Aside from the price. Yeah it probably is.

-Manual controls
-Fast prime lens
-Tidy button layout

No not really

It gets mogged hard by the sony a7c. People only buy it for the same reason they buy rolex when grand seiko makes a better watch:
They wish their dad respected them.

File: s03SOu45fm69j29vd9s.jpg (1.03 MB, 2560x1708)

1.03 MB JPG

>>4358275
>>4358294
Do yourself a favour and aave your money and buy a Sony instead. Here is an example of what a Sony can do with the latest pancake lens. Smaller, cheaper and better image quality than Nikon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	photoWORKS23
Photographer	jaesun_riu
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:05 11:15:41
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	10.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1708
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
GPS Status	Measurement Interoperability
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
GPS Differential Correction	No Correction

>>4358313
least vignetted snoy photo

File: 1694990435744805.png (178 KB, 1167x723)

178 KB PNG

>>4358313

>>4358275
>28mm
do you want to be a snapshitter forever?
>>4358308
snoy is a mental illness

>>4358316
God, Sony shills are pathetic. That photo looks like dogshit.

File: clusterfuck.jpg (99 KB, 473x557)

99 KB JPG

>>4358308
If you hand me a sony I will not be able to operate it for 10 minutes before I've figured out the control scheme and even then I won't be able to operate it efficiently and I cannot be the only one.

So no, Horrible beginners camera.

>>4358320
IQ score issue

>>4358313
Dis nigga complaining about a $150 PNS lens for using with film sims

>>4358323
>$150 PNS lens for using with film sims
Its actually Sony's flagship pancake lens and its $500. Its not a film sim, the unique creative effect this lens exhibits is a natural intentional part of the lens design. The optics is lightyears ahead of Nikon.

>>4358323
tha peopel at da hopsital said my eye queue is 136 so i dunnoe what your one aboot

tru storey

>>4358325
If you’re going to be delusional about sony stick to believing the weather sealing fud or the ergonomics nonissue

At least those are partially substantiated by some retard spraying his camera with a garden hose and a few geezers with the rheumatism

>>4358319
Nobody, is falling for your bullshit, Clive

File: 2G5A0157.jpg (1.16 MB, 6000x3322)

1.16 MB JPG

>>4358275
Minimum entry is something like Hasselblad 100c. Or you can get a disposable like Canon R6, that you can just throw in the trash after a shoot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6m2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.3 (Windows)
Photographer	max@bigmail.one
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:20 20:28:30
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4358275
it has a smartphone-like focal length so yeah, it's the ultimate zoomer beginner cam

>>4358325
My kodak 35mm disposable lens body cap mod looks like this. Cost me bugger all.

>>4358308
I have to Snoy A7CII and thinking of selling and getting the Q3. It's a good camera but if you care about design, user experience, etc. it's not all that good anymore
>horrible ugly body
>buttons feel cheap
>body feels cheap
>no flip screen but vlog screen instead
>the worst EVF I've ever used
>menu and UI while being better than prev gen it's still shit
>shutter sound awful to the point I rather shoot with the electronic shutter
On the other hand the sensor is great, AF is amazing and IBIS is much better than Q3. But it's not something I enjoy using.

>>4358596
the greatest photographers known today use cameras that are absolutely terrible for people who enjoy using cameras. uncomfortable to hold, noticeable to be seen with, with all the fashion sense of a carhartt jacket and a casio g-shock. they are just too wrapped up in the photos coming out to care.

if you are mostly carrying your camera around, playing with it, toying around with vintage lenses and your cat, and looking at stuff on the back screen a q3 is definitely better than a sony

>>4358596
SNOY cameras are computers with a lens attached. Leica/Canon/Nikon cameras are actual photographic tools.

>>4358275
About to pull the trigger on a used Q3 for 4500€ as my one and only camera. Having a kid now I don't want to bring a lot of gear anymore. The 28mm 1.7 seems like a good allrounder especially with the crop modes. For 35mm crop that would still be an aperture of around f2.1.

>>4359206
For 35mm crop it would still be F1.7 just cropped.

>>4358598
> fashion sense of a carhartt jacket and a casio g-shock
> weird implication that this is a bad look
Tell me you are absolutely clueless and probably dress like a disgusting slob without telling me.

>>4359211
true, which makes it ~f2.1 equiv in terms of dof

>>4358313
Looks just like my 50 mm super takumar when shot wide open

>>4358275
just use your GR3 bro

>>4359247
Only if you change the perspective and now all equivalence goes out the window.

>>4359263
nothing to do with changing perspective
if you take the 28mm f1.7 and use the crop mode to shoot it as 35mm, it won't have the same dof as an actual 35mm f1.7 would

>>4359247
That really doesn't matter except for circle of confusion sharp focus nonsense. What people really want in bokeh is smooth falloff and less clinical rendering which has less to do with "EQUIVVER LENTS" and more to do with lens design and *dramatic* format size differences (ie: 35mm vs... 6x9) allowing the use of more telephoto, less corrected glass.

overall this camera costs thousands and thousands but isn't much better than a much cheaper fujifilm XE4 with a 23mm f2. for you, it may even be worse, because its bigger. if you pixel peep the noise or red/blue textures fuji is a bit worse, but if that's your thing there's always the sony a7c and basically any lens in the same FOV range made by one of the 100 people that make sony lenses. fuck, even micro four thirds will probably be good enough for your cat.

it does not even look like a real leica and its fixed lens, what's the point when leicas are all about pretending to be famous leica users and being able to use leica mount lenses natively? IIRC 90% the point of owning an M mount body was that leica corrected their digital sensors cover glass for wide angles that were designed for film, and suffered color shifts and shit with thicker digital sensor cover glass.

>>4359263
All equivalence also goes out the window if any sensor metrics are different. More or less electronic noise, megapixels, different features, etc. It becomes too full of "then, BUT IF....! ACKSHUALLY..." to be worth arguing about almost immediately. As a subject it is a waste of time for autists that like spreadsheets and literally jerk off to their gear. Any actual photographer who gets bored and takes a short lived interest in how camera technology actually works for trying to take a photo of something in space or scanning their film or something will eventually figure this out. Some crop sensors are actually BETTER than larger sensors and some larger sensors are BETTER than some crop sensors even "at eqevverlents" at worse.

>>4359267
it's s no different than crop factor equivalency for different sensor sizes, it's the same thing
nice schizo rant

>>4359286
lmao hes right. crop factor equivalency is literal worthless bullshit. take actual photos. the difference
in 99.9999% of actual photos between f1.8 f2.4 and f3.6 is a tree branch in the background being progressively slightly less blurry. between FF and APS-C it literally does not matter. 1 stop of ISO literally does not matter. the way the lens renders matters. body features like interchangeable lenses, IBIS, card slots, and autofocus matter. equivalence is a waste of time for autistic idiots who look at charts instead of taking pictures.

>>4359267
Can't really compare the image quality of the Q3 with Fuji cameras lmao. There is a huge difference in sharpness, dynamic range, dark performance, etc. You may compare it with FF Sony like the A7C but then again: You won't find a lens like the 28mm 1.7 in a equal size. Apart from the GM primes you can't even find the same sharpness. Still the Sony is a great camera if you don't mind the build quality, tiny EVF and overall shooting experience.

>>4359293
>leica q is so much better if i zoom in 400% and do muh equivalent aperture calculations with this chart
its fixed lens, doesnt look or work like a leica, and doesnt even have a viewfinder. kek. soulless tech spec autist camera for childless-rich IT employees.

>muh build quality
the funny part is a sony a7c with a 24mm f2.8 g is actually more durable than a leica q. leica is notorious for fragility and frequent repairs. sony is fine, but theres an army of paid thai shills lying about it on every comment section on the internet now
>sony has all these real problems that make it unusable! buy a nikon! dont be snoyboy! t. naht phat dic, professional ladyboy, nikon employee

in either case id rather buy a user x100v just to piss off pixel peeping autists.

>>4359264
Yea it would.
Stop being obtuse.

>>4359297
it would have the same dof according to a computer mapping sharpness

to a human it would look different because wide angle lenses have a bokeh wall like fake iphone bokeh and telephoto lenses have a gradual melting effect

>>4359296
Why does leica have so many reliability problems? Finding an affordable digital M is a fucking minefield
>not that one these two buttons randomly cut out
>that ones sensor rusts
>that one has a bug where photos have green lines on them
>that one never had a firmware bug fixed
No wonder they just rebadge panasonic products for their professional cameras.

Theres a lot of stories like this
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4718138
For a brand that gets outsold by pentax! 1 dead canon is out of millions, one dead leica is out of a few thousand.

The only good premium camera brands are hasselblad and phase one

Leica Q3
>Damn expensive but still ok for me
>Could break anytime because reliablity issues

X100VI
>unsharp even in center
>not available anyway

Ricoh GRIII
>at least sharp
>compact
>dust issues, not weatherproof
>no evf

Why is there no perfect fixed lens camera? Guess I just get the new iphone 16 pro and search for another hobby

>>4359297
it would look similar in terms of dof to a 35mm f2.1, not f1.7
or do you think crop factor dof equivalency between sensor sizes is just not a thing either?
it's no different

>>4359311
>muh line chart sharpness at 400% pixel peep
All those happy people with their x100s going back to the original must be insane.

If you really cared you’d stop coping and get a fuji gfx100s.

>>4359319
>and get a fuji gfx100s.
That is the plan once they release the rumored fixed lens gfx.

I've had the x100v before and sold it after I realized how bad it is. There are a few sharp lenses on the fuji lineup like the xf33mm1.4 though but the x100 ones are just bad. Even the improved mark 2.

>>4359324
>i need giant gfx100 i dream of for 900% pixel peep
kek
the most important photographs in history were taken with blurry lenses and 35mm film that might have been “24mp” if they had a7rvs and drum scanners but turned out much worse because they had dirty enlarger lenses instead

>>4359319
>all those happy people
>one of the most flipped and re-sold cameras out there
Good meme, you should do stand up

>>4359298
Pseudoscience.
>>4359312
All I'm saying is you cannot quantify a true equivalence without leaving holes in any theory you make up so leave it at 28mm f1.7 cropped/uncropped and avoid this whole discussion.

File: IMG_0376.jpg (675 KB, 851x1668)

675 KB JPG

>>4359335
Camera reviewers actually used to do 3d sharpness maps of cameras instead of 3-zone lp/mm graphs that demonstrated this effect and told you more about how your photos would look than the lenstip and optical limits graph shit so no its not really pseudoscience

Its a lost art because it was inconvenient for marketing departments because “bigger number taller line better” sells lenses more effectively than in depth analysis showing how field curvature and DOF falloff perform with that lens. I wonder if its because all these giant wonderprimes and SUPERSHARP! zooms would look worse with harsher dof falloff and sideways field curvature if they still did these?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	851
Image Height	1668
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:09:26 11:33:38
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	851
Image Height	1668
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4359345
What am I even looking at here? Looks like some kind of thermal imaging. Predator vision.

>>4359349
Its a resolution heatmap of the lenses depth of field at 30 lp/mm, showing you the actual shape and quality of the DOF in real three dimensional space instead of “bigger number sharper lens” tests done against a flat piece of paper. The “hot” parts are sharper and in better focus. One is depth horizontally and the other is depth vertically.

In my opinion if you cant read stuff like that it doesnt matter what lens you buy because it cant be that quality critical, just use whats generally well liked and reasonably priced instead of blowing $750-$2000 per lens and take photos

File: 517.jpg (17 KB, 679x452)

17 KB JPG

>>4359267
>overall this camera costs thousands and thousands but isn't much better than a much cheaper fujifilm XE4 with a 23mm f2
poorfag cope and seethe

>>4359373
>”u poor? money doesnt matter to me” - conveniently stops shopping at 1/2 his credit limit, has no kids, and lives with his mom
lol every time

>>4359335
> so leave it at 28mm f1.7 cropped/uncropped and avoid this whole discussion
op was correct in their description, you're the one that made an issue out of it
yes, if you "well actually" enough, you can just say equivalence doesn't matter at all because all photos are always necessarily different
if that's your mindset, should have just started there, guess we can't ever compare any two cameras or lenses or systems, ever

>>4359386
Equivalence is a synthetic benchmark. The only real life situation it matters for is low light closeups of living things. For everything else you can shoot base ISO or use a tripod.

>>4359392
exactly, equivalence doesn't matter at all because all photos are always necessarily different and thus comparing cameras and lenses is pointless
i did not realize depth of field is synthetic though, thank you for the info

>>4359379
Bruh. Its only like $6k. Easily affordable if you have a job and live in a first world country. Just how poor are you?

>>4359423
He called it, bro.
>BRO I CAN AFFORD THAT! GET A JOB! IM FUCKING WHITE THATS WHY IM RICH!
>half the average zoomers credit limit
You look, act, and think like a hood rich nigga who fell into a bucket of bleach. The leica Q is the faux gold spinner rims and maaco paintjob on a used caddy of photography. You buy $300 sneakers and say "i made it homes, im ballin now" too? Sheeeeiiit!

>Not
>Even
>A
>Real
>Leica
>KEK

File: takeyourmeds.jpg (38 KB, 554x554)

38 KB JPG

>>4359433

>>4359379
>conveniently stops shopping at 1/2 his credit limit, has no kids
how is this bad

>>4359443
>the schizo is bad with finances
No surprise there

>>4359345
>f/1.4
RIP sharpness

>>4359443
>how is racking up 5-10k of debt and dying a genetic dead end to impress 4chan bad
wow its worse than anyone could have ever imagined

im glad i shoot micro four thirds so i can afford to have progeny and save for retirement. what are you going to do, kill yourself when you get dementia?

low budget ff and apsc bros (dslr a7iii xt4 etc) are cool too. if you spend more than maybe $2500 american on photography and you dont make money from it you are certified stupid.
-sent from my gx85

>>4359299
Leica isn't a premium camera company, it's a mediocre larping camera company. I shit on people buying Fuji XTs, but at least they are not delusional enough to get a Leica

>>4360324
I don't know what level of cope and delusion you have to be in order to re-define well known business definitions. It's a very roundabout way of saying I can never afford one and I'm mad.

>>4360324
>poorfag cope

>>4359345
I shoot commercial/fashion full time and have no idea what this graph means, lol.

>>4359311
just stop down bro

>>4359319
I am gonna buy the utter shit out of their fixed lens G series if they're not fucking retards about it and if they make it 28mm like it goddamned well should be like my GSW690

>>4360328
>>4360329
>brandfagging this hard
Leica's not going to know of your miserable existence ever no matter how hard you defend them online on a cambodian basket-weaving website

>>4360329
>Cant afford a $5000 bag of dog turds huh
>Poor!
Retard living paycheck to paycheck with a credit card. You lease a new car too?

>>4358318
>28
you can crop