-
Cameraderie, a friendly photography forum, join now for free!
On paper, this is nothing short of an ABSOLUTE SENSATION.
I have repeatedly hoped (among so many others) for a Q-50 style (and 43mm is actually better than 50) camera and now one materializes...
I have even had thoughts about completely getting rid of my M setup if such a Q ever should be introduced.
Wait, what's that?
I have repeatedly hoped (among so many others) for a Q-50 style (and 43mm is actually better than 50) camera and now one materializes...
I have even had thoughts about completely getting rid of my M setup if such a Q ever should be introduced.
Wait, what's that?
No framelines for 135mm? Forget it!
- Location
- Seattle
- Name
- Andrew
Welcome to the 43mm party 😁
Quoth I and other Pentaxians with the original "Limited" prime lens. ...unless you have the "Special" 43mm for LTM.
Quoth I and other Pentaxians with the original "Limited" prime lens. ...unless you have the "Special" 43mm for LTM.
AlwaysOnAuto
Hall of Famer
I hate to say it guys but that camera looks like it'd be a bear to hold and use.
I say it's fine. Basing this on my prolonged experience with Q 116 that is pretty much the same ergonomic wonder.
What makes this a bit worse, (assuming the leaked specs are correct), is the heavier weight which is undoubtedly in the lens, making it more front-heavy than Q116. An ergonomic nightmare? Hardly universally so.
- Location
- Cheshire, England
- Name
- Martin Connolly
The original Q was too heavy and cumbersome for my little hands ☹️
- Location
- Seattle
- Name
- Andrew
I'm always surprised when I see the Q in the wild, I have a conception that it's smaller than it is. It seems decent-sized for handling, but perhaps less so for its weight.
And, dare I say, the ZF?
CraigC
All-Pro
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Name
- Craig
I saw the rumors on this over the past several weeks. Now it’s coming to reality.
Would love to have one, but at the $6900 USD price point, it would be a very costly venture. But, it could also be a “do everything” camera for me.
I have a Q-P, which I love, but the 28mm focal length doesn’t work as an only camera for me. While I love it for travel, it’s a bit wide for most of the family life I primarily capture.
A ~40mm equivalent would be a better fit, with croppability for portraits, and could allow me to sell most of my other gear. For wide, I’d stitch when absolutely necessary. Or maybe add a GR (again) for those needs.
But, it’s A LOT of money to spend on one camera. I could keep my Q-P and get an M10 for less (vs selling the Q-P and getting the Q43).
Would love to have one, but at the $6900 USD price point, it would be a very costly venture. But, it could also be a “do everything” camera for me.
I have a Q-P, which I love, but the 28mm focal length doesn’t work as an only camera for me. While I love it for travel, it’s a bit wide for most of the family life I primarily capture.
A ~40mm equivalent would be a better fit, with croppability for portraits, and could allow me to sell most of my other gear. For wide, I’d stitch when absolutely necessary. Or maybe add a GR (again) for those needs.
But, it’s A LOT of money to spend on one camera. I could keep my Q-P and get an M10 for less (vs selling the Q-P and getting the Q43).
I love to think how 28mm is too wide for me and it's difficult to master. (Well it is, isn't it.) How I've converted into this 50mm devout (and I have) after starting my hobby with wider angles.
Yet with Q 116 I always seem to find a groove where things start to click. In this sense a normal lens is suddenly something that might limit my vision.
I'd see myself packing Q and Q43 in the same bag, have a formidable kit. But the overlap is way too great for that. In this setup Q would only deal with "focal lengths" from 28 to 35 and Q43 would take it from there, up to 135mm or thereabouts. That is a bit much overlap for much money.
My killer kit has been Q and a µ43 camera with a 70-200mm eqv. With this combo there's zero ambiguity as to which camera to use to capture a shot. As a kit it weighs less than two Q's. And the files should be in theory better with the µ43 camera very soon after you apply the zoom ring.
So I mean, Q43 is a 5/5 idea to implement. Not very original at this stage after Ricoh and all, but a 5/5 idea nonetheless. Sadly a pairing with Q is not rationally feasible. I'm sure I've read similar accounts about GRiii/GRiiix owners. They sure have the benefit of their cameras weighing much less and also being 1/4th the cost.
Yet with Q 116 I always seem to find a groove where things start to click. In this sense a normal lens is suddenly something that might limit my vision.
I'd see myself packing Q and Q43 in the same bag, have a formidable kit. But the overlap is way too great for that. In this setup Q would only deal with "focal lengths" from 28 to 35 and Q43 would take it from there, up to 135mm or thereabouts. That is a bit much overlap for much money.
My killer kit has been Q and a µ43 camera with a 70-200mm eqv. With this combo there's zero ambiguity as to which camera to use to capture a shot. As a kit it weighs less than two Q's. And the files should be in theory better with the µ43 camera very soon after you apply the zoom ring.
So I mean, Q43 is a 5/5 idea to implement. Not very original at this stage after Ricoh and all, but a 5/5 idea nonetheless. Sadly a pairing with Q is not rationally feasible. I'm sure I've read similar accounts about GRiii/GRiiix owners. They sure have the benefit of their cameras weighing much less and also being 1/4th the cost.
I used DP1/DP2 and Ricoh GR III/IIIx, Q2 or Sony RX1ii+long zoom P&S on travels... I like the wide for landscapes, std for people shots, but usually it doesn't make sense to carry 2 Q3 size cameras (plus the price) as I try to be on the lighter side... GR set is easier to carry... X100 is in the middle at 35mm with wider angle option.. I am a big fan of Contax g 45mm, but the bokeh is on the harsh side... I like 45-50mm for walk around locally, but usually a zoom gives more opportunity to shoot... There are so many smaller 40-50mm options eg Sony 40/50mm 2.5, Samyang 45mm 1.8, Sigma 45mm 2.5, but they are not at level of Leica apo level...
Sb calculated the crop options in Leica forum:
43mm f2.0 = 60,3 MP (9520 x 6336)
60mm f2.8 = Crop 1,4x - 30,8 MP
75mm f3.5 = Crop 1,7x - 19,9 MP
90mm f4.2 = Crop 2,1x - 13,8 MP
120mm f5.6 = Crop 2,8x - 7,69 MP
150mm f7.0 = Crop 3,5x - 4,92 MP
I wish it will be more 54-65-86-132mm crops ~1.25x, 1.5x, 2x, 3x crops... 85mm would be 15MP... But then you can always crop differently from raw...
Sb calculated the crop options in Leica forum:
43mm f2.0 = 60,3 MP (9520 x 6336)
60mm f2.8 = Crop 1,4x - 30,8 MP
75mm f3.5 = Crop 1,7x - 19,9 MP
90mm f4.2 = Crop 2,1x - 13,8 MP
120mm f5.6 = Crop 2,8x - 7,69 MP
150mm f7.0 = Crop 3,5x - 4,92 MP
I wish it will be more 54-65-86-132mm crops ~1.25x, 1.5x, 2x, 3x crops... 85mm would be 15MP... But then you can always crop differently from raw...
- Location
- Cheshire, England
- Name
- Martin Connolly
...although not as bad as a Pentax K5 that I tried. That was almost unusable for me. Which was also upsetting.
Out to Lunch
Top Veteran
Perhaps the best thing about this Q3 is its price: it gives people an incentive to start shooting film again 
