I’ve been testing the Sony RX1R III and Leica Q3 for three weeks, and it’s got me wondering: who is buying this type of camera?
Whether you’re a casual shooter or a professional photographer, you might be like me and not really understand this “genre” of cameras. These are compact, full-frame, fixed-lens luxury cameras. The Sony costs over $5,000 and the Leica over $7,000.
The Sony has a built-in 35mm f/2, while the Leica has a 28mm f/1.7. There’s no zoom and no swapping lenses. At first, I hated it. I’m used to shooting much tighter, and 30mm felt awkward. But once I started photographing people, I began to understand the appeal. It forces you closer, and that creates a more intimate look.
That said, these cameras are not as practical as they sound. They’re small, but not comfortable. The Leica feels like a beautifully built brick, and the Sony is so tiny it’s hard to hold. Going back to a fixed screen on the Sony was especially frustrating. No flip screen makes everyday shooting harder than it should be.eature-wise, they’re stripped down. No interchangeable lenses, limited ports, and in the Leica’s case, no mic input. The Q3 does shoot 8K video, but without proper audio options, it’s not useful for how I work (although I've heard some mics will work with the USB-C port). The Sony feels more familiar if you’re used to their system, and its autofocus is noticeably better. I consistently got sharper results with it.
Image quality from both is great, but I was surprised to find myself preferring Sony’s output more often than Leica’s. Even Leica’s color profiles are awkward to use with RAW files unless you go through their mobile app, which feels like a strange limitation for a camera at this level.
There were moments where I almost fell for the Sony. It feels like a mini pro camera. But then I remembered it costs $5,000 and I can’t change the lens.
If you want a compact full-frame camera, something like the Sony A7CR makes far more sense. It has the same sensor, way more features, and interchangeable lenses for less money.
At the end of the day, both of these cameras are incredibly impressive for their size... but size is the last thing I think about when bying a camera. When you compare their features to other similarly priced cameras, they can't compete. I think these cameras are best compared to luxury watches. They’re not about value or practicality. They’re about design, simplicity, and owning something unique. Three things I don't ever consider when buying a camera.
18 Comments
If you had asked me six weeks ago about this camera - the Q3 I'm referring to I would've said I think it's overpriced for what it is and it's not something I would necessarily be drawn to however my circumstances changed a little bit and I started to get curious and talk to a couple of Q3 owners and they sent me some raw files and I had a play. I was then able to go and borrow a friend Q3 for a couple of days and I was hooked. The images that I've been able to take with it really good and I cannot fault the camera. It's quirky to use would be my description but I like the quirky nature of it. It's not running gun and the low light performance is fantastic. It definitely beats the GFX 100 RF and yes, it's a lot of money but guess what? Life is short and I'm not a rich man by any means but I can't afford nice gear. I want to talk about the shooting experience the beautiful leaf shutter the beautiful Bill quality. When you hold the camera the steel is almost cold in your hands. It feels like you're not taking any notice of anything else but you're beautiful photo that you're about to capture and that is the experience that this camera gives you that other cameras won't. And I don't think you really owned it on that too much and I do think there's a cultural difference between American photographers European and I'm Australian however I'm from European heritage and I respect the history of photography as well. It's a beautiful camera at the Q3 and I love it. If you went down to your local car club you would find guys spending $50,000 on a car and not thinking anything of it but as soon as the photographer spends $8000 on a camera it's like that's insane. That's too expensive blah blah blah...... but what price do you put on joy? I think $8000 is actually fairly cheap to bring a lot of joy.
I'm glad you enjoy it and I wouldn't want to take that from you. I don't own a luxury watch but for some reason I enjoy watching content about luxury watches. Maybe one day I'll be convinced to buy one of those as well.
Interestingly, I worked my Q3 into my workflow. I've shot it at weddings, events and a whole bunch of things. It can be a workflow camera depending on what you shoot.
People with too much money :) its ok treat yourself. Id get the gfx rf if I had the cash
I might sound like I'm rich and snobby but I own two GFX cameras and the Q3 was a natural progression towards owning something smaller. I do really well in my small photography business but I have a very well paid day job that I do four days a week and I've structured it like that so I've got plenty of money floating about from two sources of income which means I can afford the gear I want if I was a full-time photographer I probably would not buy the Q3 but I actually don't believe in being a full-time photographer. I think it's too hard these days. There's too much competition so I stick with photography for about two days a week and turn over a high volume and that's how I can afford it
Sounds like its working out for you. But also, its probably the weekend photographers that are part of the too much competition problem. Having very good gear and being able to offer better or comparable prices since their livelyhood is not photography dependent :) its not a jab aimed at you, I am honestly glad for you. I guess I am a pro photographer that doesnt do jobs (for multiple reasons). The amount of cameras in our house is frankly frightening...
I would never buy either of these expensive cameras regardless of their functionality. I really had no reason to watch this video except that Lee was the reviewer. Lee you are the best reviewer on Fstoppers. An enjoyable few minutes, thanks.
Thanks :)
"It forces you..."
Reviewers typically use those magic words to justify deliberately-hobbled cameras and lenses. The lack of capabilities is supposedly what's missing in our creativity. We have to be gimped by camera manufacturers, and pay handsomely for the privilege, to unlock our true nature as photographers. We have to say, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
It's a scam.
Watch out for those words: "It forces you..."
My A7CII was £1799 plus my 40mm lens £499. That’s £2298, way off the price of either of these cameras and way more compact than the Q.
This is objectively incorrect. Gear matters in photography and whatever you carry at a particular time always has constraints. Some more and some less. But there are always constraints and these influence what and how you shoot. A fixed lens constrains you more than a zoom will. And I think anyone who’s used a single prime lens for any length of time will tell you that after some time they began *seeing* better at the focal length they are using.
Limiting the functional aspects of gear can either frustrate or focus the mind and free it from trying to see everything at every focal length.
Is the Q considered compact because it has a built in lens? I wouldn’t say in any sense of the word the Q is compact. My A7CII and new Voigtlander 40mm f2 is a much smaller setup than the Q, just not a fixed lens.
Snobbery
I’m retired and have been for a while. I did better than I thought I would, so I could buy a snob camera now. I’m not sure why I would. I don’t take a lot of photos any more. My travel is local. I travelled a lot for work and I don’t care for jet travel anymore. Even the Hasselblad 100 megapixel cameras would be as pointless as these. I think the professional film photographer thing that went on for over 30 years made all of this less appealing. I leave the DSLR at home and take a point and shoot or use my phone now.
I have to admit David until I bought one. I probably thought the same now I love my Q3. It's my most favourite camera and life is short and I always wanted to own one and now that I own one I absolutely love it and wooden part with it if I could only have one camera out of all the cameras I own and I've got some nice gear the Q3 would be the last that I would sell.
I have a Sony RX100V. It has a simple zoom and has a lot of features. I feel the same way about that camera. I bought it as a trashed camera but it turned out to work fine. I cleaned it up and fixed what needed fixing. I prefer this to a camera bag full of lenses.
I own the Q3 43 and for me it has been a wonderful experience. What impresses me the most is the simplicity of the menu system, which is on a par with Hasselblad's (which I rented to test it out. Yes, the Leica is expensive but if you only have one camera, which I have sold others which I wasn't using to afford, then it isn't so bad. Primarily for me having a fixed lens is critical. Thanks to a stroke, changing lenses is a non-starter and the Leica is light enough for me to use one handed.
Reviews of super-expensive gear usually have the pragmatists shrugging their shoulders and moving on. However, their are two factors that I rarely see mentioned:
1. Crazy Rich Asians - I don't mean to single out Asians specifically, but in many cultures, the successful close of large business deals is often accompanied by a present as a token of appreciation. It's usually an item that reeks quality and value. There is nothing better than a Rolex watch or a Leica, and it's tax deductable. Leica has been tapping into this market for a long time. Other manufacturers just drool.
2. The Stradivarius Effect - Undoubtedly an excellent violin. Is it any better than any other excellent violin? I don't know. But for sure, any violinist holding a $10 million piece of wood, plays better. I think the same holds for shooting with a Leica.