So I would be interested in hearing  anyone who now has the Q3M in this respect

Chris Niccols thinks that AF with Q3M is quite effective: when using face detection. This is discussed in the video below, starting at 8:40. Note that Q3M has firmware 3.9, while Q3 has an older firmware, waiting on 4.0 to be launched. I do not know whether 4.0 has AF improvements.

 

[viramati]

7 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Jono wrote in his review that he did not see a difference vs the Q3 43, despite looking hard for it.

I believe the Q3 has rudimentary tracking AF and it looks like the Q3M may have it as well to some degree. I could be wrong

Edited 16 minutes ago by viramati

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Jono wrote in his review that he did not see a difference vs the Q3 43, despite looking hard for it.

@jonoslack said that he did not find any slowdown when compared to Q3 43. I do not think he tested AF with subject detection much.

He also wrote in conclusion:

With the exception of PDAF auto-focusing the Q3M has all the advantages of the Q3 over the Q2, and in actual shooting this really doesn’t seem to be an issue - autofocusing is fast and accurate. This may be in part because Leica have been working hard using AI to maximise the AF potential of the Q3.

This sounds like there were improvements in focus with the new firmware. If that is the case, we'll also see improvement in Q3's focusing.

[viramati]

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

@jonoslack said that he did not find any slowdown when compared to Q3 43. I do not think he tested AF with subject detection much.

He also wrote in conclusion:

With the exception of PDAF auto-focusing the Q3M has all the advantages of the Q3 over the Q2, and in actual shooting this really doesn’t seem to be an issue - autofocusing is fast and accurate. This may be in part because Leica have been working hard using AI to maximise the AF potential of the Q3.

This sounds like there were improvements in focus with the new firmware. If that is the case, we'll also see improvement in Q3's focusing.

I will have to go intoLeica Mayfair and check it out

[SrMi]

6 minutes ago, viramati said:

I believe the Q3 has tracking AF and I presume the Q3M doesn't

There is no tracking option, despite what the Q3M manual says (will it be in 4.0?). However, with subject detection and AFC, the focus follows the subject.