Michael Markey
Mentor
Best not watch this Q43 lens comparison then (1:19)
(
(
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I started watching this one live. They must get paid by the hour as they just drone on and on. But, yes, I will give it a shot now that I see it takes only just over an hour. I'll put the kettle on, brew a nice pot of tea and sit through it. But first I will give ny credit card to a neighbor who hates me. ;o)
Michael Markey
Mentor
I agree their waffling has worsened I just went to the lens comparison at about 1:19.
Spoiler .... better then the equivalent M lens and on a par with the 35 SL lens .
Spoiler .... better then the equivalent M lens and on a par with the 35 SL lens .
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Yeah, Charles Dickens was paid by the word, these guys must be paid by the minute. They have to be good at something or they would not get elected to do the job. Sales is not their long suit, however. Maybe they could loosen up a bit. Anyway, I am into the fray with these guys. Wish me well, and fortitude. LOL
You know what works to help people make decisions?
Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43
Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43
Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43
Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43
Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43 Buy the Q3 43
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The decision is the easy part. Making it happen is the heavy lift. Maybe the Riviera and the camera? If you are going to dream you might as well dream big.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have been reading the manual for this camera and it will crop in at various effective focal lengths up to 150mm. OK, kind of cute. But it will also alter aspect ration to wide but not quite panchro. So there are some interesting tricks in its bag. On the plus side those who have gotten the camera have not reported firmware glitches. This is nice to read after what has been reported with the M11.
But no one yet has gotten one?
But no one yet has gotten one?
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Neat but the 28 based ones are still a better fit for me 
Gotta get those prices driven down down down
Gotta get those prices driven down down down JohnGellings
Well-known
At 150mm, you'd be down to cellphone sensor size. It's simply a digital crop. Better to stick near 43mm or buy something else. As far as why no one has one yet (in a thread of maybe 15 people), (1) it is expensive and (2) it isn't easy to find yet I'd imagine.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
(3) nobody is interested in it.
And, back to (1) $6,895.00
And, back to (1) $6,895.00
Godfrey
somewhat colored
As said here or elsewhere: I am attracted to the Q3 43 as a nice quick shooter and travel camera, but not this year; maybe next. I am pretty happy with the equipment I have already too, so buying it is a matter of whether I value it over other potential luxury purchase things. ... And whether I have any priority needs to work on my Lancia Fulvia, too, of course.
G
G
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Not so. They are sold out so I guess a lot of people are interested in it. Price? Yeah, high. That seems a trend at Leica.
As for the internal crop, yes, at 150mm it is not great. There are other less drastic crops. And how often do folks shoot at 150mm? I have an LTM 135mm gathering dust. Likewise an 85mm. I wonder how many folks shoot long lenses? Just curious.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have to amend this. I have seen some reports of the Q3 43 locking up and nothing can get it started again. How can a xmpany like Leica keep screwing up software? The M11 is a problem from what I have read. Maybe they had the same team on the Q3 43? Brian, talk to them.
JohnGellings
Well-known
I actually use an 85mm often right now and love it. That said, I see no reason to buy a $7000 camera and then crop down to M43 etc. You buy a camera like this because 43mm is exactly what you like.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I do not doubt that you use and enjoy an 85. Others, too. But I do not think that there are lots of people do. Nevertheless the Q3 43 offers "digital zoom" which is a crop in 75 and 90mm crops. I cannot vouch for the quality of these crops. But I would feel safe in assuming they both work pretty well.
I do not think the camera was designed for folks who shoot long but it can do it in a pinch for occasional circumstances. This is not a perfect camera, there are no perfect cameras. It has had a lot of good reviews and from solid reviewers like Matt Osborne and mathphotographer along with others. It seems as if it does a lot of things pretty well, but not everything well.
JohnGellings
Well-known
What makes you think like this? Every manufacturer makes multiple 85mm (unless they make 75mm or 90mm instead) lenses. Do you think they do that because people do not buy them?
I guess... they will work like small sensor cameras. Same depth of field etc. Better high ISO.
Exactly.
It's pretty damn close for people who like 43mm lenses.
Well, like any fixed lens camera... it works wonderful if you like the FOV it offers.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Regarding the mid-long lens format, what percentage of lens sales do you think the 85 accounts for? I just Googled for best selling focal length for 35mm cameras and while I did not get a graph or anything close, I did get a lot of hits on 35mm, a current fave. And 50 is the long time standard. So while you may be currently using and enjoying an 85 you would seem an outlier.
And while I generally have a low opinion of the folks over there in Marketing I am pretty sure they have surveys of what is selling and what is desired. That is their job, to find the sweet spot. If it were long lenses that were hot you can be sure that they would have produced a fixed lens camera with a long lens. So I would guess that the folks over there in Marketing have shot at where they think the most money is.
BTW, how long have you been shooting with the 85?
And while I generally have a low opinion of the folks over there in Marketing I am pretty sure they have surveys of what is selling and what is desired. That is their job, to find the sweet spot. If it were long lenses that were hot you can be sure that they would have produced a fixed lens camera with a long lens. So I would guess that the folks over there in Marketing have shot at where they think the most money is.
BTW, how long have you been shooting with the 85?
Cascadilla
Well-known
An 85 mm was one the first lenses I bought for my Pentax SLRs back in the late 1970's and it continues to be a focal length that I frequently reach for. An 85 mm f/2 Zeiss Sonnar is likewise one of my favorite lenses for my Contax RF cameras. I use other focal lengths, but I have always seen things in a way that makes an 85 a good choice for what I photograph. Is it as popular as 50 mm or 35mm? I have no idea, but I'm glad that these 85's are made since they work for me.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
I always find the "no one shoots long lenses" argument hilarious, personally - especially in the rangefinder (and "rangefinder-adjacent") world.
The trend in certain circles has become for everyone and their grandma to use 35mm and wider, and to write off anything longer than 50mm as "unusable". And sure, when you look at any camera dealer that specialises in rangefinders, you always see a lot of old 135mm lenses and viewfinders from Leica, Canon, Nikon, Contax, et. al., which suggests that yes, people aren't buying them...
...but people obviously did once upon a time, as there had to be enough demand for all these lenses and viewfinders to leave the factory! In fact, there's enough old cameras with framelines/viewfinders for only 50mm and longer (Leningrad: 50mm, 85mm, 135mm; early Canon LTMs: 50mm, 100mm, 135mm; Leica IIIg: 50mm, 90mm; Leica M3: 50mm, 90mm, 135mm.) that it suggests this was likely the norm/preferred set for a lot of people.
(And no, I have no idea why my first thought went to the Leningrad, of all things.)
Personally, I very rarely leave home without either a 90mm Elmar or a 135mm lens (whether Canon or Leitz) in my bag. They're very useful things - landscapes are much improved with a longer lens, for instance - and I'd always much rather have the increased working distance and resolution over getting closer and cropping.
@boojum, you have a couple of long LTM lenses, so slap a 135mm on one of your Ms and work with only that for a day. It'll get you thinking differently, if nothing else. It's a good exercise!
The trend in certain circles has become for everyone and their grandma to use 35mm and wider, and to write off anything longer than 50mm as "unusable". And sure, when you look at any camera dealer that specialises in rangefinders, you always see a lot of old 135mm lenses and viewfinders from Leica, Canon, Nikon, Contax, et. al., which suggests that yes, people aren't buying them...
...but people obviously did once upon a time, as there had to be enough demand for all these lenses and viewfinders to leave the factory! In fact, there's enough old cameras with framelines/viewfinders for only 50mm and longer (Leningrad: 50mm, 85mm, 135mm; early Canon LTMs: 50mm, 100mm, 135mm; Leica IIIg: 50mm, 90mm; Leica M3: 50mm, 90mm, 135mm.) that it suggests this was likely the norm/preferred set for a lot of people.
(And no, I have no idea why my first thought went to the Leningrad, of all things.)
Personally, I very rarely leave home without either a 90mm Elmar or a 135mm lens (whether Canon or Leitz) in my bag. They're very useful things - landscapes are much improved with a longer lens, for instance - and I'd always much rather have the increased working distance and resolution over getting closer and cropping.
@boojum, you have a couple of long LTM lenses, so slap a 135mm on one of your Ms and work with only that for a day. It'll get you thinking differently, if nothing else. It's a good exercise!
Last edited by a moderator:
ellisson
Well-known
I'm a Q3, (the 28mm) owner and have to disagree about the statements that "you have to buy the camera for use at the un-cropped focal length". The 35 and 50 mm give plenty of pixels (though down from the 60 megapixel max at 28mm), and the photos are excellent - no loss of sharpness or contrast. And frame lines for these FLs are similar to what you would see through a rangefinder camera: you get some context outside the frame lines. The areas inside the 35mm and 50mm frame lines of the Q3 28 are slightly larger than the 50mm and 75mm frame lines of my M10 camera. No loss of superb IQ with the crops. The same frame line size rule applies to the 75mm and 90 mm crops, which I rarely use on the Q 28 camera, but images remain sharp and with that 28/1.7 IQ. For me, I buy the Q cameras for much more than the native 28mm focal length. My most used FLs? you guessed it: 28,35,50 which I shoot approximately 50%,35% and 28% of the time (in a palindromic kind of way) with this camera for street and landscape work.