Why all the hate?

[JNK 100]

If you read any of my posts that you quoted, I talked about the A7Rv.

The Q3 is NOT a compact camera. Its 11% taller than the A7CR and its huge compared to an RX1Riii. The Q3's size places it between an A7CR and an A7RV

The Q3 big enough that it is a more natural comparison to the A7RV than it is to the RX1Riii. What is the need that the Q3 serves, that an A7RV couldn't? Its definitely not portability.

Leica Q is 70% weight of the A7RV setup, and significant smaller, not huge difference, I definitely don't want to carry around in a EDC sling either of them, but there is the difference. I prefer Q's rangefinder body (EVF on corner without bump), the only tilt mechanism screen. I've never hold it, by I'd expect I want to grab Q3 43 instead of A7RV any time because the premium feel, pure minimalist design, weight and size, EVF layout. Still I'd pick A7RV even if I want only one focal length, because of the AF (I expect Q4 will solve this problem even if it's not on Sony level).

None of them a competitor of RX1RIII, or GFX100RF if we consider portability, Q3's lens is too long for that.

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

28mm/1.7 and 40mm/2.5 is pretty much the same, meaning that the same amount of light will get captured from each scene detail when aiming the cameras from the same vantage point. The 28mm will produce a smaller crop from those details, making it brighter per area (and likely per pixel). But if you blow up the corresponding crop, it will be pretty identical in overall noise, and also will have the same amount of bokeh.

--
Dak

The FL are very different so they are not comparable . This cannot be logically denied....

Th closest Sony would be the 28mm f2 or f1.4 of course.

 

[tqlla]

If you read any of my posts that you quoted, I talked about the A7Rv.

The Q3 is NOT a compact camera. Its 11% taller than the A7CR and its huge compared to an RX1Riii. The Q3's size places it between an A7CR and an A7RV

The Q3 big enough that it is a more natural comparison to the A7RV than it is to the RX1Riii. What is the need that the Q3 serves, that an A7RV couldn't? Its definitely not portability.

Leica Q is 70% weight of the A7RV setup, and significant smaller, not huge difference, I definitely don't want to carry around in a EDC sling either of them, but there is the difference. I prefer Q's rangefinder body (EVF on corner without bump), the only tilt mechanism screen. I've never hold it, by I'd expect I want to grab Q3 43 instead of A7RV any time because the premium feel, pure minimalist design, weight and size, EVF layout. Still I'd pick A7RV even if I want only one focal length, because of the AF (I expect Q4 will solve this problem even if it's not on Sony level).

None of them a competitor of RX1RIII, or GFX100RF if we consider portability, Q3's lens is too long for that.

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

28mm/1.7 and 40mm/2.5 is pretty much the same, meaning that the same amount of light will get captured from each scene detail when aiming the cameras from the same vantage point. The 28mm will produce a smaller crop from those details, making it brighter per area (and likely per pixel). But if you blow up the corresponding crop, it will be pretty identical in overall noise, and also will have the same amount of bokeh.

The FL are very different so they are not comparable . This cannot be logically denied....

Th closest Sony would be the 28mm f2 or f1.4 of course.

I dont know what you guys are going on about. LOOK at the lens on the Q3.

 

[landshark]

If you read any of my posts that you quoted, I talked about the A7Rv.

The Q3 is NOT a compact camera. Its 11% taller than the A7CR and its huge compared to an RX1Riii. The Q3's size places it between an A7CR and an A7RV

The Q3 big enough that it is a more natural comparison to the A7RV than it is to the RX1Riii. What is the need that the Q3 serves, that an A7RV couldn't? Its definitely not portability.

Leica Q is 70% weight of the A7RV setup, and significant smaller, not huge difference, I definitely don't want to carry around in a EDC sling either of them, but there is the difference. I prefer Q's rangefinder body (EVF on corner without bump), the only tilt mechanism screen. I've never hold it, by I'd expect I want to grab Q3 43 instead of A7RV any time because the premium feel, pure minimalist design, weight and size, EVF layout. Still I'd pick A7RV even if I want only one focal length, because of the AF (I expect Q4 will solve this problem even if it's not on Sony level).

None of them a competitor of RX1RIII, or GFX100RF if we consider portability, Q3's lens is too long for that.

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

You are missing two things.

1. If you look at the Q3 pictured, it has a big 43 written on it.
2. The camera on the left has a secret. You can take off the lens, and put on a different lens.

RX1RIII, Q and Q3 43



--
Bob
https://www.instagram.com/damicob/

 

[JNK 100]

If you read any of my posts that you quoted, I talked about the A7Rv.

The Q3 is NOT a compact camera. Its 11% taller than the A7CR and its huge compared to an RX1Riii. The Q3's size places it between an A7CR and an A7RV

The Q3 big enough that it is a more natural comparison to the A7RV than it is to the RX1Riii. What is the need that the Q3 serves, that an A7RV couldn't? Its definitely not portability.

Leica Q is 70% weight of the A7RV setup, and significant smaller, not huge difference, I definitely don't want to carry around in a EDC sling either of them, but there is the difference. I prefer Q's rangefinder body (EVF on corner without bump), the only tilt mechanism screen. I've never hold it, by I'd expect I want to grab Q3 43 instead of A7RV any time because the premium feel, pure minimalist design, weight and size, EVF layout. Still I'd pick A7RV even if I want only one focal length, because of the AF (I expect Q4 will solve this problem even if it's not on Sony level).

None of them a competitor of RX1RIII, or GFX100RF if we consider portability, Q3's lens is too long for that.

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

28mm/1.7 and 40mm/2.5 is pretty much the same, meaning that the same amount of light will get captured from each scene detail when aiming the cameras from the same vantage point. The 28mm will produce a smaller crop from those details, making it brighter per area (and likely per pixel). But if you blow up the corresponding crop, it will be pretty identical in overall noise, and also will have the same amount of bokeh.

The FL are very different so they are not comparable . This cannot be logically denied....

Th closest Sony would be the 28mm f2 or f1.4 of course.

I dont know what you guys are going on about. LOOK at the lens on the Q3.

Apologies I missed that completely!

 

[DenverSteve]

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

28mm/1.7 and 40mm/2.5 is pretty much the same, meaning that the same amount of light will get captured from each scene detail when aiming the cameras from the same vantage point. The 28mm will produce a smaller crop from those details, making it brighter per area (and likely per pixel). But if you blow up the corresponding crop, it will be pretty identical in overall noise, and also will have the same amount of bokeh.

Fair enough, but how is the 40mm f/2.5 at 28mm? ;-)

How good is the one in the middle at 28mm?

It's the best.... nothing out performs a Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH or APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. The reason people purchase the Q3/ Q3 43 is not because they're the smallest but because there's nothing better. If all that matters is "this is the smallest" and not results, then just grab a RX100 and be done with it.

-

It's just my educated opinion. Don't get bent out of shape.
Steve

 

[tqlla]

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

Fair enough, but how is the 40mm f/2.5 at 28mm? ;-)

How good is the one in the middle at 28mm?

It's the best.... nothing out performs a Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH or APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. The reason people purchase the Q3/ Q3 43 is not because they're the smallest but because there's nothing better. If all that matters is "this is the smallest" and not results, then just grab a RX100 and be done with it.

can you look at the lens on the Q3 pictured.

 

[DenverSteve]

If you read any of my posts that you quoted, I talked about the A7Rv.

The Q3 is NOT a compact camera. Its 11% taller than the A7CR and its huge compared to an RX1Riii. The Q3's size places it between an A7CR and an A7RV

The Q3 big enough that it is a more natural comparison to the A7RV than it is to the RX1Riii. What is the need that the Q3 serves, that an A7RV couldn't? Its definitely not portability.

Leica Q is 70% weight of the A7RV setup, and significant smaller, not huge difference, I definitely don't want to carry around in a EDC sling either of them, but there is the difference. I prefer Q's rangefinder body (EVF on corner without bump), the only tilt mechanism screen. I've never hold it, by I'd expect I want to grab Q3 43 instead of A7RV any time because the premium feel, pure minimalist design, weight and size, EVF layout. Still I'd pick A7RV even if I want only one focal length, because of the AF (I expect Q4 will solve this problem even if it's not on Sony level).

None of them a competitor of RX1RIII, or GFX100RF if we consider portability, Q3's lens is too long for that.

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

28mm/1.7 and 40mm/2.5 is pretty much the same, meaning that the same amount of light will get captured from each scene detail when aiming the cameras from the same vantage point. The 28mm will produce a smaller crop from those details, making it brighter per area (and likely per pixel). But if you blow up the corresponding crop, it will be pretty identical in overall noise, and also will have the same amount of bokeh.

The FL are very different so they are not comparable . This cannot be logically denied....

Th closest Sony would be the 28mm f2 or f1.4 of course.

I dont know what you guys are going on about. LOOK at the lens on the Q3.

You can continue to beat the "small" drum all you want, which won't change the genuine criticisms of the RX1. However trying to nock the Q3 43 lens will never ring true. It IS where the magic is made and that's why people buy it. The original post was "why all the hate". It's not hate but those questions have been answered ad nauseam.

--
It's just my educated opinion. Don't get bent out of shape.
Steve

 

[DenverSteve]

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

Fair enough, but how is the 40mm f/2.5 at 28mm? ;-)

How good is the one in the middle at 28mm?

It's the best.... nothing out performs a Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH or APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. The reason people purchase the Q3/ Q3 43 is not because they're the smallest but because there's nothing better. If all that matters is "this is the smallest" and not results, then just grab a RX100 and be done with it.

can you look at the lens on the Q3 pictured.

Yes. It's a thing of beauty. Summilux ASPH. and apo-Summicron ASPH lenses have never been disposable, lightweight or even tiny. They are however built to be used for decades without issue and to provide the highest resolving IQ in the industry. Continuing to knock some of the best lenses built isn't doing anything to sing the praises of the RX1 which is what this thread wants to do.

--
It's just my educated opinion. Don't get bent out of shape.
Steve

 

[JNK 100]

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

Fair enough, but how is the 40mm f/2.5 at 28mm? ;-)

How good is the one in the middle at 28mm?

It's the best.... nothing out performs a Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH or APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. The reason people purchase the Q3/ Q3 43 is not because they're the smallest but because there's nothing better. If all that matters is "this is the smallest" and not results, then just grab a RX100 and be done with it.

can you look at the lens on the Q3 pictured.

The reply mentions both the Q3 lenses. Can you look at the post.

 

[The Lamentable Lens]

Thats my point. The A7Rv will fit anywhere the Leica Q3 will fit. The RX1R will fit in your pocket.

People have been comparing the RX1Riii to the Leica Q3, but comparing the Q3 to an A7Rv is out of bounds?


Camerasize.com - Normalized to the back of the LCD

It is unrealistic to compare a 28mm f1.7 with a 40mm f 2.5.(just over a stop slower)or am I missing something here?

28mm/1.7 and 40mm/2.5 is pretty much the same, meaning that the same amount of light will get captured from each scene detail when aiming the cameras from the same vantage point. The 28mm will produce a smaller crop from those details, making it brighter per area (and likely per pixel). But if you blow up the corresponding crop, it will be pretty identical in overall noise, and also will have the same amount of bokeh.

Fair enough, but how is the 40mm f/2.5 at 28mm? ;-)

How good is the one in the middle at 28mm?

My earlier comment referenced the Q3 28 -- not sure why we're required to ignore the existence of that model in this comparison. The RX1Riii has a 35mm f/2 lens. The Q3 28 has a 28mm f/1.7 lens, with frame lines for 35mm (where it's essentially an f/2 equivalent). It's a natural comparison, which is why everyone else in the world is making it.

Anyway, as I said in my other comment, I don't cross-shop ILCs when I'm in the market for a fixed-lens camera (for me, the fixed lens is a feature, not a bug). So an A7RV (or an a7CR, etc.) is irrelevant to me when deciding which fixed-lens camera to buy. It may not be to you, and that's totally fine. This is all just subjective opinion and preference, and the good news is that we're not all required to buy the same camera