JohnGellings
Well-known
But doing it for $ is perfectly ok! 😉
Leica Q3 43 - Got one?
- Thread starter boojum
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 224
- Views 18K
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
My rationalisation of and argument for anything I've purchased has always been the Cinema Ticket Parity System, or CTPS.
If a Cinema ticket costs £10, and the average film is 2 hours, then as long as I'm getting one hour for every £5 spent on something, it's "worth it".
So, buy a Q3 43 for £5,900, and use it for 1,180 hours, and it's paid for itself in terms of entertainment alone based on the CTPS. That works out a little over three hours a day for a year... surprisingly, not that much.
Meanwhile, an old friend of mine would rationalise it even further by offsetting the cost based on the resale value. Buy a £5k Leica, use it for two years, sell it for £4k... that's a £1,000 two-year rental. Combine that with the CTPS and the cost pales into insignificance.
Of course, that's if you ever convince yourself to sell it... I've never been good at that part!
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
There are a lot of variables in camera purchasing beside the need/want question, true. And @Retro-Grouch has a point that having too much pleasure is frowned upon, noticeable pleasure. And for most of us the old Army "three hots and a cot" would probably suffice. But some self-indulgence is always fun. And we can dispel some of any guilt by showing how we have used what we bought. Or we could do as those evil, evil Contax owners have done recently who posted their collections of gear. I think that part of the problem is that most, if not all, of the members here are fascinated by small, complex and expensive machines. Are the pictures just an excuse? LOL
Another evildoer, mathphotographer has posted this gem on the Q3 43:
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Umm, a 30-minute "quick" tutorial? Ah, the days when pretty much any reasonably competent photographer could pick up pretty much any mechanical camera and put it to work after a quick examination of a minute or so. I do appreciate what powerful (and complex) tools modern digital cameras are, but... 😉
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
The same fellow has three separate videos on the Q3. 43. He is Swiss, the folks who make the Germans look casual and slapdash. ;o)
True, pretty much any reasonably competent photographer can pick up a camera and "get it" but for the rest of us these videos are helpful and interesting. The same fellow covers a lot of cameras and lenses. I have picked up info on older Leicas from his videos that has been helpful. I'll always listen to someone who just may know more. Overgaard's M9 info is fun and interesting. He is quite addicted to that camera. Why? Great images.
It costs nothing to listen and I hear better with my mouth closed. I assume you have watched the entire Q3 43 video.
Archiver
Veteran
This reminds me: some years ago, I bought a Leica X1 and didn't like it at all. The aperture made a godawful clicking sound when adjusting exposure, the files weren't what I was after, the shutter sound was annoying, auto white balance wasn't very accurate, and on and on. It was like a subpar version of the Ricoh GXR, which I loved. Within a few days, I exchanged it for a Fuji X100, which was far better for me. I made a post about this on the L Camera Forum, and the responses were nuts. Some people rubbished the idea that I could come to grips with a camera like the X1 in a few days! Others questioned whether I turned off the electronic shutter sound, as if I didn't know what I was doing with a digital camera. Yet others talked about the simplicity of the X1 and implied there must have been something wrong with me because I didn't like it. 🤣 It's a simple point and shoot with manual controls, not a space shuttle, for heaven's sake.
Current cameras can have dozens of features buried in interminable menus, but once you set them up the way you want, they don't need much adjusting during use.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
Yes, yes and yes. ;o)
It is pretty easy to pick up a camera today and in a short period know it well enough to go out and get some good pics. But there is always the chance that one will wind up on a board somewhere with a problem where one of the answers is RTFM. I am one of those who gets the RTFM comment. And many manufacturers have "Quick Start Guides" for folks like me who have instruction phobia. That is why videos like mathphotographer videos are important to me. And I have a form of dyslexia which makes reading pretty difficult at times.
As for criticizing Leicas, well, that will earn you scorn whether you are right or not. The criticisms sometimes speak to the problems of the criticizers. Parts, batteries and support for older cameras from Leica are made from unobtanium. I know there will be two or three posts saying how good the service was. Folks, two or three is not much. When Leica is renowned for support I will happily apologize to the entire Leica fanboy body..
Leica support is a disgrace. OTOH I sent an A7M II in to a Sony designated service center for repairs and a CLA. Two week turnaround with cheerful and helpful phone support for around $200. Bite the bullet fanboys, Leica just does not care.
And that is the "dread" part of Leica ownership. I just do not trust Leica support.
Last edited:
wlewisiii
Veteran
Yah, let me know, anyone, if you ever see an M 240 battery in the wild. I'll pray to have money at the time.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I have two and am damned glad. I cannot understand why no Chinese company is making these.
Last edited:
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Which raises the question: If you "just do not trust Leica support", why spend so much time asking about and subsequently disparaging Leica on this forum?
If I "just did not trust Leica support", I would not spend half a second thinking about Leica at all.
G
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
I ran across a statement that the lens on the Q3 43 is patented by Panasonic. And that there seems to be a lot of shared tech between Leica and Panasonic. Perhaps this is why these "point and shoot" Q cameras are 1) successful and 2) so Japanese in form and function. And while the Q series has been around now for almost a decade it still is a departure from the usual Leica RF or DSLR path. I mean, come on, you just point it and shoot? And it takes a good photo? Very strange. It does seem to be a cash cow for the Trolls of Wetzlar. So what we have is a German camera with the two most important parts, the lens and sensor, from Japan. Panasonic for the lens and Sony for the sensor. And Leica adds some secret sauce to the sensor in their color science no doubt.
In a Google search for the patent history of the Q3 43 lens I ran across this article by Thorsten Overgaard, not one I usually think of as tech-heavy. But once again I was wrong. And for the Leica retro crowd please note that he has his M9, his adored M9, buried in the article when it swings deeper into lens discussion. The article is long so get another cup of tea for this one.
In a Google search for the patent history of the Q3 43 lens I ran across this article by Thorsten Overgaard, not one I usually think of as tech-heavy. But once again I was wrong. And for the Leica retro crowd please note that he has his M9, his adored M9, buried in the article when it swings deeper into lens discussion. The article is long so get another cup of tea for this one.
Leica Q3 43 APO Mirrorless Full-Frame Camera review and user report by Thorsten Overgaard
Leica Q3 43 Review by Thorsten Overgaard
www.overgaard.dk
Last edited:
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
No one on the board has taken the plunge yet? The reviews are consistently quite favorable and there are a lot of them. But I'd like to see what "a local boy" thinks.
wlewisiii
Veteran
Thanks for the link to Thorsten. I actually kinda like his work. Certainly more useful than, oh, Ken Rockwell... 😉 Still can be a bit overfull shall we say but I've actually learned things there.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
This thread reminds me of this Far Side cartoon:
ellisson
Well-known
I have been on wait lists for the Q3 28 for 5 months. With the introduction of the Q3 43, the Q3 28 became more available. I found a good price on a Q3 28, and for my shooting style of mostly 35mm and 28mm - street, travel, indoor settings, that was my choice even though I could have bought the Q3 43. And with 30+ mp using the 35mm crop mode on my Q3 28 (a setting I keep in my user profile), I'm happy with my selection. I like seeing outside those 35 mm frame lines, much like on an RF camera viewfinder.
boojum
Ignoble Miscreant
It seems a "Goldilocks" camera. I has gotten consistently good reviews. The lens is appreciated, the sensor works pretty well judging from what I have seen posted. Overgaard has done a lengthy paean and ladled in lots of tech data. The stumbling block is getting past the checkout register. Winter in Cannes on the French Riviera sounds like fun, too.
There is the constant battle between rationalization and rationality. Guilt hovers in the shadows. How many more grandchildren can be sold into slavery? What are the chances of Santa being generous? And on it goes. OTOH this damned camera checks a lot of boxes. Greeat point and shoot and great full manual. I am hoping to see some owner reports here on the damned thing.
There is the constant battle between rationalization and rationality. Guilt hovers in the shadows. How many more grandchildren can be sold into slavery? What are the chances of Santa being generous? And on it goes. OTOH this damned camera checks a lot of boxes. Greeat point and shoot and great full manual. I am hoping to see some owner reports here on the damned thing.
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
Being a film-only shooter, I don't really have skin in this game. But I agree; this would be the digital camera I would want, if I wanted one. Could I afford it if I did want it? Nope. Maybe, at some point, I'll have a Damascene conversion, renounce my benighted adherence to film, and try digital. Again. But the Q3 would still be a "nope" because of the price. Otherwise, anyone who wants one and can afford it? Yeah, go for it!!!
