advertisement


Leica Q3

JTC

JTC

PFM Villager...
It's out today. Looks good. Not going to get one though, for me it doesn't add anything much I need (though a tilting screen is occasionally handy).

Anyone thinking about one? It's far from cheap but is - in a curious sort of way - good value if you consider the cost of a Summilux 28 for M mount. But back in sensible-shoes land, it's still a fair outlay.

I've really enjoyed my Q2 so far, and continually surprise myself by just how good the shots out of it are. My XT2 is not redundant yet though, but for me a Q2 and switch to XH2 or XT5 makes more sense than selling my Q2 and getting a Q3 to go with the XT2.
 
I think able to dig is more important than willing but I understand what you are saying. There seem to be a lot of changes, and the moving touch screen is a big bonus.
 
Have to say that I am tempted by the Q3. Had an original Q in the past which I really liked but ditched that in favour of several zooms and a good full frame mirrorless body. Now I’ve reached my 70’s the appeal of a really good fixed lens camera makes more sense (I really don’t enjoy lugging the kit around and I find myself using the camera less) and the Q3 really fits the bill. Mind you, so does the Q2!
 
I downsized from a Canon 5d and a collection of their fast zooms & primes as I found myself leaving it at home more and more often, just not liking the idea of lugging all that stuff about.
Went the XT2 route, and now finding I'm doing the same thing, as their fast zooms (especially the 8-16, which I do like) are once again becoming just too much to keep lugging about, especially when on holiday.
I find myself relying more on the camera in the iPhone (which is no slouch in all honesty in the 14), but still like the idea of a good camera.
So I have the Q3 on order.
No idea when stock arrives, and no idea where I am in the queue, hopefully not too long to wait.
XT2's dont go for much ££$$ as trade in now, but the glass should go a good way towards the cost.
 
Yes…Damn. Too expensive, although the tilting screen would be handy. Guess I'll have to stick to my creaky old Q2.
 
JTC said:
I doubt millionaires mess around with cameras. This is for enthusiasts who are willing to dig deep for arguably the best single lens camera.
Click to expand...

Curious you should say that .. I think millionaires are exactly the target for these kind of bling prices - Leica always a great pose item on the superyacht/Cote-de promenade ;)

Recent example was a vintage camera (not Leica) that saw it's prices soar skywards when one of the Beyonce/Kardashian mob was seen with one :eek:
 
I don't think non-photographers would like it. Sure, it looks cool, and is a very good camera, but I'd guess your average Joe 1% would get better and more convenient photos SooC (as it were) from their iPhone 14 Pro Max or whatever they're up to now. Not to say that the iPhone is capable of better photos - it's not - but for the purposes I imagine most poseurs might use a camera for - Insta, FB - it's a faff to use a Q2. Plus, if they didn't take the time to learn its quirks for exposure (it blows highlights very easily) they'd quickly stop using it. This for RAW. I have no idea about the JPEGS in a Q2, have never tried.
 
I'm not sure the super rich actually care about anything other than the correct lifestyle and associated accessories. Results?
What does that matter?
 
I don’t know any super rich people, so I can’t make assumptions about them.

I regard myself as somewhere in the enthusiast mix, and have just spent similar beer tokens on a camera body. Once my knees and hips start complaining, I’d consider something like the Q3. Life’s too short to bottom feed if you don’t really have to.
 
Tony Lockhart said:
I don’t know any super rich people, so I can’t make assumptions about them.

I regard myself as somewhere in the enthusiast mix, and have just spent similar beer tokens on a camera body. Once my knees and hips start complaining, I’d consider something like the Q3. Life’s too short to bottom feed if you don’t really have to.
Click to expand...
 
I don’t think anyone’s disputing that it’s a great tool, but (and I can be a badge snob if the product is one of the best as well), Leica, like Rolex, Bentley, Swarovski, Barbour etc do attract attention just because of the name, and I’m not at all convinced that other, less costly brands, wouldn’t serve just as well.
There again I had 2 Rolex, 2 Barbour coats, and Zeiss binos so maybe I should just keep quiet:)
 
JTC said:
....Plus, if they didn't take the time to learn its quirks for exposure (it blows highlights very easily) they'd quickly stop using it. This for RAW.
Click to expand...

Can you get a histogram display in the viewfinder on the Leica? That should easily show you when you are going to get clipped highlights or detail-less blacks - if the histogram is accurate!
 
You can, but I'd prefer if it didn't need so much exposure adjustment. I'm not saying it's a problem so much as an area where Leica could do better. There is - from Firmware 4.0 I believe - highlight-weighted metering, which improves things but is still somewhat unreliable under certain circumstances. Overall, though, you adapt to this and otherwise it is a stellar camera with great resolution, super-sharp and fast lens, great manual focusing (I don't really use AF on it now) and good handling. It does benefit from a thumb grip, and I added an Arca-compatible grip. Both these things added about £70 total to my spend, but significantly improve how secure the camera feels in-hand.

I've even made my peace with its higher iso noise. Since I tend to shoot B&W for higher iso situations, I've found that Q2 noise is very similar to film grain in B&W, and as such I'm comfortable shooting up to 6400 ISO for B&W, though I am not so enamoured with its quality when in colour (maybe 1600 is as high as I'd want to go there).
 
Both of those numbers are really surprising, unless you are blowing things up really BIG. An A4 print should never be showing ISO noise at 3200 in colour from a FF sensor in daylight. To be fair, why would any shutter speed demand ISO 3200 in daylight??

That said, The Nikon 850 (and most high res sensors) can be temperamental beasts on exposure in high contrast situations. I gave up using any exposure method at all for a while and reverted to using it like an old film camera.
Set the ISO to whatever number suits the light level between 64 and 4000 ISO. I use 100 as my default unless it's cloudy or shaded.
Turn auto ISO compensation off.
Set the shutter speed to match the ISO number. (100 in my case)
Aperture is then f11 by default. In sunshine this results in well exposed but never overblown highlights. Shadow detail is easily recovered in PP.

Obs if you don't want too much DOF, then knock the Aperture open more and compensate by speeding up the shutter. 200th/f8, 400th/f5.6, etc.

I take 90% of shots in sunlight this way.
 
Last edited:
Rockmeister said:
Both of those numbers are really surprising, unless you are blowing things up really BIG. An A4 print should never be showing ISO noise at 3200 in colour from a FF sensor in daylight. To be fair, why would any shutter speed demand ISO 3200 in daylight??
Click to expand...
I think he’s talking about low light photography, in which high ISO noise is more obvious.
 
Yeah, low light. I generally shoot ISO100 on the Q2 in bright conditions, usually f5.6 or f8. In low light, especially in shadows, you can definitely see some noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top