Why all the hate?

[JNK 100]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

first the the Q3 is way more expensive at $1,600 and the Q3/43 is $2,100 more

Yes I acknowledged itv s more expensive . £1300 or so extra for all of the points I listed seems reasonable.

The Q3 lens is 10 years old as well, with a slightly larger aperture F1.7 Sony F2.0, the 43 is newer but also has a F2.0 aperture

I didn't raise the age of the Sony lens as it is not important.

There are many superb lenses launched before 2015..

The difference is sharpness between the Leica 28mm lens and the Zeiss35mm lens is marginal

This is not my understanding.

While the Leica has a much better manual focus experience, the Sony has a much better faster more accurate AF experience

While true the battery life of the Leica is better the camera is 40% larger and the spare battery is $240 compared to the $74 Sony

Again i acknowledged the Q3 is larger and costs more as does a spare battery. It does have an extra year of warranty in the UK however.

Leica does have a better larger sharper viewfinder and a tilt screen, the Sony screen while fixed has better resolution

Build quality is a toss up, I am going to say I am sure the RX1RIII is as well built as the RX1RII, my 10 year old one is working just like it did 10 years ago.

Yes the Leica is weather sealed and the Sony is not--

Leica Q3 has OIS not IBIS, the Sony has neither

Yes I know and I said OIS in my list....

Sony does have a lower price, much smaller size, almost half the weight, better faster Af, faster processor and a far more stealth look, less of here is a serious and expensive camera

After all that please explain the hate people have posted, even if one takes the position that the Leica or Fuji is a better platform, I have never felt the need to go on every other camera YouTube review site to post what an awful camera the it is. Has Leica lost their mind selling such a non versatile camera for almost $7,000.

There is something else going on these days, where people seem to feel slighted if a product they never intended to buy is launched for a price they feel is beyond them or has a list of features is missing that they think have to be on every camera.

There are a lot of choices, pick one and enjoy
Bob

I don't hate the Sony at all - it is great to have choice. It's just not my choice. I am sure it produces excellent images.

 

[landshark]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

first the the Q3 is way more expensive at $1,600 and the Q3/43 is $2,100 more

Yes I acknowledged itv s more expensive . £1300 or so extra for all of the points I listed seems reasonable.

The Q3 lens is 10 years old as well, with a slightly larger aperture F1.7 Sony F2.0, the 43 is newer but also has a F2.0 aperture

I didn't raise the age of the Sony lens as it is not important.

There are many superb lenses launched before 2015..

The difference is sharpness between the Leica 28mm lens and the Zeiss35mm lens is marginal

This is not my understanding.

While the Leica has a much better manual focus experience, the Sony has a much better faster more accurate AF experience

While true the battery life of the Leica is better the camera is 40% larger and the spare battery is $240 compared to the $74 Sony

Again i acknowledged the Q3 is larger and costs more as does a spare battery. It does have an extra year of warranty in the UK however.

Leica does have a better larger sharper viewfinder and a tilt screen, the Sony screen while fixed has better resolution

Build quality is a toss up, I am going to say I am sure the RX1RIII is as well built as the RX1RII, my 10 year old one is working just like it did 10 years ago.

Yes the Leica is weather sealed and the Sony is not--

Leica Q3 has OIS not IBIS, the Sony has neither

Yes I know and I said OIS in my list....

Sony does have a lower price, much smaller size, almost half the weight, better faster Af, faster processor and a far more stealth look, less of here is a serious and expensive camera

After all that please explain the hate people have posted, even if one takes the position that the Leica or Fuji is a better platform, I have never felt the need to go on every other camera YouTube review site to post what an awful camera the it is. Has Leica lost their mind selling such a non versatile camera for almost $7,000.

There is something else going on these days, where people seem to feel slighted if a product they never intended to buy is launched for a price they feel is beyond them or has a list of features is missing that they think have to be on every camera.

There are a lot of choices, pick one and enjoy
Bob

I don't hate the Sony at all - it is great to have choice. It's just not my choice. I am sure it produces excellent images.

I apologize if my comments were not clear, in no way did I think your points were part of the hate rant, I was just addressing the differences as I understand them, as to the lens comment since I do not have both cameras to test. I went by DPR "It can't quite match the Leica Q3 43 for detail but it's capturing finer detail than the Mark II, with its 42MP sensor, could" and "It doesn't match the Leica Q3 43's lens, in a test-chart shootout, but when you're out shooting, you may find the difference matters less than test charts might make it might appear."

My comment about why the hate was meant to the general photo audience.

 

[SafariBob]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

first the the Q3 is way more expensive at $1,600 and the Q3/43 is $2,100 more

Yes I acknowledged itv s more expensive . £1300 or so extra for all of the points I listed seems reasonable.

The Q3 lens is 10 years old as well, with a slightly larger aperture F1.7 Sony F2.0, the 43 is newer but also has a F2.0 aperture

I didn't raise the age of the Sony lens as it is not important.

There are many superb lenses launched before 2015..

The difference is sharpness between the Leica 28mm lens and the Zeiss35mm lens is marginal

This is not my understanding.

While the Leica has a much better manual focus experience, the Sony has a much better faster more accurate AF experience

While true the battery life of the Leica is better the camera is 40% larger and the spare battery is $240 compared to the $74 Sony

Again i acknowledged the Q3 is larger and costs more as does a spare battery. It does have an extra year of warranty in the UK however.

Leica does have a better larger sharper viewfinder and a tilt screen, the Sony screen while fixed has better resolution

Build quality is a toss up, I am going to say I am sure the RX1RIII is as well built as the RX1RII, my 10 year old one is working just like it did 10 years ago.

Yes the Leica is weather sealed and the Sony is not--

Leica Q3 has OIS not IBIS, the Sony has neither

Yes I know and I said OIS in my list....

Sony does have a lower price, much smaller size, almost half the weight, better faster Af, faster processor and a far more stealth look, less of here is a serious and expensive camera

After all that please explain the hate people have posted, even if one takes the position that the Leica or Fuji is a better platform, I have never felt the need to go on every other camera YouTube review site to post what an awful camera the it is. Has Leica lost their mind selling such a non versatile camera for almost $7,000.

There is something else going on these days, where people seem to feel slighted if a product they never intended to buy is launched for a price they feel is beyond them or has a list of features is missing that they think have to be on every camera.

There are a lot of choices, pick one and enjoy
Bob

I don't hate the Sony at all - it is great to have choice. It's just not my choice. I am sure it produces excellent images.

I apologize if my comments were not clear, in no way did I think your points were part of the hate rant, I was just addressing the differences as I understand them, as to the lens comment since I do not have both cameras to test. I went by DPR "It can't quite match the Leica Q3 43 for detail but it's capturing finer detail than the Mark II, with its 42MP sensor, could" and "It doesn't match the Leica Q3 43's lens, in a test-chart shootout, but when you're out shooting, you may find the difference matters less than test charts might make it might appear."

My comment about why the hate was meant to the general photo audience.

 

[The Lamentable Lens]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

I own a Q3 and I still have an RX1RII. I fully expected to sell both those cameras in favor of an RX1RIII if Sony ever released one. The Q3 is great, but to me, the size and weight difference is significant.

I'm still debating, but the OIS, the weather-sealing, the tilting LCD, and the EVF are the features on the Q3 making me hesitate. Frankly, weather-sealing and a tilting LCD would likely have been enough -- those exclusions were disappointing.

 

[SafariBob]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

I own a Q3 and I still have an RX1RII. I fully expected to sell both those cameras in favor of an RX1RIII if Sony ever released one. The Q3 is great, but to me, the size and weight difference is significant.

I'm still debating, but the OIS, the weather-sealing, the tilting LCD, and the EVF are the features on the Q3 making me hesitate. Frankly, weather-sealing and a tilting LCD would likely have been enough -- those exclusions were disappointing.

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

 

[landshark]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

I own a Q3 and I still have an RX1RII. I fully expected to sell both those cameras in favor of an RX1RIII if Sony ever released one. The Q3 is great, but to me, the size and weight difference is significant.

I'm still debating, but the OIS, the weather-sealing, the tilting LCD, and the EVF are the features on the Q3 making me hesitate. Frankly, weather-sealing and a tilting LCD would likely have been enough -- those exclusions were disappointing.

I get the tilt screen for many, not an issue for me, but the weather sealing is what I wish the camera had. Not so much for wet weather but dust. I spen a lot of time in the desert. My only real issue with my RX1RII was twice getting dust on the sensor. Luckily for me Sony Pro services here will clean it in a couple of days. I just hope this RX1RIII will do better

 

[Lukacs85]

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

Not entirely, RX1RIII AF is a huge advantage over Leica. Both physically and optically Q3 43 is better in every aspect, but the RX1RIII main advantage a significant more compact size.

AF is the main reason I've never save for Leica Q series.

 

[SafariBob]

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

Not entirely, RX1RIII AF is a huge advantage over Leica. Both physically and optically Q3 43 is better in every aspect, but the RX1RIII main advantage a significant more compact size.

AF is the main reason I've never save for Leica Q series.

I would agree for video, but does it really matter for stills?

 

[DenverSteve]

I wouldn't put Q3 43 in a EDC bag because the size of the lens. On Rx1 the lens also quite big, but it's on edge I'd take into my sling. More like a brick, better to carry around, that's why I like GR, X100VI, GFX100RF, small lens stick out prone to damage, easier to put in and pull out from a small non camera bag.

Q3 43 is more like a luxury camera to me, it's for who want high IQ, ok with the focal length, but want a premium feel camera. It's definitely not an EDC category in my eyes, where RX1RIII belongs.

Just for my edification/interest, why do you bag your camera? Maybe the Q3 works for me because I never put an EDC in a bag of any kind. For me an every day carry is meant to be out and ready for immediate use. For shoots and planned excursions, I use bags and/or cases but my EDC is what I grab for a hike, walk in the city, trip to wherever and I want the camera companion to be ready for whatever I encounter. If I was going to use a bag or case any camera would do. I also use my D'lux 8, my A7c r and my RX10 iv as "have to have a camera with me" so the EDC changes frequently depending on where my todays "every day" is. As long as it has a compact prime or zoom, any camera works for me as an EDC.

 

[tqlla]

After all that please explain the hate people have posted, even if one takes the position that the Leica or Fuji is a better platform, I have never felt the need to go on every other camera YouTube review site to post what an awful camera the it is. Has Leica lost their mind selling such a non versatile camera for almost $7,000.

IMO, a lot of the hate is probably because Sony didnt invite Youtubers to review the camera before hand.

All of the Youtubers suddenly forgot that tariffs are a thing, and some youtubers apparently believe that $3920(A7CR+sigma 35mm) is half of $5200.

 

[landshark]

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

Not entirely, RX1RIII AF is a huge advantage over Leica. Both physically and optically Q3 43 is better in every aspect, but the RX1RIII main advantage a significant more compact size.

AF is the main reason I've never save for Leica Q series.

True for me as well, it feels like the better manual focus "experience " was done by Leica because the AF is just ok.

Also I never bought into the camera that slows you done is a better tool because of it, one can slow any camera down but speeding up is another issue

People that like the Q3 I get, I just not one of them

 

[Lukacs85]

Just for my edification/interest, why do you bag your camera? Maybe the Q3 works for me because I never put an EDC in a bag of any kind. For me an every day carry is meant to be out and ready for immediate use. For shoots and planned excursions, I use bags and/or cases but my EDC is what I grab for a hike, walk in the city, trip to wherever and I want the camera companion to be ready for whatever I encounter. If I was going to use a bag or case any camera would do. I also use my D'lux 8, my A7c r and my RX10 iv as "have to have a camera with me" so the EDC changes frequently depending on where my todays "every day" is. As long as it has a compact prime or zoom, any camera works for me as an EDC.

I have a 2 and 4 years old kid. I don't carry a camera every day, but when I carry I need it in my sling, because I don't want carry two bags (EDC and a seperate camera bag). I need my sling tight on my chest, not bump into everything when I handle the kids. This is quite limiting the camera, especially lens size. Also I like to drop a camera into my EDC bag when I intend to shoot, instead go out with two bags, or packing everything into the camera bag.

I've always preferred small cameras carrying in small sling, instead lugging around a bigger dedicated camera bag. I still have A7III with 35GM and Voigtlander 65 APO when I can just shoot, I like having several lens options in that case.

 

[DenverSteve]

Just for my edification/interest, why do you bag your camera? Maybe the Q3 works for me because I never put an EDC in a bag of any kind. For me an every day carry is meant to be out and ready for immediate use. For shoots and planned excursions, I use bags and/or cases but my EDC is what I grab for a hike, walk in the city, trip to wherever and I want the camera companion to be ready for whatever I encounter. If I was going to use a bag or case any camera would do. I also use my D'lux 8, my A7c r and my RX10 iv as "have to have a camera with me" so the EDC changes frequently depending on where my todays "every day" is. As long as it has a compact prime or zoom, any camera works for me as an EDC.

I have a 2 and 4 years old kid. I don't carry a camera every day, but when I carry I need it in my sling, because I don't want carry two bags (EDC and a seperate camera bag). I need my sling tight on my chest, not bump into everything when I handle the kids. This is quite limiting the camera, especially lens size. Also I like to drop a camera into my EDC bag when I intend to shoot, instead go out with two bags, or packing everything into the camera bag.

I've always preferred small cameras carrying in small sling, instead lugging around a bigger dedicated camera bag. I still have A7III with 35GM and Voigtlander 65 APO when I can just shoot, I like having several lens options in that case.

Ahhh, thanks.

 

[SafariBob]

After all that please explain the hate people have posted, even if one takes the position that the Leica or Fuji is a better platform, I have never felt the need to go on every other camera YouTube review site to post what an awful camera the it is. Has Leica lost their mind selling such a non versatile camera for almost $7,000.

IMO, a lot of the hate is probably because Sony didnt invite Youtubers to review the camera before hand.

lol

 

[SafariBob]

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

Not entirely, RX1RIII AF is a huge advantage over Leica. Both physically and optically Q3 43 is better in every aspect, but the RX1RIII main advantage a significant more compact size.

AF is the main reason I've never save for Leica Q series.

True for me as well, it feels like the better manual focus "experience " was done by Leica because the AF is just ok.

Also I never bought into the camera that slows you done is a better tool because of it, one can slow any camera down but speeding up is another issue

People that like the Q3 I get, I just not one of them

I think you are overcomplicating it. For the intended use case the RX1RIII af is good enough, the Q3, the Q2 and the Q1 is good enough, even the RX1RII, RX1R and RX1 is good enough.

Maybe not for video, and some of these cameras leave something to be desired, but waiting half a second is not the end of the world for a posed social picture.

 

[JNK 100]

I think the real issue is the Q3/43.

Although more expensive they have the following over the Sony -

Faster/better lens

Better battery-life

OIS

Larger and sharper EVF.

Better build

Weather-sealed

The Sony only has price, size and weight in its favour.

first the the Q3 is way more expensive at $1,600 and the Q3/43 is $2,100 more

Yes I acknowledged itv s more expensive . £1300 or so extra for all of the points I listed seems reasonable.

The Q3 lens is 10 years old as well, with a slightly larger aperture F1.7 Sony F2.0, the 43 is newer but also has a F2.0 aperture

I didn't raise the age of the Sony lens as it is not important.

There are many superb lenses launched before 2015..

The difference is sharpness between the Leica 28mm lens and the Zeiss35mm lens is marginal

This is not my understanding.

While the Leica has a much better manual focus experience, the Sony has a much better faster more accurate AF experience

While true the battery life of the Leica is better the camera is 40% larger and the spare battery is $240 compared to the $74 Sony

Again i acknowledged the Q3 is larger and costs more as does a spare battery. It does have an extra year of warranty in the UK however.

Leica does have a better larger sharper viewfinder and a tilt screen, the Sony screen while fixed has better resolution

Build quality is a toss up, I am going to say I am sure the RX1RIII is as well built as the RX1RII, my 10 year old one is working just like it did 10 years ago.

Yes the Leica is weather sealed and the Sony is not--

Leica Q3 has OIS not IBIS, the Sony has neither

Yes I know and I said OIS in my list....

Sony does have a lower price, much smaller size, almost half the weight, better faster Af, faster processor and a far more stealth look, less of here is a serious and expensive camera

After all that please explain the hate people have posted, even if one takes the position that the Leica or Fuji is a better platform, I have never felt the need to go on every other camera YouTube review site to post what an awful camera the it is. Has Leica lost their mind selling such a non versatile camera for almost $7,000.

There is something else going on these days, where people seem to feel slighted if a product they never intended to buy is launched for a price they feel is beyond them or has a list of features is missing that they think have to be on every camera.

There are a lot of choices, pick one and enjoy
Bob

I don't hate the Sony at all - it is great to have choice. It's just not my choice. I am sure it produces excellent images.

I apologize if my comments were not clear, in no way did I think your points were part of the hate rant, I was just addressing the differences as I understand them, as to the lens comment since I do not have both cameras to test. I went by DPR "It can't quite match the Leica Q3 43 for detail but it's capturing finer detail than the Mark II, with its 42MP sensor, could" and "It doesn't match the Leica Q3 43's lens, in a test-chart shootout, but when you're out shooting, you may find the difference matters less than test charts might make it might appear."

My comment about why the hate was meant to the general photo audience.

Thanks for the clarification - all is good!

 

[landshark]

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

Not entirely, RX1RIII AF is a huge advantage over Leica. Both physically and optically Q3 43 is better in every aspect, but the RX1RIII main advantage a significant more compact size.

AF is the main reason I've never save for Leica Q series.

True for me as well, it feels like the better manual focus "experience " was done by Leica because the AF is just ok.

Also I never bought into the camera that slows you done is a better tool because of it, one can slow any camera down but speeding up is another issue

People that like the Q3 I get, I just not one of them

I think you are overcomplicating it. For the intended use case the RX1RIII af is good enough, the Q3, the Q2 and the Q1 is good enough, even the RX1RII, RX1R and RX1 is good enough.

Maybe not for video, and some of these cameras leave something to be desired, but waiting half a second is not the end of the world for a posed social picture.

not all of us are taking an image of a posed social picture, and owning now both a RX1RII and a RX1RII is much more accurate and faster. While with the RX1RII and the Fuji X100VI, i may get one frame off on a street shot due to the faster Af lock and faster write speed i can get at least a second frame

 

[SafariBob]

Exactly, the Q3 is the better camera, but only the RX1 is small, that's what it boils down to.

Not entirely, RX1RIII AF is a huge advantage over Leica. Both physically and optically Q3 43 is better in every aspect, but the RX1RIII main advantage a significant more compact size.

AF is the main reason I've never save for Leica Q series.

True for me as well, it feels like the better manual focus "experience " was done by Leica because the AF is just ok.

Also I never bought into the camera that slows you done is a better tool because of it, one can slow any camera down but speeding up is another issue

People that like the Q3 I get, I just not one of them

I think you are overcomplicating it. For the intended use case the RX1RIII af is good enough, the Q3, the Q2 and the Q1 is good enough, even the RX1RII, RX1R and RX1 is good enough.

Maybe not for video, and some of these cameras leave something to be desired, but waiting half a second is not the end of the world for a posed social picture.

not all of us are taking an image of a posed social picture, and owning now both a RX1RII and a RX1RII is much more accurate and faster. While with the RX1RII and the Fuji X100VI, i may get one frame off on a street shot due to the faster Af lock and faster write speed i can get at least a second frame

 

[tqlla]

As an rx1 owner, and q3 skeptic, I am going to settle this debate.

Q3, especially Q3 43, is the better camera. It just is, and the price difference isn’t enough to pick one or the other currently.

but, the size of the q bodies makes choosing them over an ilc a questionable proposition. The rx1 isn’t that small either, but it’s materially smaller than a ilc with a 35f2. Also, to suggest the q lens somehow is so fantastic, is to me a bit preposterous. It’s a run of the mill, mid to high range full frame prime. The rx1 lens is more special, but has seen better days.

neither camera make much sense to a sensible photographer. The q is more of a fashion statement without the benefit of the m-lenses.

Its kind of what I said earlier, "What would be the point of the RX1R3, if it was as a big as an A7CR"

The Leica Q3 falls directly into that. Whats the advantage of the $7400 Leica Q3 43, over an A7CR or even the A7RV? There is no portability advantage for the Q3, and the ILC's have versatility and price advantages.

The RX1R does fit in my slacks pockets, my shorts pockets and even some of my jeans pockets. The A7C+50mm F2.5 is too big to fit in any of those. The size difference might not be that noticeable on camera, but its a big difference.

 

[Lukacs85]

Its kind of what I said earlier, "What would be the point of the RX1R3, if it was as a big as an A7CR"

The Leica Q3 falls directly into that. Whats the advantage of the Leica Q3 43, over an A7CR or even the A7RV? There is no portability advantage for the Q3, and the ILC's have versatility and price advantages.

The RX1R does fit in my slacks pockets, my shorts pockets and even some of my jeans pockets. The A7C+50mm F2.5 is too big to fit in any of those. The size difference might not be that noticeable on camera, but its a big difference.

I 100% agree with the size.

But the Q3 body is different level compared A7CR. Build quality, screen, design, EVF, leaf shutter. It's a premium camera, A7CR is not even close, but has the Sony AF, and ILCE.