Leica Q3 43: The camera that sees the world like the human eye

Thanks Mike,

I questioned whether the Q343 was necessary: if the past with GR3X is prologue, then there clearly was space for this addition. I’ve already asked myself if I “need” to add a Q343 to my existing Q328 when I already have a CL with lenses from the FF equivalent of 16mm to 200mm with 24 MP on tap.

It’s hard to justify when the combined Q28-43 stays above the 24 MP line from 28mm through to about 70mm. With cropping the Q328 goes below the 24MP line at about 45mm, and the Q343 goes below the 24MP line at about 70mm.

If you factor in weight then the CL + TL18-56 comes in at 659g, and the Q328 + Q343 combination comes in at 1537g, double the weight of the CL combo, but it’s an APSC sensor if that matters to you.

Go lighter, but FF with the Ricoh GRIII + GRIIIX at a combined 519g and you have a great duo, but lacking a built in EVF.

And then there’s price: the two Q’s come in at just over $13,000 , the CL + TL 18-56 comes in at about $2,750 pre-owned, and the GRIII combo comes in at around $2,000.

This obviously is a biased conclusion as I value compactness and low weight above the highest quality output, as I’m not shooting for A2 sized prints, let alone A1 sized posters.

I still keep hankering after either a Q-size and weight FF ILC camera with light L-mount lenses, or dream on for a CL2 with updated sensor and AF.

There must be more market gaps that Leica could fill…

The concept that 43mm is more ‘natural’ to the way that human vision works is, in my opinion, complete rubbish. If I come over a hillside ridge and see an open scene in front of me, my vision takes in a much greater angle of view which when related to the so-called 24x36mm full frame might be that of a 14mm or even that of a Widelux or Roundshot, except it is ‘distortion corrected’ by my visual cortex. If I see a distant wild animal or bird, I’m likely to experience the angle of view of a 400mm lens although my visual acuity doesn’t resolve as much. In any case, human vision adapts and is not constrained by a defined angle of view; it can focus on a small angle with great resolution and it can encompass and scan a huge angle. A photo as an image on a screen or print presents us with a scene that we then can process by the same methods of focussing on a small section or scanning a larger portion or the whole. What is ‘natural’?
If I am faced with a large crowd, a 21mm lens might be more ‘natural’; if I’m in a one on one conversation, a 90mm is probably more ‘natural’.
Focal lengths and photographic angles of view are defined by boundaries; human vision is defined by what we are paying attention to, and our brains do that. A ‘natural’ correspondence does not exist.

Reports are now showing up on the internet that you can’t use the lens hood in Macro mode / with a filter? because the lens needs to extend a little to engage the macro setting. The short lens hood doesn’t allow for this and prevents the lens extending. I hope there is a solution for this. Perhaps Jonathan could comment on this from his experience?
While this won’t prevent me from buying a Q3 43 it will certainly be an inconvenience when operating the camera and needs a work around.

With regards to the ‘you can’t make a lens wider but you can always crop’ idea, that is not completely correct in the digital age. While you can’t make a lens wider and capture a scene in one moment, you can shoot left and right and stitch in post, and for static subjects that works very well. I have never liked the 28mm focal length and if I were to pick a single focal length to walk around with it would be a 35 or 50mm (indeed I did a whole year with a Leica M3 and a 50mm which you can read about elsewhere on the web should you desire). Therefore this camera has piqued my interest in a way that the standard Q (lovely as it is) never did. To top it all it’s a chance to own a camera named after Desmond Llewellyn, so the only thing stopping me from buying one is my ongoing desire to retain two kidneys instead of one. I think this camera will succeed.

In line with recent posts, there’s a bit more to say about M versus Q. I a have Dlux Typ 109, and lovely as it is, stripped RAW show serious barrel distortion. I’ve no experience with Q, and not the knowledge to say how important it is, but have read that Q performs in camera correctionto correct lens distortion.

In short: Q lenses are not M lenses. For myself only, this may not matter. Where I live, there’s an almost 10% tax on non-essentials, so an M11 might cost me US$10,000, and a Summicron 50 ASPH another $8,000.

That $8000 would get me a Q3/43. On my pension, there’s no way I could afford to drop $18,000, but with a few sales of old equipment, I could buy a Q, with plenty of pension money to re-invest at the end of the year.

“Other things being equal” — well, they seldom are 🙂

.
I thought the much-vaunted point of the Q3 was that with its high pixel count you can crop to any preferred focal length, so you buy it with a 28mm lens, but can easily crop the photos to 35mm, 43mm, 78mm or anything else you want.

But now – it seems – it’s time to buy one with a 43mm lens.

You can’t, of course, though, ‘un-crop’ from 43mm to 28mm.

What’s Leica doing? As usual, saying one thing, but then disregarding that and bringing out some other camera which does the opposite.

This is a hugely expensive ‘snapshot’ camera, like a Kodak Brownie ..but with a price on steroids. Leica is simply making jewellery.

The original Leica had a fixed lens, and then – five years later – Leitz, realising that the camera would be much more versatile if it could take other lenses than just the single fixed one – provided assorted interchangeable lenses, though the camera had to be sent back to the factory to have other lenses matched to each particular camera body.

But a little later, all the camera bodies were standardised so that any ‘Leica Thread Mount’ off-the-shelf lens could be attached to any Leica camera body.

So now Leica does the exact opposite, and you have to buy a body already fitted with just the one lens which you want. No interchangeability ..if you want the features of the Q. And unless Leica – or someone else – is going to offer high-quality wide-angle attachments, the Q3 43 is a step backwards to the 1920s.

You could, of course, just buy a Q3 with the usual 28mm lens, and just crop down to 43mm – which is what Leica was jabbering about since the Q3 was first introduced. Weird.

As you know, I am generally not remotely interested in new digital cameras. I would have preferred this with a 35mm lens and a crop for 50mm, but I might actually buy one of these things as a carry around camera. I know that the diagonal on a 24mm x 36mm rectangle (35mm frame size) is 43.2mm. 43mm is therefore pretty much a standard point of view. I tend to use a 35mm or a 50mm lens on an M camera so 43mm is in the middle of what I like. Jono asked me a few weeks ago if the actual focal length for the 40mm Summicron lens for the original CL was actually 43mm, but I could find no evidence that it was 43mm. I have the original 40mm lens for CL and I find that it is lovely to use, but Jono assures me that the 43mm is much better, even better than my favourite modern Leica lens, the 50 Summilux Asph. He says it beats the Summilux ‘into a cocked hat’. So you may see the strange sight of me walking around with a digital Leica with autofocus. Shock horror from the old LTM brigade!

Glad for those who asked for a longer lens Q, Me? I am happy with, and still prefer a 28mm Q of whichever form.

Mike, that looks awfully tempting. I will have to wait till it’s widely available.

“The new focal length is the closest to the approximation to the angle at which a human can recall objects without moving their eyes.”

First time I come across that definition and I am not too sure as to what it refers to: the ocular field of view is much wider and the macula (the high-resolution color-sensitive center of the eye) has a much narrower field of view (17-18°).

43mm is an entirely likable focal length on its own and it gives a natural perspective when looking at a resulting print from a distance equal to the diagonal of the print (sometimes referred to as “standard viewing conditions”). No need for pseudo-scientific justification 😉

Now this is a prayer answered. I always wanted a Q camera with focal length in the 50mm range so this is perfect for me. Eek! I am too late to be at the top of the waitlist. I will have to think about this.

Let the “deluge” begin. My first and only new lens for my Sony A7C is the 40mm G F2.5. It would be interesting to do a comparison, though I suspect Leica owners would prefer the shooting experience of the Leica over the Sony.
Chris