Leica Q3 43 - Got one?

[Archiver]

I just realized that Leica did what Sigma did years ago: produced a 28mm fixed lens compact, and then a 40something mm fixed lens compact. The Sigma DP1 was the first large-sensor compact on the market, with a sensor slightly smaller than aps-c, and with a f4 lens which gave a 28mm equivalent. A year later in 2009, Sigma made the DP2, with the same sensor, but with a 42mm equivalent f2.8 lens. I have both of these cameras, and have used them in tandem on a number of very enjoyable photo walks. It appears that Leica figured there was value in a more portrait/detail focused Q.

 

[Archiver]

It is, for me, a jack of all trades. It can do reasonable macro closeups and can do crop telephoto in camera. The lens really is good. But the camera has no soul, the sensor color just has no richness. However the new firmware 4.0.0 has been said to address that. I have just done a few test shots and it looks better. But I really have to get out and shoot with it. The skin tones are said to have been improved.

I assume you're processing Q3 43 raws in Lightroom. It's surprising that you say it has no soul, that the colours have no richness. This sounds similar to what I'm seeing with the SL2-S, skintones can look plasticky, and colours are rich but artificial somehow. The M9 has better skintones, and the colours are much more 'alive'. Can't quite put my finger on what it is.

If you wanted just one camera as a carry camera this would be at the top of the list. It does movies, too. You won't get an Oscar but you will get a record of some things moving.

That's also interesting, because the SL2-S produces fantastic footage. It's easily as good as my Panasonic S1 and S5, and often even better in terms of colour. Some cinematographers compare SL2-S footage favourably with a multi thousand dollar cinema camera like the Arri Alexa, which is saying something. I've looked at some Q3 28 footage on YouTube and it looks excellent, so it's funny that the 43 might not be as good.

 

[boojum]

I assume you're processing Q3 43 raws in Lightroom. It's surprising that you say it has no soul, that the colours have no richness. This sounds similar to what I'm seeing with the SL2-S, skintones can look plasticky, and colours are rich but artificial somehow. The M9 has better skintones, and the colours are much more 'alive'. Can't quite put my finger on what it is.



That's also interesting, because the SL2-S produces fantastic footage. It's easily as good as my Panasonic S1 and S5, and often even better in terms of colour. Some cinematographers compare SL2-S footage favourably with a multi thousand dollar cinema camera like the Arri Alexa, which is saying something. I've looked at some Q3 28 footage on YouTube and it looks excellent, so it's funny that the 43 might not be as good.

I record RAW's. I use JPG SOOC. I just cannot find some "soul" in that camera. Great lens, sharp, accurate, good IQ but I like my two Thypoch 50's more on an M9 or M240. Hopefully Leica will do something for these uninspiring colors.

 

[Archiver]

I record RAW's. I use JPG SOOC. I just cannot find some "soul" in that camera. Great lens, sharp, accurate, good IQ but I like my two Thypoch 50's more on an M9 or M240. Hopefully Leica will do something for these uninspiring colors.

Thypochs on a M9 or M240 are a recipe for character and soul. I'm considering their 35/1.4 and 28/1.4, even though I have three fast 35s already.

My solution for colour is to take back to back images with the M9 and another camera, then tweak the second camera's image until it closely resembles the M9, save that as a preset, and tweak from there. The M9 is my benchmark for colour.

 

[boojum]

Thypochs on a M9 or M240 are a recipe for character and soul. I'm considering their 35/1.4 and 28/1.4, even though I have three fast 35s already.

My solution for colour is to take back to back images with the M9 and another camera, then tweak the second camera's image until it closely resembles the M9, save that as a preset, and tweak from there. The M9 is my benchmark for colour.

M9, yes it is the gold standard for a lot of us. "Kodachrome with the nice bright colors . . . " In the mid-60's someone demonstrated to me the difference between Kodachrome and Agfachrome. Agfachrome was more realistic and I stayed with it. For that reason I am fond of the M240 which has colors that remind me more of Agfachrome than Kodachrome. With a Thypoch Eureka or Simera that M240 does well. OTOH it is a bit bright on the M9. This is all a matter of personal taste. The M9 is Rice Crispies, "Snap, Crackle and Pop." They are both great, the differences slight, observable to just a few of us camera nerds.

With a less exuberant lens, an old Sonnar for instance, the M9 is more well-mannered and less exuberant. But, to be honest, they both work well. And the M8 has nice color, too. These are the three I have and favor. The Q3 43 OTOH has none of that magic. Not that it makes much of a difference as most of what I shoot, like 99+% is dross, very little gold.

 

[boojum]

I assume you're processing Q3 43 raws in Lightroom. It's surprising that you say it has no soul, that the colours have no richness. This sounds similar to what I'm seeing with the SL2-S, skintones can look plasticky, and colours are rich but artificial somehow. The M9 has better skintones, and the colours are much more 'alive'. Can't quite put my finger on what it is.



That's also interesting, because the SL2-S produces fantastic footage. It's easily as good as my Panasonic S1 and S5, and often even better in terms of colour. Some cinematographers compare SL2-S footage favourably with a multi thousand dollar cinema camera like the Arri Alexa, which is saying something. I've looked at some Q3 28 footage on YouTube and it looks excellent, so it's funny that the 43 might not be as good.

I did not ,mean to imply that the image quality was poor. It is good and up to 8K. What I meant was that the operator might not be Oscar level.

 

[boojum]

OK, time to whine. I am still not thrilled with the colors, they are cool and clinical tome. Has anyone found a setting that warms up these images??

 

[wlewisiii]

OK, time to whine. I am still not thrilled with the colors, they are cool and clinical tome. Has anyone found a setting that warms up these images??

The "on" button on my Pentax K3? < whistles innocently >

 

[Archiver]

OK, time to whine. I am still not thrilled with the colors, they are cool and clinical tome. Has anyone found a setting that warms up these images??

The M9 has a rich, organic look to its images, and the SL2-S has a more clinical, almost synthetically perfect look. I haven't seen too many Q343 images, but my approach to getting the SL2-S to look more like the M9 is to increase the Hue of red and yellow, increase saturation of red but decrease saturation of orange and yellow, and increase saturation of blue. This goes into a Lightroom preset which I use as a base for further images. Depending on the look I want, I can also adjust the calibration of the Shadows to more on the Green side, -6 or -9. I also increase overall Saturation, but Clarity more. I also decrease overall Contrast, bump up the White point, bring up the Shadows and bring down the Highlights.

 

[boojum]

The Q3 43 does a lot of things well, but without charm. I am still not thrilled with the images whether full frame, macro, crop tele or video. OTOH it is a great travel camera as it does so any thngs well eve n ifa little artlessly.