One Camera – One Lens – One Year | Leica Q3
Prologue
It started as a temptation and an experiment. On the one hand, I wanted to finally try out a Leica Q(3). On the other hand, I also wanted to get rid of too much superfluous equipment. One camera – one lens should be enough for me. And the Leica Q3 with my preferred focal length of 28mm and its general concept simply fitted very well into this experiment. An experiment for which I had initially given myself one year. Strictly speaking, this year was over on 18 March – but the phase was never intended to be a strict 365-day test.
How do I see the camera today?
The Brutal Truth
Ok, let’s just tell the whole, brutal truth after one year of intensive use.
The Leica Q3 is an overpriced camera. It has rather modest technical features and only mediocre autofocus, which is even worse in poor lighting conditions. Continuous autofocus (AF-C) is not really usable. Face and eye detection ist so-so, object tracking is simply horrific and usually works very erratically – if at all. It’s not the very fastest camera under the sky and has some strange quirks – like the jittering of the EVF when focussing. Speaking of the EVF: in low light (and the lens stopped down), it becomes very slow and jumpy – kind of like a time-delayed video conference with a poor network. The metering is inconsistent between portrait and landscape format and the camera’s customisable settings are somewhat limited. The lens is actually wider than 28mm, and to top it all off, you can’t even change it. Wait, have I mentioned one of the perhaps worst rolling shutter effects you’ve ever seen?*
Right? Must be a terrible camera…
Yes, of course, you can see it that way… and I am fully aware of all these points. I have not concealed any of these in my various reviews of the Q3.
But you can also see it very differently. Like I do…
*(This, however, it shares with many other 60MP cameras, not only from Leica!)
The Personal Truth 😉
I love this camera! It’s unique, it’s great and it’s fun! And it is very, very good at what it essentially is!
The combination of this sensor and this lens is to die for.
So, why are my statements above actually (total) nonsense? The answer is as complex as it is astonishingly simple. I’m only mentioning the following points here repeatedly because they keep cropping up in reviews and lead to strange criticism of the Q3. Criticism that, in my opinion, is nonsense in the contexts in which it is often voiced. After all, you wouldn’t buy an Alfa Romeo Spider and then complain that you can’t get across the Sahara in it. Or would you? No, just get a bloody Hilux…
So, what is this actually about?
First of all, anyone who wants to buy and use this camera should be aware of what they are buying. The concept of the Q3 doesn’t even try to compete with the speed or versatility of a current high-end SoNiCanon. So, of course it makes no sense to argue that those cameras give you more for your money. More what? Features? Sure! But that would be like comparing apples with pears. No, actually even more nonsensical… more like the thing with the Alfa Spider.
Secondly, if you want to photograph such things as the Olympic Games or a football match in typical sports photography style, you will need a different camera. This camera was also never intended for fast and hectic fashion shoots with models or for daily press work under enormous time pressure. The above also applies to non-professional users who need or want similar performance for their photography – whatever they do. The Q3 won’t give you that. It is not designed to be an all-singing, all-dancing workhorse. There are much more suitable cameras for this! Period.
However, thirdly (and most importantly), none of this really matters. Anyone who consciously buys a Leica Q3 (or a Leica M) does so for very personal reasons – or at least should do so. Because this camera simply suits you, the way it is. Because it offers you something special and increases your personal enjoyment of photography. The question of whether other cameras outperform the Q3 is completely irrelevant. What is relevant with the Leica Q3 is not the sum of its (technical) features, but the sum of the practical user experience and the results achieved with it. And that – for me – is still quite unique even after more than 12 months of use. It simply is… or you can prove me wrong.
Its Uniqueness
What other compact mirrorless full-frame camera with autofocus and a fixed 28mm lens is there on the market? You see, it is unique… 🙂
No, seriously… I really mean it. Sure, there are and have been cameras that offer a somewhat similar concept and therefore a somewhat similar user experience. For example, the Fujifilms X-Pro2/3 or the X100 series (APS-C, though), the Sony RX1 or perhaps a Zeiss ZX1. But none of these are really comparable. And yes, you could also take a Sony A7CR with – let’s say – a Sigma 24mm F2 DG DN – also full frame, also 60 megapixels, similar focal length, similar size. But hey, seriously?
And yes, a few days ago Fujifilm released the GFX100RF… yes, beautiful camera, but no, it is not an alternative for me for several reasons.
For me personally, the before mentioned Fujifilm cameras come closest, and I have a lot of experience with them. And they also remain a much cheaper alternative to the Q3 – just not really the same.
However, the combination of the Q3 as a compact camera with an outstanding fixed 28mm lens and a superb 60MP full-frame sensor remains unique. The lens and the sensor together with Leica’s interpretation of the colours are very, very hard to beat. No matter what others say… the pictures always blow me away. The rendering of the Summilux is simply melting. With the Q3’s clean and smart body and menu design, I have everything I need for photography in my hands.
Simple – intuitive – inspiring
The Leica Q3 is a camera with soul. Some people don’t care about that. I do.
About limitations
As the saying goes: having is better than needing! And yes, there is truth in that. But the matter is also more complex. In a world in which – at least the privileged part of the population, to which I also belong – the feeling prevails that we have too much of everything and the possibilities are almost unlimited, limitations can also have a liberating and creative effect. Very much so.
What did a famous film director once say about limitations?
The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.
Orson Welles
I absolutely love just grabbing this camera and going out with it. No lenses, no options. I also don’t have to think about which AI-supported AF-C mode to choose. Either there is no such thing, or it hardly works well anyway. I just go out and shoot – with few, but by far sufficient technical aids.
OK, perhaps we shouldn’t forget that the word ‘limitations’ in the same breath as a Leica Q3 is also kind of silly. Maybe in comparison – but let’s keep it real! It’s 2025 and the Q3 is an incredibly good and powerful camera! So, let’s not pretend that we’re shooting with a pinhole camera here… 😉
This camera is not for you? Is it too slow? It’s too inflexible? It’s too limited? I can fully understand that. But then you shouldn’t buy it anyway…
How was my year with the Leica Q3?
Here are a few short Q&As… Perhaps this best describes how I feel about the Q3 and my journey with it.
Do I regret buying the Leica Q3?
No, not for a second!
Did I miss or mess up a shot because of the Q3?
Yes, I did… especially at the very beginning. The AF ist sometimes a little bit on the slow side – especially in low light – and the AF field is too imprecise (too large for my taste). But once you know the camera inside out, that doesn’t really happen any more.
Was I sometimes annoyed by the quirkiness of the Q3?
Perhaps after the first euphoria and before the ‘arrival phase’ with the camera. And not really annoyed, but just noticing something that isn’t great. But the overall impression is and remains super positive. I even like some of the quirks now. As with people, they sometimes give things that decisive character.
Have I ever wished for a different camera instead?
No, never! But that’s also because I didn’t have any expectations that the camera couldn’t fulfil. I always realised that I wouldn’t be able to do certain shoots with a camera like this. If I wanted to do that, I would have to go for something else. In addition – not instead!
Has shooting with the Q3 taken me any further?
Yes, but not in the way some people might think or describe it. Every digital camera is a mostly black box with an inbuilt computer. It doesn’t teach you much and doesn’t necessarily make you any better. But depending on the concept, a camera like this can make you love photography even more. And that’s what the Q3 did for me…
And being limited to one camera and one lens has also helped me progress photographically. Sure, I could have done it with another camera (and I have done it with others) – but perhaps not quite in the same way as with the Q3. Less exciting, less emotional.
What else could Leica improve?
Of course, a distinction must be made between software and hardware. On the hardware side, we have to wait for a Leica Q4 anyway. At the moment, the two keywords that spring to mind are ‘stacked sensor’ and ‘global shutter’. Both would reduce or even eliminate the rolling shutter effect. Another obvious thing would be to add internal memory, like in the M11. This would particularly compensate for the disadvantage of the single SD slot.
Otherwise, from my point of view, the only things left to consider would be the lens design (smaller and with faster AF) and whether IBIS would fit into the camera. This would really make a Q4 almost perfect.
On the software side and hopefully already possible via a firmware update, I would actually wish for five things, which I have already mentioned elsewhere.
- Stop the jittering of the EVF when focussing
- Improve the performance of the EVF in low light
- Improve the AF in general
- Make AF-C at least usable
- Improve the touch functionality of the menu
What do I actually think of Leica?
It sounds a bit silly to think about the company of your equipment as a photographer. It probably is a bit. But somehow it isn’t, because the company’s philosophy also plays a role in why you choose to use their equipment. After all, this philosophy influences what the company develops… So, what about Leica?
Hm, to be honest I can’t really say. The company has an interesting history, great merits for photography and has always had some iconic products – above all, excellent lenses. It almost went bankrupt, was narrowly rescued and has consolidated itself again. Fair enough, in my opinion. For one thing, the products are very good and sometimes unique. But there is also a lot of money in the world and the products apparently appeal to luxury lovers too. Personally, I couldn’t care less about the latter…
I have to admit that I find some of the company’s moves confusing, sometimes even silly. This includes the idea of producing expensive watches as well as the sometimes absurd production of fancy special models for collectors. As a real user, I would prefer Leica to invest these resources in the development of the cameras – especially the software. Hey, it’s 2025. The best mechanics is certainly great and I appreciate it, but it’s the software, stupid. 😉
I certainly have a fondness for the craftsmanship and quality of the equipment and especially the superior lenses. That’s fun. But I’m not going to become a Leica fanboy.
I like my Q3, that’s all!
What happens after this year with just one camera and one lens?
In principle, I could go on like this and have no problems. I have thought a lot about the Leica SL3 – and still do, as far as I can see a medium-term need for a system camera. I also considered combining it with a Leica Q3 43. That may sound totally stupid in some respects. Why two identical cameras with different lenses and why not something with interchangeable lenses? Why not something that expands the possibilities of a Q3 (as said, a Leica SL3 or another system… medium format or something)?
I thought there were two ‘intelligent’ reasons for this:
- I might not need a fast and versatile system camera for my photography
- A Q3 and a Q3 43 are the same, but different
The second point would certainly have been good for my workflow and my brain muscles, but also for my versatility. However, the Q3 43 as a ‘second camera for portraits and details’ seemed to me to be really overkill. I just couldn’t justify this purchase for myself.
So, for the time being, I’ll stick with one camera… until I need something else (in addition to the Q3). Maybe tomorrow, maybe in a year, maybe never. 😉
Every photographer needs to find his own camera. I have found mine. It’s the Leica Q3.
[…] Update 12.05.2024: Decision made 😉 | 27.08.2024: Some thoughts after six month with the Q3 | 08.10.2024: Off-topic – First thoughts on the Leica SL3 | 23.01.2025: Some thoughts on the Leica Q3 43 | 06.04.2025: Final thoughts on the Leica Q3 after one year […]
This was a fun column to read. You had me going at first! Similarly, I’ve been using a Q2 for a year and come to love it after an initial getting used to period. Again, similarly I came to the Q2 from a Fuji X-Pro3 which I liked a lot but didn’t love. AS I mentioned a few months ago, my wife gave me a Q3 43 which I’ve just started to be able to work well with as I was having trouble adjusting to the different focal length having gotten so used to the 28mm POV. At my age (and with the downturn in the US economy probably for as long as I live), these are probably my last cameras and I’m quite content with that as I find the combination meets my needs for 95% of what I do. Thanks once again for an enjoyable read.
Hi Rene,
thanks for the comment. I hope I didn’t shock you too much with the first paragraph. Maybe I exaggerated the irony a bit, but I couldn’t help it. One shouldn’t always take everything too seriously…
It’s nice to hear that you seem to be getting along better with the Q3 43. Maybe it will get even better. What is less pleasant to hear – and downright
depressing – are your words and predictions regarding economic development in the US. Do you really have no hope? I follow developments in the US and worldwide quite closely and I just hope that madness does not prevail in the long run. However, this is not a political blog, but one about photography. All the best to you!
Peter
Thank you for sharing your experiences.
You’re welcome 😉
Hi Peter!
Firstly, thanks so much for the wonderful reviews — I truly enjoy your writing style and the clarity you bring to explaining your experiences with different cameras. You have a talent to make me excited about photography, something I really value about your blog.
I’m hoping you might help me out with a decision I’m trying to make. I know, I have to make the decision, but my gut tells me you might be able to steer me into the right direction. I’m currently torn between the Fujifilm X100VI and the Leica Q3. It’s really a heart vs. head kind of dilemma for me.
I already own a Canon 5D and a Fuji XT10 with loads of lenses, but I’ve barely touched them for the past five years due to a loss of creative inspiration and not having fun taking photos any longer. I’m not shooting professionally, but I did occasionally take photos for family and friends and eventually felt burned out. Recently, though, I picked up a Fuji Instax Mini Evo for fun, and it reignited my passion for photography. The limitations yet creative options struck a nerve with me. Now, I feel ready to sell my Canon and Fuji gear and move toward something simpler and more engaging, specifically a fixed-lens camera.
Price isn’t the main factor in this decision. Realistically, I’ll be using the new camera mainly for street, nature, and portraits, but I don’t anticipate printing often—perhaps small frames occasionally.
My logical side suggests the X100VI is “good enough” and will offer fun, creative modes that might keep me inspired. However, my heart leans towards the Leica Q3 for its reputedly superior image quality and the pride of ownership.
Having used both cameras extensively and knowing their unique “fun factor,” what would your advice be?
Thanks again for your insights, and keep up the fantastic work!
Best,
Thomas
Hi Thomas,
First of all, thank you very much for your kind words. As I’ve said many times before, I do this for fun and because I enjoy it. But even though I don’t gain anything from the increased traffic, I’m still happy when someone reads it and finds it useful.
It’s really difficult for me to comment on your specific request. I don’t know you or your photography. And you’ve probably read my first review, where I compare the Q3 extensively with the X100VI – I had both cameras at the time and decided on the Q3. But that was a very personal decision. And this was largely due to the focal length. If the X100VI had had a good 18mm F2 lens with the same dimensions, I probably wouldn’t have switched. I didn’t just leave Fujifilm after 13 years without a certain amount of sadness… and I still miss the film simulations.
Purely based on gut feeling, I would say go for the X100VI. The camera is really very, very good. And not just good enough! The horrible Fujifilm menu really is a nightmare, but I could live with it. And the image quality of the 40MP sensor with the MKII lens is also good. I do think Fujifilm missed an opportunity to modernise it even more intelligently, but that’s complaining on a very high level. In general, we should be a little more humble here and there – HCB would turn in his grave if he could read what we think are ‘problems’ with image quality and so on. 🙂
If I were you, I would only go for the Q3 (assuming you don’t have any problems with its size and weight, or the price) if you are really, really a 28mm person. The Summilux and perhaps the EVF, which is significantly better, at least with AF-S, are my two biggest highlights. Otherwise, it’s just a black box – OK, a very nice and very robust one… 🙂
Cheers,
Peter
Addition: Yes, the image quality of the Q3 is of course better. Anything else would be crazy with this sensor, lens and price. But will you need it? You say you hardly ever print… and certainly not large. I print at home and even there up to DIN A2+. As I said, you have to really, really love the focal length and this somewhat special look that comes out of the overall combination of lens and sensor of the Q3. Like me 🙂
I’d suggest the Leica D-Lux 7 or it’s Panasonic equivalent – fixed lens but with 24-75mm zoom it’s so versatile. It does have a micro 4/3 sensor BUT fabulous images and especially if it’s for your personal use and enjoyment. I was in the same boat and my D- Lux 7 has totally revitalized my interest in photography 🤗 It’s also more compact than a Q3 so bear in mind the Q3 is “big” so maybe visit a dealer to handle it first to get a feel for size before you decide anything. Good Luck 👍🏻
Thanks so much for your reply, Peter — it’s greatly appreciated!
I enjoyed reading about your experience with both cameras. As I went through your insights, my mind kept switching back and forth between the two options at least twice! 😉
The key phrase that really resonated with me was: “…the camera is really very, very good. And not just good enough.” Strangely, this actually helps simplify my decision-making process a bit.
I plan to get my hands on both cameras by the end of this week to see how they actually feel. My gut feeling tells me the XVI might be the better choice for now, especially since I’m easing back into photography purely for fun. I’ll only go for the Leica Q3 if I feel an immediate emotional connection with that “black box” when I pick it up at the store.
Another upside: I always have the option to upgrade to the Leica later and gift the Fuji to one of my daughters once they’re old enough. They already enjoy snapping pictures with the Instax Evo—a perfect tool to nurture their interest in photography! 😊
Thanks again, Peter!
Thanks for your excellent review Peter, what AF mode(s) do you use? As much as I get exceptional photos, AF has been the achilles heel for my Q343.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for reading and for your kind words! To answer your question: I actually use (and have always used) AF-S almost exclusively with all my cameras. That’s how I work and what I normally need. I rarely, if ever, shoot anything where I really need AF-C and tracking, etc. If it were any different, I would probably have ‘left’ Fujifilm earlier and would probably never have ended up with Leica.
That said, I also think that AF is generally not the absolute strength of the Q3(43) – or of Leica in general. I even have to admit that I currently find the AF on the Q3(43) better than on the SL3. As I’ve written several times, AF-C is hardly usable on the Q3(43) in my opinion. Not because it’s sooooo bad – it works reasonably well. But the constant ‘knocking’ of the lens in this mode and the jittering of the EVF are just awful.
For me personally, it’s not a deal breaker, but it’s something you should know when you buy the camera. Either it bothers you or it doesn’t. I can ignore it because I don’t use AF-C (or only extremely rarely)…
Peter
“I currently find the AF on the Q3(43) better than on the SL3.“ this is disappointing to hear, I was hoping Leica had brilliant AF technology that would trickle down to a Q4 and I’d have the perfect camera for personal/travel photography in a couple years time. my plan has been to hold onto the Q343 for one year (bought on day one) which drew me to your review. I have been frustrated by AF misses, but I also marvel at the IQ of the hits. one thing I hadn’t counted on is how subjects seem to be more willing to have their picture taken when I use this friendlier looking camera than when I use a Sony mirrorless with a pro lens. thanks for your considered reply.
-Craig
No, Leica isn’t known for brilliant AF technology. Sony and Canon are, I would say. But I don’t want to be too harsh, and things are getting much better. The SL-3S, for example, already seems to be a huge improvement in terms of AF. I’m sure Leica is working on this weak point and a Q4 will definitely be much, much better. That said, I already have zero problems with the Q3, especially as a travel and documentary camera. OK, I’m hoping for a little more with further firmware updates, especially in poor light. But I wouldn’t have kept it if I hadn’t been satisfied with the AF.
Peter
It took me a while to actually read this – mainly because I was sure that this article will be full of praise for the camera. I thought well, I don’t need anyone to tell me how damn good a camera is, that I will never buy (for good reasons).
Finally I thought – well, it’s Peter, so you probably should read the article and so I did 🙂
I am 100% sure that you, Peter, will be the first to admit that all of the photos shown here could have been made with any of the cameras you mentioned as a comparison. Nothing screams Leica, at least not at the resolution of my device and probably also not even printed up to say A3 size.
Let’s not talk about color for a moment, for 2 reasons: first color rendering and color reception are quite individual and I firmly belive there is hardly any „better“ or „worse“ – apart from those rare cases, where companies really mess it up. And second I am a Black and White type of photographer, yes I do make color images also – but I would not call me a color expert.
So, why I am so critical about the Leica… well, I must say it is a beauty of a camera, it is fun to hold, it screamy QUALITY in every (mechanical) aspect. Who would not like that…
The lens is, I am sure, one of the best in it’s class and the sensor is a known beast – nothing to complain.
I am happy to pay a premium for products, that I (very personally, I admit) regard as premium. I am using Apple PC‘s and iPhones, I have a Maranz HiFI, a Techincs Turntable and KEF Speakers.
But you know, to feel premium to me a product needs to be techincally be in that ballpark, not only by design, name and a hand full of technical aspects. It does not need to shine in EVERY aspect of its „gestalt“, but the bottom line needs to be clealy superior and then the price / performance ratio seems to Be ok for me.
Leica does, infortunately not meet that point. Sure, I will not argue that it is superior to Fujifilms offering, let alone Sony – but not enough really to justify the (quite big) premium you have to pay for it. It’s simply no match for me.
HaVin sait that I admit that this is very personal, I understand and respect that others will value certain aspects different from me and let’s not forget: I highly value your writing Peter – cudos amd many thanks for it.
Hi Andreas,
First of all, thank you for reading all my babbling about a camera that doesn’t really interest you. And of course for your detailed thoughts.
There are many thoughts and fundamental questions that you (intentionally or not) cover here, which make it difficult to answer. But I’ll try to address some of the points.
Image quality/colours/resolution, etc.: Yes, I agree with you that most of the pictures could have been taken with a different camera. Some images, of course, not exactly the same with every camera (APS-C has its limitations in some areas), but essentially yes. Maybe not entirely with every lens, but even there, somehow, a little bit, yes. But that’s not really what I’m getting at… or only to a very small extent.
Value: I have tried to explain in several (too) long articles why this camera is so right for ME and why it is worth the money for ME. It’s the overall picture, the form factor, this special combination of sensor and lens, and the joy it gives me. Plus, of course, the high quality… Some people will see it the same way, I even know a few. Others – like you – will see it completely differently or not understand it at all, etc. That’s totally OK.
I understand every amateur who thinks this is far too expensive, and every professional who cannot justify this camera either economically or rationally. That’s perfectly clear! The points I made in my somewhat ironic opening statement were not just plucked out of thin air. And if we were talking about a Leica SL3, I would understand even more why some people simply prefer Sony for technical reasons (I still don’t). But for me, there is no really equivalent alternative to a Q3. And, as I wrote, it makes no sense to compare technical features here.
Would I be worse off with an X100V/VI, more limited photographically? No, definitely not. And I would take very similar pictures, no question. But I still find a Q3 much more suitable for me personally. Because, despite everything, it remains unique in its form. And since I don’t own an expensive watch, a (decent) car, a house, a boat or anything else luxurious… I allow myself this wonderful privilege. Not for display, not to show off, but for my soul, my photography and for my enjoyment. That’s all 🙂
Peter
The beauty is: we are all different, have different talents (not to mention different restrictions) and different priorities – nothing in my first post should have said „you are wrong“, Peter. It just means I don’t share your point of voes, for good reason as well as you habe good reason to stand with your points.
Always good light and I am looking forward to your next written masterpiece. Keep up the good work
Well said, Andreas! We can agree on that. But a masterpiece? Phew, that sets the bar very high… 🙂
Peter
Peter,
Amen!
I’ve been a Nikon shooter since the 80’s, and have longed for the Leica M’s. Never got the opportunity to jump in at the right time. With Nikon, I’ve shot everything from an F up to my current Z6ii. Love the Z, and have almost all the S lenses I want.
However, in the Spring of 24, I went to Maui for 10 days. Had my 40/f2, 50/1.8S and 85/1.8S. Wonderful time and got some quality keepers. However, with all that kit and accessories they require, I ended up using the 40/f2 the whole time. The world was too big for anything longer.
I found a used Q2 in May, and it was the right time. From the first click on, I knew it was my camera. As of now, I have not touched my Nikon kit since, other than packing it up safely.
One year, one lens. Not intentional. I love the system I curated for the Z. I just never needed it in a year.
3 Reasons Why:
-The best lens that you can’t buy! The 28/1.7 is just brilliant. If you learn the lens and sensor, you can almost do everything. The resolution is so good, I’ve gotten two images from the same wide shot by cropping.
-Back to the roots of photographing. It’s not my Z or any of the other high quality options. It’s not meant to be. The clicks are more selective. I take time to compose. I find a scene and the light, and wait for something to wander into it. It just feels like a luxury film camera from years past. Sure, it will handle a whole day shooting 500 images, just like the others. But, even in Aperture and auto-Focus, it begs you to look around and find a moment in time that no one else will see.
-No gear! Wow. For a 7 day holiday in Greece, my kit consisted of Q2, extra battery, charger, SD reader, 1 ND, 3 SD cards. That’s it. I would have brought a proper full camera bag for the Z.
Here’s the question that made my decision at the end of one year. Someone asked me, “What about all the shots you missed with zooms or primes?” Fair point. After thinking, my answer was, “With the Q2, I do not think about what I missed, I am happy with what I did get.”
Try it. Give it a true test, and it may just be one of the last camera you buy. (*Disclosure and Warning: I did say MAY be ONE of the last cameras…. Understand the Q system is the gateway drug camera to the M’s. Not for everyone, but for many.) I haven’t done so yet, but I keep seeing in my dreams the M Mono (246) and the Summicron 50/f2!
Hi Carey,
Thank you for your thoughts and your story. What can I say? I see it the same way… and even when I had more equipment, I only took one camera with one lens. So that works for me too. For travelling anyway…
Regarding the M: Yes, I had the same impulse. Again and again, and then again a few weeks ago. I went to a Leica store and spent over an hour trying out an M11-P with various 28 and 35 lenses. Then I put it back on the counter and was cured. No, I don’t see myself with an M…
Cheers,
Peter
Thanks, Peter. I enjoyed reading your piece.
Hi Peter,
Your response to trying out the M is really interesting to me. As I’ve posted here before, I’ve come to love the Q2 but have been curious about the M system for a long time. I don’t live close enough to a Leica store to see one in person, but I instinctively feel I would respond the same way. Now if it were a Q with interchangeable lenses, maybe I’d feel differently.
Hi Rene,
Yes, the M is unique, beautiful and feels sensational. And the small lenses for it are a dream. But it’s not for me. That’s mainly because of the viewfinder. I find it too small and, above all, hardly suitable even for 35mm lenses – especially with glasses. For 28mm even less so. That, combined with a few other drawbacks – for example, no IBIS or OIS – and, last but not least, the exorbitant price. No… not my cup of tea. As fascinating as it may be in some ways…
Peter
I liked your experience report! I had a similar feeling when I got my Q2 five years ago. I felt that the rendering of the whole image and its details is special. Something, I found very moving. There is a certain look, which also some of my friends then see in the images. Earlier this month I additionally got the Q3 43, because I also wanted to get the feeling of a different lens (technology and field of view) with a more normal view. Like, decades ago when I grew up with Canon full frame film SLRs and mostly their 50mm kit lens.
Hi Rainer,
Glad you liked the review. So, what do you think of the Q3 43? As you may have read, I borrowed it and tried it out for a good month, but then decided against keeping both. It doesn’t make much sense to me. But if you prefer the focal length of the Q3 43, then you’ll definitely be very happy with it. The APO-Summicron is even more impressive than the Summilux on the Q3…
Peter
[…] Update 06. April 2025: Some more thoughts after a year… […]
[…] Update 27.08.2024: Some thoughts after six month with the Q3 | Update 06.04.2025: Some more thoughts after a year… […]
Dziękuję za szczery i jasny opis sytuacji po 1 roku użytkowania aparatu Leica Q3. Oszczędziłeś mi sporego wydatku. Teraz już wiem, że to nie jest aparat dla mnie. Leica Q3 jest piękna z wyglądu, ma świetną ogniskową (28mm), doskonały obiektyw … i tutaj kończą się jej zalety jak dla mnie.
Cześć Andre (Andrzej?),
Cieszę się, że mogłem pomóc Ci w podjęciu decyzji. I tak, ten aparat z pewnością nie jest odpowiedni do wszystkich zastosowań i dla wszystkich fotografów.
Peter
P.S. Ten tekst pochodzi wprawdzie z DeepL, ale mimo to pozdrowienia od kogoś, kto urodził się w Polsce… 😉
Excellentstory! I concur 100%. I also have the Canon R5 Mark II and 2 L Series RF lenses which, to be completely honest as a competing system, is capable of doing far more in the area of fast shooting, wildlife, AF, lowlight, etc. but there’s something about the Q3 28 that moves me to emotionally: it’s the connection I have to the camera, it’s weight, the feel of it in my hands, it’s superior build quality, minimalist design easthetics, the companies history, and so on, much like you I can’t see myself ever giving it up. It’s already a sunk cost and I’m holding on to it. It will be interesting to see what the Q4 delivers, and as you say if it comes with much improved AF, or a lot of what my R5m2 has built in – then it’s the best camera ever made! And I will surely sell my Q3 28 and buy that one!
Hi Daniel,
thanks for reading and for your kind comment!
I think that’s really how it is – if I were a wedding or event photographer, I would definitely have something else in my bag – at least for the job. But I’m sure that in my private life I would always use something like a Q3 or similar. One person might prefer a Fujifilm X100, another a Leica M, and a third might use analogue or large format. But for me, my love of photography is also inspired by the tools I use…
Peter