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.

 

[dirk]

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.

I think this is a very important point.

In 2024 all cameras and lenses are good. Better than 99,9% of the users need. 40 years ago, you could easily see differences in image quality between Leica and Zeiss on one side and and Niko, Canon, Minolta etc. on the other side. Not only wide open.

This is not the case anymore. Sensor image quality is the same among all brands and giants like Sigma is defining the new quality standard for lenses and offers them in almost all different camera systems (Canon, Nikon, Fuji, L-Mount) either under their own name or with the Leica or Olympus badge on it.
This is why Leica (and Sigma with the i-series, aperture ring, metal body etc ) pushing so much the shooting experience.

As long as there is no big technical improvement and lenses missing that you absolutely need, the shooting experience will play the most important role in the future.

 

[Oíche]

As long as there is no big technical improvement and lenses missing that you absolutely need, the shooting experience will play the most important role in the future.

Indeed so, this is why the smaller and lighter gear is so desirable amongst many enthusiasts, Lumix really helps making the likes of their new lenses, typically smallest and lightest. Who would want the old style 100mm f2.8 macros when they have the ~300g at 1/2 the weight and smaller?

Many of these old DSLR style designs are now on the unwanted list along with big heavy bulky bodies, like I said before you can always add a grip if you want that form. I also said before you won't see again a Lumix body size bigger than S5ii size, if anything the market is pushing the other way.

That aside the aesthetics are a big factor, if you can make it stylish too that draws in a completely different market... Hence the S9 and Q3 43 etc. with the latter having an easier to use menu system probably helped by less amount of options and menu system the S9 inherited from S5ii, and therefore probably more joyful to use.

Personally I think Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji are poor with aesthetics. That retro Nikon zfc and the similar retro Fujis are pretty abysmal for comparison.

Yeah that'll probably mean I'll probably own an S9 someday.

 

[Pete_W]

Yeah that'll probably mean I'll probably own an S9 someday.

You should buy one for sure!

 

[pdk42]

Indeed so, this is why the smaller and lighter gear is so desirable amongst many enthusiasts, Lumix really helps making the likes of their new lenses, typically smallest and lightest. Who would want the old style 100mm f2.8 macros when they have the ~300g at 1/2 the weight and smaller?

The new lightweight Lumix lenses are OK, but there are definitely compromises to make them as small as they are. The most obvious one is max aperture, but IQ is also not up to the very highest levels. I love my 14-28 for example, but it's not in the same league optically as the much bigger and heavier Sigma 12-24 f2.8 Art. Similarly, the Lumix 28-200 is weak in IQ compared to the bigger and heavier Tamron 28-200. In the case of the 14-28, it's a compromise I'm OK with. But the 28-200 falls under my personal "good enough" threshold.

And as to macro lenses - if they are being used for true macro work, the weight is unlikely to be a factor since you're probably working on a tripod. The Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro (which I've recently acquired) is breathtaking in its optical performance. Certainly the best macro lens I've ever used.

I also said before you won't see again a Lumix body size bigger than S5ii size, if anything the market is pushing the other way.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. I'd be surprised if the new S1 isn't a little larger than the S5n(probably similar to the Leica SL3). I doubt it will be as big as the old S1, but I think to get the handling and controls up to the level of cameras like the Z8, they need to make it a big bigger than the S5.

And in any case, not all mirrorless cameras are small - the obvious example is the Nikon Z8 and it gets rave reviews.

Personally I think Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji are poor with aesthetics. That retro Nikon zfc and the similar retro Fujis are pretty abysmal for comparison.

I'm glad you added "personally", since these things really can be very personal. The Fuji cameras in my view have very poor dial layout and I find they give me cramp after a while. They are definitely not for me. Nikon Z cameras however are very similar to Lumix in my view in their handling, but they fall short in menus and general feature availability and ease of use. I'm out of touch with Canon these days, but back in DSLR days, they were excellent. Sony - well, I think in fact that the latest bodies have come on a long way from their early days. I don't think they are much different from Lumix in essential ways today. The A7RV even has a dual tilt screen like the old S1.

And the Zfc - I don't much about that, but a good friend who is a very experienced photographer has the Zf and he absolutely raves about its feel and handling. But we're back to personal opinion once more I guess.

Yeah that'll probably mean I'll probably own an S9 someday.

I suspect if you are comfortable without an EVF, and don't take stills shots in artificial lighting, then the S9 is a fine camera!

 

[pdk42]

You should buy one for sure!

Isn't Dirk selling his