News Leica Q3 with 43/2.0 lens

[xaviergut]

specs only tell part of the story

I agree with that. I love shooting with my Nikon Df anf the Voigtlander 40mm f2, a dslr camera that was launched in 2013, that has no video, and a manual focus Lens. Nevertheless and from my subjectivity I think I will never sell this combo.

The Df is objectively a much worse camera than the original Lumix S5. I think that in all specs the Df is clearly lower. But if we look at the prices on the second-hand market in "like New" condition, the Nikon Df has a price of €1300 and the original Lumix S5 has a price of €800

As for Leica, I once bought a Leica X Vario, and my shooting experience was the worst I've ever had with a camera. I sold it a month later. A friend let me try the Leica M9 and I didn't like the experience with the rangefinder at all. My friend is a Leica enthusiast and said that it was the authentic and original photography experience of the classics like Cartier-Bresson and such.

However I would like to try the SL3 or the Q3. And I think Leica lenses are excellent.

 

[pdk42]

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?

Well, I'm sure Leica stuff is well made, but so are most other cameras. My S1R is really a very, very solid camera with exquisite build - but I would guess most people would always think that a Leica is better made than a Lumix. So, I think that "superior design and craftsmanship" is mostly about brand engineering. I'm not saying Leica gear doesn't have those attributes, just that they are not unique in it. It's exactly the same with cars. BMWs have a great brand reputation for quality, but take one apart and compare it to a Ford and there are really no meaningful differences.

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.

Yes, but this is about ergonomics and usability and it has very little to do with a camera's price, market positioning, or even tech. And of course, it's potentially rather subjective. I could never get on with a camera that lacked an EVF or had a fixed rear screen - so the Sigma fp would be a complete fail in my eyes. Whereas, I find the S5 absolutely superb.