A Q3 43mm Apo-summicron camera to be announced soon? Hopefully true.

Regarding Q camera lens size compared to the manual focus lenses, the leaf shutter and autofocus mechanisms increase lens size: They are built into the lenses. The Leica 40mm summicron manual focus lens is much smaller as it lacks these features.
 
Regarding Q camera lens size compared to the manual focus lenses, the leaf shutter and autofocus mechanisms increase lens size: They are built into the lenses. The Leica 40mm summicron manual focus lens is much smaller as it lacks these features.
But the Q43 lens is huge! The Summarit 40mm on the Minilux is most likely a leaf shutter design and it's also autofocus. Sure the Summarit is an f2.4 rather than f2.0, but really? Perhaps its a combination of having multiple APO elements adding bulk and weight and requiring larger AF motors to move more mass? If this is the case I'm a little disappointed Leica went APO when they could have made a sharp conventional lens that was more compact. Anyway, putting my personal biases aside, it does looks like Leica are prioritising image quality above all else, and there's nothing wrong with that 😁.
 
But the Q43 lens is huge! The Summarit 40mm on the Minilux is most likely a leaf shutter design and it's also autofocus. Sure the Summarit is an f2.4 rather than f2.0, but really? Perhaps its a combination of having multiple APO elements adding bulk and weight and requiring larger AF motors to move more mass? If this is the case I'm a little disappointed Leica went APO when they could have made a sharp conventional lens that was more compact. Anyway, putting my personal biases aside, it does looks like Leica are prioritising image quality above all else, and there's nothing wrong with that 😁.
Well, that can be a priority for some - compactness, "balance", focal length, even cost. But judging from the sales of the Q3 28, Leica stayed with their basic concept which has been a success for them and for which a decent size market exists. In business, you go with what works. For photographers, you chose what works for you. And there are choices galore.
 
Now there's a guy who really doesn't need a Q43. Similar sizes too.
Certainly not a lot of direct comparisons to be made; the Leica weighs 772 grams with batteries, the Pentax kit weighs 1165 grams... okay, that wasn't actually as massive of a difference as I expected - mostly due to the petite 43mm, which is only 155g.

If you're shooting on the street, which is arguably the perfect setting for a 43mm lens, the Pentax makes a statement. Not that that means I don't do it, but I probably get more looks than I would with a Q model (which I see a lot of in the touristy areas of Seattle, actually).

I think one of the main differences which is likely to be seen between this Leica lens and the Pentax (whether the LTM "Special" or the K-mount Limited) is the performance close to wide open. The Pentax Limited lenses aren't made to modern sensibilities, so they shoot rather dreamy, with a sharp center and softer edges, wide open. I expect the Leica will meet modern expectations of sharpness across the frame wide open.
 
Certainly not a lot of direct comparisons to be made; the Leica weighs 772 grams with batteries, the Pentax kit weighs 1165 grams... okay, that wasn't actually as massive of a difference as I expected - mostly due to the petite 43mm, which is only 155g.

If you're shooting on the street, which is arguably the perfect setting for a 43mm lens, the Pentax makes a statement. Not that that means I don't do it, but I probably get more looks than I would with a Q model (which I see a lot of in the touristy areas of Seattle, actually).

I think one of the main differences which is likely to be seen between this Leica lens and the Pentax (whether the LTM "Special" or the K-mount Limited) is the performance close to wide open. The Pentax Limited lenses aren't made to modern sensibilities, so they shoot rather dreamy, with a sharp center and softer edges, wide open. I expect the Leica will meet modern expectations of sharpness across the frame wide open.
I wonder if the use of in body image stabilization (IBIS) done at the sensor level affects the edge sharpness in Pentax cameras. The Qs use lens IS, totally independent of camera sensor position.
 
I wonder if the use of in body image stabilization (IBIS) done at the sensor level affects the edge sharpness in Pentax cameras. The Qs use lens IS, totally independent of camera sensor position.
Hmm, I've never heard of IBIS creating that effect before. Also, keep in mind the Pentax Limited lenses from the 2000s were designed for autofocus 35mm film cameras, and their character on film matches that on the FF DSLR.
 
Q343 is an all in one standard focal length EDC. But will it do better than what's out on the market? No. It's a general purpose lens.

It would have better appeal if it was a 50 lux instead...Fact : the 50lux by karbe is apo by design. As a standard portrait lens it would of made better sense.

A 28 lux for wide but yet not for standard lens wtf was Leica thinking 🤔
 
Q343 is an all in one standard focal length EDC. But will it do better than what's out on the market? No. It's a general purpose lens.

It would have better appeal if it was a 50 lux instead...Fact : the 50lux by karbe is apo by design. As a standard portrait lens it would of made better sense.

A 28 lux for wide but yet not for standard lens wtf was Leica thinking 🤔
That 28mm isn’t a real summilux, so why worry about the 43mm not being a summilux? I mean, I’d rather have a 50mm too but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with their choice of lens here.
 
I wonder if the use of in body image stabilization (IBIS) done at the sensor level affects the edge sharpness in Pentax cameras. The Qs use lens IS, totally independent of camera sensor position.

All IBIS can do this occasionally. Considering that the K-3 iii Mono can shoot at ISO 1,600,000 I am not sure why it’s needed, but it does help take photos of things that stay still. My only concern about it is that a majority of exposure algorithms in cameras with IBIS tend to the lower end, presumably to let the IBIS do its job. My KiMono is on ‘action’ mode to keep the shutterspeed up.

Hmm, I've never heard of IBIS creating that effect before. Also, keep in mind the Pentax Limited lenses from the 2000s were designed for autofocus 35mm film cameras, and their character on film matches that on the FF DSLR.
IBIS does it. It depends on the interaction between your level of inherent tremor, the camera algorithms that control the IBIS, the distance to the subject and a range of other factors. It helps with IBIS to be slightly shaky. If you are really, really steady (any competition shooters or archers out there?) IBIS can hurt more than it helps. B+H put it well “image stabilization, by its very nature, using motion along one axis to counter motion in the opposite axis, often creates varying degrees of image degradation of its own”.

Marty
 
All IBIS can do this occasionally. Considering that the K-3 iii Mono can shoot at ISO 1,600,000 I am not sure why it’s needed, but it does help take photos of things that stay still. My only concern about it is that a majority of exposure algorithms in cameras with IBIS tend to the lower end, presumably to let the IBIS do its job. My KiMono is on ‘action’ mode to keep the shutterspeed up.


IBIS does it. It depends on the interaction between your level of inherent tremor, the camera algorithms that control the IBIS, the distance to the subject and a range of other factors. It helps with IBIS to be slightly shaky. If you are really, really steady (any competition shooters or archers out there?) IBIS can hurt more than it helps. B+H put it well “image stabilization, by its very nature, using motion along one axis to counter motion in the opposite axis, often creates varying degrees of image degradation of its own”.

Marty
I have this problem with ultrawides, the sensor movement to keep the centre sharp will make the edges unsharp.
In particular I cannot use the IBIS in my A7rii with my 12-24mm at the wide end, it always degrades the corners compared to the centre.
Also applies to my 15mm on the S1r or SL2-S.
Pain in the arse actually as I like using this combination in dark derelict buildings. So it's back to the tripod...
 
That 28mm isn’t a real summilux, so why worry about the 43mm not being a summilux? I mean, I’d rather have a 50mm too but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with their choice of lens here.
You're right nothing wrong with a apo cron, and the lux on the Q is more like a 1.7. But as a standard non interchangeable fixed lens that more suited for portrait it makes sense for a actual lux. And not a faux lux. I don't think it's isn't reasonable to expect one given everyone is huffing over the price. When your cropping to 75 and beyond you'd like as much shallow dof

Much like the 43 itself, many demanded it and Leica listened. All products can be improved.
 
IBIS does it. It depends on the interaction between your level of inherent tremor, the camera algorithms that control the IBIS, the distance to the subject and a range of other factors. It helps with IBIS to be slightly shaky. If you are really, really steady (any competition shooters or archers out there?) IBIS can hurt more than it helps. B+H put it well “image stabilization, by its very nature, using motion along one axis to counter motion in the opposite axis, often creates varying degrees of image degradation of its own”.
If we're talking general image softness from IBIS, then I've certainly had that effect, though, interestingly never with a Pentax DSLR that I can think of. My earlier Panasonic MFT bodies didn't always have the best IBIS, nor does the GRIII series (that's mostly due to how small the area is for the sensor assembly to move around, I think). They can deliver image softness, but not strictly in the corners, rather all across the frame.
 
If we're talking general image softness from IBIS, then I've certainly had that effect, though, interestingly never with a Pentax DSLR that I can think of. My earlier Panasonic MFT bodies didn't always have the best IBIS, nor does the GRIII series (that's mostly due to how small the area is for the sensor assembly to move around, I think). They can deliver image softness, but not strictly in the corners, rather all across the frame.
I’ve seen it with the K-3 iii Mono. The effect is a bit unpredictable.
 
But as a standard non interchangeable fixed lens that more suited for portrait it makes sense for a actual lux. And not a faux lux.
Why would you assume it is made for portraits?
I don't think it's isn't reasonable to expect one given everyone is huffing over the price.
Well, the one for the M is $5000 alone.
When your cropping to 75 and beyond you'd like as much shallow dof
Well, if you keep cropping like that, it isn't going to matter...making the FF sensor into M43 etc.
Much like the 43 itself, many demanded it and Leica listened. All products can be improved.
Have you already tried it to know?
 
Back
Top