CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
How does that work? Does every manufacturer need a license from the USB Consortium and pay a royalty per copy? Or is there some other arrangement?
L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
News Leica Q3 with 43/2.0 lens
- Thread starter dirk
- Start date
pdk42
Moderator
I guess so. I don’t know what happens behind the scenes - but if you want to sell many types of portable consumer electronic devices in the EU beyond Dec this year, it has to come with a USB C plug for charging!
pdk42
Moderator
I agree with that. A Q with interchangeable L mount lenses would be a winner.
Here is what I did before I decided to try out the Leica Q3 43. I checked in Lightroom 6 all my metadata of the most important photos and sorted it by focal lenght. Sometimes you have to do the math, because MFT, APS-C and compact cameras have a different focal lenght number than what you think it is while using it because of the many different sensor sizes. Especially the older P&S had really tiny sensor sizes like 1/2.8, 1/2.3, 1/1.8 etc.
I had to exclude tele zooms because I used them in the past mainly for sport and I am planning to reduce this kind of photography dramatically. It turned out that my most used focal lenghts are around 70-85mm, around 40-50mm and around 28mm.
With the Leica Q3 (thanks to the cropping capability) I could cover around 70% of my most used focal lenghts while travelling in a very small package. No swapping lenses anymore. The Ricoh GR3 would do the WA angle part then and the GR3x would be my backup in the hotel safe. Plus maybe the S5ii or an MFT camera with a small telezoom, depending on where I go.
Now I understand why I used the Sigma 90/2.8, Sigma 65/2.0, 35 and 24 not that often, although they are excellent lenses. I am just used to slightly different focal ranges over the last 20 years. And the 65 feels "too heavy" for me.
It is really sad that Sigma does not offer a 28mm FFL...
I had to exclude tele zooms because I used them in the past mainly for sport and I am planning to reduce this kind of photography dramatically. It turned out that my most used focal lenghts are around 70-85mm, around 40-50mm and around 28mm.
With the Leica Q3 (thanks to the cropping capability) I could cover around 70% of my most used focal lenghts while travelling in a very small package. No swapping lenses anymore. The Ricoh GR3 would do the WA angle part then and the GR3x would be my backup in the hotel safe. Plus maybe the S5ii or an MFT camera with a small telezoom, depending on where I go.
Now I understand why I used the Sigma 90/2.8, Sigma 65/2.0, 35 and 24 not that often, although they are excellent lenses. I am just used to slightly different focal ranges over the last 20 years. And the 65 feels "too heavy" for me.
It is really sad that Sigma does not offer a 28mm FFL...
Last edited:
All the lenses are faster, there's quite a big improvement in the phones overall going from the 7 Pro to 8 Pro including 6 more years of updates. Buying the older one would be a case of false economy.
https://m.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=11908&idPhone2=12545
Pixel 8 non pro has mostly the same main camera without multi-laser zone AF but UW not as good and no telephoto. Pro also has PDAF selfie camera.
The pro version was definitely worth the £100 extra, besides the cameras you get more RAM, better bigger screen.
Hey that Leica 43mm is was designed and patented by none other than Panasonic...
Guess what I'm going to say...
Where is the Lumix S 43mm version?
The Sigma 45mm f2.8 Contemporary wouldn't be in the same league as this 43mm:
8 elements in 7 groups (2 aspherical lenses) vs 11 elements in 8 groups (7 aspherical lenses)
Guess what I'm going to say...
Where is the Lumix S 43mm version?
The Sigma 45mm f2.8 Contemporary wouldn't be in the same league as this 43mm:
8 elements in 7 groups (2 aspherical lenses) vs 11 elements in 8 groups (7 aspherical lenses)
I made yesterday night a few test shots. Nothing scientifically. Settings 60MP vs. 24 MP of the S9.
The Sigma 45/2.8 is of course not as good as the Q3 43. But the Sigma 50/2.0, although only used with 24MP, is at least on par with the Q3 43 lens.
I looked only in the middle of the image. I have no high quality test charts and I only look at 100-150%, to minimize the influence of the more than double pixel count of the Q3
Welcome to reality. Other cooks are also able to cook good food.
I will do these shots later again. Also with the pixel binning feature of the Q3, to get the MP count roughly in the same league of the S9.
The Ricoh GR3x could not keep up with the Q3 and/or the Sigma 50/2.0 neither by the way. That is a pity for me.
The Sigma 45/2.8 is of course not as good as the Q3 43. But the Sigma 50/2.0, although only used with 24MP, is at least on par with the Q3 43 lens.
I looked only in the middle of the image. I have no high quality test charts and I only look at 100-150%, to minimize the influence of the more than double pixel count of the Q3
Welcome to reality. Other cooks are also able to cook good food.
I will do these shots later again. Also with the pixel binning feature of the Q3, to get the MP count roughly in the same league of the S9.
The Ricoh GR3x could not keep up with the Q3 and/or the Sigma 50/2.0 neither by the way. That is a pity for me.
Last edited:
Source?
The Sigma 45 was designed as a good kit for the 24MP fp but nothing special. So it should be no match, but it is quite good lens.
Where do you find the patent for the 43? If this is correct, are there any new lenses for full frame designed by Leica? All the last zooms are Sigma, the 2.0 50/35 are Panasonic. The other fixed lenses are all older…
The new zooms are „Made in Japan“, does anybody know about the 35/50? Are these „made in Germany“ or not?
Lumix S5ii vs. Leica Q3 43 size comparison.
The Q3 is not a small camera. The Q3 has no real grip. But the Q3 weights only 780g incl. the lens. That is the weight of the S5ii for the body only. The attached Sigma 45/2.8 is neither a fair comparison. But looking at all the different Signa i-series lenses, I have no doubt that Sigma would be able to design a 43mm/2.0 lens, which is as big as the Q3 43mm lens or even smaller (without a Makro feature for example).
- Google - Pixel 8 Pro
- Pixel 8 Pro back camera 6.9mm f/1.68
- 6.9 mm
- ƒ/1.68
- 1/23 sec
- Center-Weighted Average
- Auto exposure
- ISO 73
- Google - Pixel 8 Pro
- Pixel 8 Pro back camera 6.9mm f/1.68
- 6.9 mm
- ƒ/1.68
- 1/44 sec
- Center-Weighted Average
- Auto exposure
- ISO 162
The Q3 is not a small camera. The Q3 has no real grip. But the Q3 weights only 780g incl. the lens. That is the weight of the S5ii for the body only. The attached Sigma 45/2.8 is neither a fair comparison. But looking at all the different Signa i-series lenses, I have no doubt that Sigma would be able to design a 43mm/2.0 lens, which is as big as the Q3 43mm lens or even smaller (without a Makro feature for example).
Last edited:
From DPReview, a Panasonic patent: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US435544660
wow, that is really a positive statement for Panasonics ability to design excellent lenses. It is funny how all the youtubers talk about Leica's excellent lens design of the 43mm lens
For our archive, in case dpreview will be deleted one day in the future:
pdk42
Moderator
Can we measure a lens's quality by the element count?
I do not thinks so. Maybe we can assume, that a lens with many different elements tries to correct specific optical problems better than a lens with less elements. But I am not a lens designer. I do think that nowaydays, many corrections are made via firmware. Without that, it is impossible to achieve that good image quality with such a tiny lens. Look at the Sigma i-series or Sony's newest GMaster lenses for example.
I do not care how they achieve this optical quality. As long as they succeed, the lens is small and light and not too expensive.
Regarding the price of the Leica Q3 43 (and Q3 with 28mm). I still do think that it is too expensive. BUT we also have to compare the price to the 60MP alternatives.
Take a Lumix S1R or a Sony A7cR. Bith cost around 3.700€. Body only. If you want to have a lens in this size, optical quality and with makro feature, you will pay at least 1.500€ on top of this for the lens only. That makes around 5.200€ for the whole package without the Leica image/Leica pretender price tag on it.
Plus you might need another lens, if you want to compare it with a 60mm @31MP and 75mm @21MP. So, the price gap is shrinking significantly, if you do need to have 60MP always in each FL. you can crop of course with the others too, But not as conventient while taking the picture as with the Q3 43.
The Leica Q3 43 has additionally a 5.7MP viewfinder (Sony A7c does have an inferior EVF), has a compact and lightweight all in one solution (S1R does not), very good menu system (do not ask for Sony) and the ability to focus manually in a way, so smooth, I never experienced that with another AF lens.
The EVF of the Q3 43 is really excellent and is something you will use every day. For all these mentioned benefits compared to the "alternatives", you pay "only" 1.550€ more and will have a significant better resale value. Plus Leica increases its list prices every year bei around 300€. Since decades. This alone protects the resale value. On the downside you do not have a lens mount on a Q3 43.
1.550€ difference is a lot. Everyone has to make his own judgement. But if you shoot a lot in the focal ranges between around 35mm and 75mm and do not need always 60MP, the Leica Q3 43 is definitely worth it to compare it with the alternatives.
I was not impressed that much with the 28mm of the Leica Q3, but the 43mm APO lens in the Q3 43 is a lot more my taste. I am on the week-end in Berlin. I hope the weather is good enough to make some photos.
Take a Lumix S1R or a Sony A7cR. Bith cost around 3.700€. Body only. If you want to have a lens in this size, optical quality and with makro feature, you will pay at least 1.500€ on top of this for the lens only. That makes around 5.200€ for the whole package without the Leica image/Leica pretender price tag on it.
Plus you might need another lens, if you want to compare it with a 60mm @31MP and 75mm @21MP. So, the price gap is shrinking significantly, if you do need to have 60MP always in each FL. you can crop of course with the others too, But not as conventient while taking the picture as with the Q3 43.
The Leica Q3 43 has additionally a 5.7MP viewfinder (Sony A7c does have an inferior EVF), has a compact and lightweight all in one solution (S1R does not), very good menu system (do not ask for Sony) and the ability to focus manually in a way, so smooth, I never experienced that with another AF lens.
The EVF of the Q3 43 is really excellent and is something you will use every day. For all these mentioned benefits compared to the "alternatives", you pay "only" 1.550€ more and will have a significant better resale value. Plus Leica increases its list prices every year bei around 300€. Since decades. This alone protects the resale value. On the downside you do not have a lens mount on a Q3 43.
1.550€ difference is a lot. Everyone has to make his own judgement. But if you shoot a lot in the focal ranges between around 35mm and 75mm and do not need always 60MP, the Leica Q3 43 is definitely worth it to compare it with the alternatives.
I was not impressed that much with the 28mm of the Leica Q3, but the 43mm APO lens in the Q3 43 is a lot more my taste. I am on the week-end in Berlin. I hope the weather is good enough to make some photos.
Last edited:
I am sorry, Dirk, to disagree.
Lets say that both cameras, the Leica Q3 43 and the Sony A7CR, have the same price finding an equivalent 40mm f2 macro Panasonic patented Lens for the Sony A7CR.
The Sony wins, IMHO, in terms of:
- IBIS, 7 stops
- resolution: up to 240mpx using the pixel shift technology, high resolution shot, (it is posible to use reduced-resolution lossless-compressed raw files at 26MP and 15MP)
- Autofocus, best in the market with IA logarithm
- Lens versatlity
- Video performance
Regarding the EVF: you can use the "Sony Xperia 1 vi" , for 1.000€, as a external monitor for Sony cameras with a USB cable and the External monitor app, and you have a wonderful 6,5 inches video assist monitor.
But the comparison could be even worse: here a video comparing the images produced by the Leica Q3 43 and the Nikon Zf with the plastic fantastic Nikon Z 40mm f2 (285€), and it is difficult to tell the difference:
I know that video. But he did the conparison not correctly. I had the Nikkor Z40/2.0 myself. It is not on the same level like the Leica 43/2.0.
It does not make sense to make a side by side comparison, but have only 24 MP vs. 60MP.
Regarding my comparison on the different features. I can only speal for my use cases. I do not do video with my cameras. I use my smartphone for this. So this is not a criteria for me.
Same for pixel shift
I do not need the perfect AF of other cameras. Even the DFD AF of MFT 10 years ago was good enough for me. Again, no criteria for me.
Regarding lens versatility: As I wrote earlier, I looked at my Exif/Metadata in Lightroom of the last 20 years. Roughly 70% of my favourite images have been made with FL between 40mm and 75mm. Around 24% with 28mm.
I do not need for my purposes 60MP. Aroind 20-24 MP are enough for me.
So, the Q3 43 with its cropping to 60mm and 75mm covers 70% of my preferred shooting envelope. This is huge. All in one body without the need to change lenses and all this in a relative small body (nowhere as good as MFT size, by the way).
Do not get me wrong. I do not want to convince anybody. It is very clear that this is a very subjective analysis for my individual use cases. Other photographers with other use cases will find another alternative better.
I am at the beginning of this "experiment". First was the analysis of my old behaviour, then the decision to give it at least a try, although there are some points which I do not like with this camera. Not only the price. Also the visible brand name, which is not good for some areas I travel to. I want to be unnoticed when I take photos or want to sit relaxed in a Cafe without the fear that someone wants to steal my camera or kidnapp me.
I will find out whether the Q3 43 will be a useful tool for me for my specific use cases - next to my other cameras. Only time will tell.
This decision would have been a lot easier for me, if the Panasonic name and prive tag would habe been on the camera. If Panasonic would bring out a S9 43 with the same EVF and lens, I would switch immediately. And Panasonic should offer that lens without makro option to make it even smaller or exchange makro against F1.4 without making the lens bigger. I would always prefer F2.0 and a smaller lens size.
It does not make sense to make a side by side comparison, but have only 24 MP vs. 60MP.
Regarding my comparison on the different features. I can only speal for my use cases. I do not do video with my cameras. I use my smartphone for this. So this is not a criteria for me.
Same for pixel shift
I do not need the perfect AF of other cameras. Even the DFD AF of MFT 10 years ago was good enough for me. Again, no criteria for me.
Regarding lens versatility: As I wrote earlier, I looked at my Exif/Metadata in Lightroom of the last 20 years. Roughly 70% of my favourite images have been made with FL between 40mm and 75mm. Around 24% with 28mm.
I do not need for my purposes 60MP. Aroind 20-24 MP are enough for me.
So, the Q3 43 with its cropping to 60mm and 75mm covers 70% of my preferred shooting envelope. This is huge. All in one body without the need to change lenses and all this in a relative small body (nowhere as good as MFT size, by the way).
Do not get me wrong. I do not want to convince anybody. It is very clear that this is a very subjective analysis for my individual use cases. Other photographers with other use cases will find another alternative better.
I am at the beginning of this "experiment". First was the analysis of my old behaviour, then the decision to give it at least a try, although there are some points which I do not like with this camera. Not only the price. Also the visible brand name, which is not good for some areas I travel to. I want to be unnoticed when I take photos or want to sit relaxed in a Cafe without the fear that someone wants to steal my camera or kidnapp me.
I will find out whether the Q3 43 will be a useful tool for me for my specific use cases - next to my other cameras. Only time will tell.
This decision would have been a lot easier for me, if the Panasonic name and prive tag would habe been on the camera. If Panasonic would bring out a S9 43 with the same EVF and lens, I would switch immediately. And Panasonic should offer that lens without makro option to make it even smaller or exchange makro against F1.4 without making the lens bigger. I would always prefer F2.0 and a smaller lens size.
Leica cameras do not drop much in price because they are considered a fashion accessory that grants a certain social prestige, like Rolex watches, Prada shoes or Gucci bags.
Furthermore, for millions of people it is very important that a camera is beautiful and well designed. That's one of the reasons why the Fujifilm x100vi is being so successful, because it's more of a fashion accessory at a more affordable price for a wider audience than Leica cameras.
I hope Lumix makes some day a beautiful rangefinder style camera...
pdk42
Moderator
The value of a Leica camera or lens surpasses its utility. Most cameras and lenses in the "serious camera" market will likely deliver pretty much the same result as you might get from a Leica. But it seems to me that what you're paying for includes:
- A sense of a higher quality device - superior design and craftsmanship.
- Made in Germany - perceived as being a higher quality manufacturing base than anything in China.
- Exclusivity - member of a small(er) club.
- Pride of ownership - feeling good about what you've bought.
- Expectation of reduced depreciation - probably cheaper to own long term than mass-market gear.
The first four of these are all about brand engineering, irrespective of the truth claims they entail. Leica have done a great job in positioning themselves around these concepts. The Q is probably the perfect product to leverage their positioning - it's not quirky and hard to use like the M series; it's not big and bulky like the SL2 (nor mixed in with lower-end brands like Panasonic and Sigma); it's a great size and weight; and it's easy to use. It's also expensive, which ensures the exclusivity element and really helps with pride of ownership ("I've paid a lot for it so I'd better really appreciate it").
The reduced depreciation aspect derives from the other four - a high quality device with desirability and exclusivity will keep its value.
Personally, I doubt I'll ever buy a Leica, but I wouldn't knock anyone for doing so. The reasons are rational and not simply about being a camera snob.
- A sense of a higher quality device - superior design and craftsmanship.
- Made in Germany - perceived as being a higher quality manufacturing base than anything in China.
- Exclusivity - member of a small(er) club.
- Pride of ownership - feeling good about what you've bought.
- Expectation of reduced depreciation - probably cheaper to own long term than mass-market gear.
The first four of these are all about brand engineering, irrespective of the truth claims they entail. Leica have done a great job in positioning themselves around these concepts. The Q is probably the perfect product to leverage their positioning - it's not quirky and hard to use like the M series; it's not big and bulky like the SL2 (nor mixed in with lower-end brands like Panasonic and Sigma); it's a great size and weight; and it's easy to use. It's also expensive, which ensures the exclusivity element and really helps with pride of ownership ("I've paid a lot for it so I'd better really appreciate it").
The reduced depreciation aspect derives from the other four - a high quality device with desirability and exclusivity will keep its value.
Personally, I doubt I'll ever buy a Leica, but I wouldn't knock anyone for doing so. The reasons are rational and not simply about being a camera snob.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you’re getting at… do you mean that “superior design and craftsmanship“ is not a real thing, just brand engineering? Or that a claim of design/craftsmanship is brand engineering?
This gets at a point I wanted to make about a post above: specs only tell part of the story. A camera could have the best specs in the world - and if I didn’t enjoy shooting with it, it’d sit at home unused. Design and craftsmanship are a big part of that. From a functional point of view, a camera needs to be comfortable to hold, aim, and shoot; controls need to be easy to reach and comfortable to operate. From an emotional standpoint, build quality adds a lot to my enjoyment - a body that’s solid and doesn’t creak or flex, controls that operate with solid feedback and not mushy imprecision.
When I was looking at FF, I rented a Nikon Z5 - and while the pics looked great, I hated shooting with it. Next, I rented a S5 - and liked it, I enjoyed using it, but it didn’t really grab me. Then I rented a Sigma fp… it was fun to shoot with, in a way the others weren’t. (And after getting the fp, I did pick up a S5 when it went on holiday sale a few months later, for a camera that shared the mount and lenses but handled some things the fp didn’t. Still only use it for 15-20% of my shooting.)
To put it another way - the shooting experience is as important for me as the image quality. A camera with good IQ that’s a pain to shoot is a camera that doesn’t get used. Leica has generally paid a lot of attention to the shooting experience, and I think that explains a lot of their appeal.