Leica Q2 as a first camera? [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)̲̅$̲̅] (edit: Q3) (edit 2: I don't want a camera)

[LensOfDylan]

Hello everyone,

At the risk—no—the guarantee of being ridiculous, I am considering buying a Leica Q2 as my first camera purchase. "BUT DYLAN," you cry. However, I reply calmly, "No." [insert crying soyjack vs chad meme or something idk]

Budget:
As a student taking a partial break from school, with a good few job prospects, and no notable living expenses for the coming year (not counting the overloaded burgers I get from The Melt on occasion), I have a bit of flexibility to put my money towards mostly whatever I want as long as I put a good amount towards investing in my future (index fund, other investment accounts, workstation/PC, other gear for my work, etc). My budget is basically whatever money I can earn within the next year (up to $20k give or take with only 25 hours per week for 40 weeks plus another $10-12k for a 3D modeling project I’m hoping to sell soon) minus a chunk of currently uncertain size (enough to invest in my index fund and set aside money to build a top of the line 3D modeling/animation/rendering workstation plus displays and other peripherals over the course of the next year and a half being about $4000-4500 for the tower and ~$2000-2500 for the display array depending on when I get the parts).

Current Gear:
I currently use an iPhone 11 Pro and will be upgrading to an iPhone 14 Pro whenever the iPhone 15 lineup will be released. I have access to an "old" Canon DSLR of some sort that, upon searching the house as of writing, I cannot find, and hence, I haven't access to said camera. HEHE

My "Skill" Level:
I guess this is worth mentioning, but this wouldn't be the first camera that I have used, but it would be the first I buy. This is basically the key detail that the clickbait hinges on. To be clear, I've probably taken a photo or two with—say, a camera or so. I know much more about the elements of an image than I do about creating them with a camera as a result of my experience with pencil drawing, painting, 3D art/animation, and cinematography; and lack thereof with dedicated photo cameras.

Use Cases/Subject Matters:

primary priorities:
- scouting filming locations
- storyboarding for film projects
- self documentation
- album cover art
- 3D art reference material
- surreal
- abstract

secondary priorities:
- aviation
- nature
- landscape
- street photography
- architecture
- weather

experimentation:
- macro
- birds
- floral
- fashion
- video? (unlikely with an iPhone 14 for that job)

My Philosophy and Desired Features:
I play guitar among other instruments, and have a rather simple but quite good electric guitar rig. Many guitarists like to have a lot of pedals between their guitar and their amp, but I would prefer to hear as little as possible change between the 11 gauge roundwound strings on my Fender Jazz Stratocaster and the 12 inch Celestion Creamback speaker in my Chilewich Chalk Fender Deluxe Reverb - 1965 reissue amp. The only thing I have between the guitar and the amp is The White Pedal, which is a fuzz pedal or transistor based hard-clipping signal distortion unit modeled after the 1967 Vox Conqueror amp's solid state distortion circuit (which also uses germanium transistors). To me, a gain pedal such as that fuzz/distortion pedal is only an extension of the guitar amp's own preamp and amplifier sections. Nonlinearity is a natural component of both tube and transistor based amplifiers. By adding a fuzz pedal, this only expands that preexisting capacity and adds to the response to my picking dynamics. I don't like many other effects that alter things other than gain/dynamics/levels. Other effects like chorus, delay, modulation, etc distract me from my playing and strips away my ability to express myself as I begin to chase and tweak sounds that are beyond my voice as a guitarist. I definitely didn't feel like my playing was worth the gear I was getting at the time of buying the guitar and later the amp, but I've been growing into the rig as I have become a better player.

Photography is no different. I hate features and options. I don't like such frills due to their capacity for distraction as an artist and depletion of mental and emotional energy especially as a person with ADHD. The tendency of extra features to waste a tool designer's resources is also another problem which lends itself to cheaping out on other elements of a product or bloating it and its cost. I want a tool designed for its own purpose, not a tool for far more than its core function. The Leica Q2 has a fixed lens which means I can't mess around with all sorts of random options for lenses and unnecessary features of those random options. The sensor has a h*ck ton of megapixels which means the digital zoom is more than adequately usable. It isn't coated with buttons either which is a very nice thing for just focusing on the image and the composition.

A professor of mine said that having two monitors is great when working on 3D modeling, animation, and other such things in a piece of software like Autodesk Maya because you can throw all your tools on one display and keep the art on the other. This allows you to focus on the art and make good art when you look at the main display and allows you to set your tools accordingly when you focus on the secondary display. By minimizing the number of visible controls on the camera Leica has made a system that would allow me to focus on my composition and the story I want to tell with the image.

Also, the Q2 Ghost is the most beautiful camera I have ever seen in my life. As soon as I saw that camera for the first time, I realized that I have never liked the look of any camera before that moment and became so thoroughly inspired to spend more time on developing my photography skills. Being of durable and rugged construction would pair quite nicely with my cautious nature so assuming no catastrophic failure of judgement or muscular stability, I think I will have a camera to last me a great while.

My interest in this camera comes from the stripped back experience that people have described as well as the visual appeal of the camera itself. To be clear about my perspective on high end art related gear, the words of Kurt Cobain resonate with me, “I've never considered musical equipment very sacred.” Even if I want nice, rare, or expensive gear (I will get a Vox Conqueror someday), I recognize that it is just a tool. What is sacred, however, is your connection with your tools and your desire to express yourself with them. I'm fairly confident that a stripped back and focused shooting experience with more of a process than just clicking the button on my phone actually would speak to me.

Going by the assumption that money will not be an issue when I intend to buy in about 3-4 months, is there any other issue that anyone would recommend I consider before buying this camera? I've been reading about the camera and watching a lot of YouTube videos reviewing the camera. The only thing that once had deterred me before I had any job opportunities open up no longer bothers me.

Don't tell my mom.

HEHE

 

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day mate

Wow- after reading your post I almost need a cuppa break! ... Okay- I will live dangerously and try to respond intelligently

So you've used 'several cameras' before -and- you think that you're going to earn some money in the near future -and- you think that by buying (possibly) the most expensive fixed/single-lensed camera on the market that you can justify that purchase.

There is no doubt that Leica cameras or lenses are classified as 'the best' as essentially they are hand-made from selected components (in conjunction with Panasonic). Whether you as a (seemingly) rank amateur will get the best from that camera is arguable

To me- if you had a history of 10-yrs of commercial photography then the purchase could easily be justified. With (seemingly) zero commercial / selling / dealing on commission / photography behind you, I sadly feel that you are kidding yourself that this purchase will give you that commercial start to life

Successful photographers are those with a business minder who does the 80% needed to sell the photographer's images. The images area the 20% that bring in clients. So my question to you is "what business experience do you have -or- do you have an experienced agent who is going to market your images ahead of the other 9999 already established image-makers already selling in a very over-loaded marketplace?

Hope this helps
Phil

 

[cgw]

Verbosity aside, you should lose the Leica fetish--i.e., top-shelf gear is no protection against rejection. Frankly, I'd look into Fujifilm gear. The fixed lens X100 series(now in its fifth iteration) or the MILC X-Tx series bodies are well worth a look. Buena suerte.

 

[LensOfDylan]

My concerns are about the camera itself and its intrinsic qualities as an object, not the price as a product. I'm just wondering if there are other drawbacks besides the price that should really be considered that could make the camera something to avoid. I've done research and found no issues that concern me otherwise.

Wow- after reading your post I almost need a cuppa break!

lol I try

Okay- I will live dangerously and try to respond intelligently

As far as I'm concerned, I am the one living dangerously, and you are still responding intelligently.

So you've used 'several cameras' before -and- you think that you're going to earn some money in the near future -and- you think that by buying (possibly) the most expensive fixed/single-lensed camera on the market that you can justify that purchase.

No, I have no justification for the purchase other than, "I could buy it and use it." This applies to literally any camera, but this one costs more than most.

There is no doubt that Leica cameras or lenses are classified as 'the best' as essentially they are hand-made from selected components (in conjunction with Panasonic). Whether you as a (seemingly) rank amateur will get the best from that camera is arguable

I doubt I'd get the best out of it for a while and I wouldn't care to argue that I could or couldn't but I think I could grow towards that "best" point. However, gear may have technical fidelity that makes a difference in the visuals, but the art is in the hands of its creator, not the machinations of those who make the tools. I doubt I'd start out by getting the most out of most cameras no matter how high or low their fidelity.

To me- if you had a history of 10-yrs of commercial photography then the purchase could easily be justified. With (seemingly) zero commercial / selling / dealing on commission / photography behind you, I sadly feel that you are kidding yourself that this purchase will give you that commercial start to life

Cameras are not necessary for the career I intend to pursue but I could still use it to contribute to my career indirectly. As someone interested in pursuing a career in animation/film/vfx, this is not going to be the tool to do the heavy lifting for developing the core of my portfolio. That will be done on a workstation/PC. However, I recognize that no amount of gear will compensate for a lack of skill and knowledge. I'm not trying to compensate for either because, aside from doing the hard work necessary to develop my skill and knowledge, there is no way to compensate.

Successful photographers are those with a business minder who does the 80% needed to sell the photographer's images. The images area the 20% that bring in clients. So my question to you is "what business experience do you have -or- do you have an experienced agent who is going to market your images ahead of the other 9999 already established image-makers already selling in a very over-loaded marketplace?

Luckily for me, I am not trying to compete with other photographers. I am using photography to assist my work in other fields.

I appreciate your straightforward honesty because it is a good reminder to think carefully, critically, and levelly when looking at a purchase like this. I will reiterate that I am in a position of financial flexibility, however. I don't have notable expenses to pay off and I don't have much in the way of hefty spending habits to make this too troublesome of a purchase.

Verbosity aside

Verbosity is my middle name. That was very hurtful.

you should lose the Leica fetish--i.e., top-shelf gear is no protection against rejection.

The question is, who do you think is rejecting what? The only things being rejected are bad photos and the only one to really reject them is me.

Frankly, I'd look into Fujifilm gear. The fixed lens X100 series(now in its fifth iteration) or the MILC X-Tx series bodies are well worth a look. Buena suerte.

Despite having been absolutely dead set on the Q2 I will consider Fujifilm and investigate their options. Thank you for your recommendation.

 

[Lottie]

As a fellow musician, I’m going to say something you already know. You will be able to make just as beautiful music on any old guitar as you can on your Fender (nice choice by the way, and I’m a pianist and woodwind player, but who doesn’t know Fenders are the kings of guitars?!). But, it doesn’t feel the same. You get used to your own instrument. To an audience listening, they cannot tell the difference. I’d like a Steinway piano - but in my case that’s not a big dilemma as I can’t afford one! I play an adequate Yamaha instead, it’s only a base model - but I get huge joy from it, regardless. A Steinway can cost more than the average house, and I don’t think they do mortgages on pianos so that’s me out as hubby convinced me a house is a little more practical.

Same applies to your choice of camera. The camera won’t make you a better (or a worse) photographer. You will grow in to the Leica camera just the same as you would a Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Sony or any other. Possibly with a healthier bank balance! Technology in cameras is evolving so fast too that whatever you buy today could be overshadowed by a new model with double the mega pixels and an even better sensor in a couple of years time. Who knows?

Having said all that, Leica is, no doubt, the Rolls Royce of the camera world. If you truly have your heart set on it, and you can afford it, then why not? You would certainly enjoy using it. But there are other options out there. I don’t know much about fixed lens cameras, but maybe you should try a few different ones out before choosing which to buy, whether it be a Leica or not. You can hire cameras. Have a play around with them before deciding.

 

[smoke665]

Like Ozzie above your TMTR post was a bit much. As to the decision to purchase a Leica Q2, I see it more suited to someone with a brand fetish, than someone really interested in pursuing photography.

First off with a release date of 2019, in the tech world that's ancient. New full frame bodies only, are near the same price today, and offer the latest in technology. Start adding lens options and you can easily drop more than double the cost. The Q2's fixed 28mm f/1.7 is a good quality lens, but so are many other brand name fast lenses (some of which can cost more than the camera). The Leica is a fixed focal length that relies on digital zoom software to mimic up to an equivalent 75 mm. Digital zoom, crops a portion of the image and then enlarges it back to size. Image quality/resolution is reduced in comparison with the original one. However, there is no relation between optical zoom and the resolution of the photo, as optical zoom only enlarges the whole image or the subject to a certain range. So image quality only depends upon the mega pixel (MP) of the camera. I would think, the limitations of focal length options of the Q2 would make it unsuitable for most serious photographers. 75mm is the bare minimum for most portrait work I do in studio, outside a 70-200mm is my go to. Sports/wildlife routinely use from 300-600mm plus, and with a minimum focus distance of 6.6 inches, it wouldn't be ideal for macro.

For fear of becoming a TMTR reply, I won't say anything about the other limitations other than to mention erganomics, ISO, stabilization, etc that would apply to any older model.

Whatever you choose is your choice, my reasons above are my choice and may not be the same as yours. Good luck with whatever you choose.

 

[pixmedic]

I mean, if you have $5k to drop on a fixed lens camera and you are really really really dead set on buying a Leica, then I say go for it. the Q2 is impressive (and by all rights, it SHOULD be for $5k) but for less than half that price you can get a Fuji X100V and have a lot of money left over. That being said, the Leica is a full-frame sensor and the Fuji is not so that is something else to take into consideration. Sony makes full-frame mirrorless cameras so that might be an option as well should you look at Leica alternatives at some point.

specific cameras aside, don't forget that you aren't just buying a camera....you are buying into a camera system. Is the Q2's 28mm f1.7 lens the only lens you are ever going to need? if you are sure that is indeed all you will ever need, then you can kindly disregard my previous statement. Otherwise, make sure to look at what other lenses you might need in the future and what cameras will be needed for them. once you start needing (or wanting) different lenses, you need a camera that allows you to swap lenses as well and that will easily start getting pretty cost prohibitive where Leica is concerned.

if money is no concern then go nuts. that Leica boasts insane specs, but in all honesty, I don't really see it producing significantly better results than any number of other camera systems that would justify the price tag. for the price of that one fixed lens Leica, you could get into several cameras/lenses from pretty much any other manufacturer.

 

[Don Fischer]

I mean, if you have $5k to drop on a fixed lens camera and you are really really really dead set on buying a Leica, then I say go for it. the Q2 is impressive (and by all rights, it SHOULD be for $5k) but for less than half that price you can get a Fuji X100V and have a lot of money left over. That being said, the Leica is a full-frame sensor and the Fuji is not so that is something else to take into consideration. Sony makes full-frame mirrorless cameras so that might be an option as well should you look at Leica alternatives at some point.

specific cameras aside, don't forget that you aren't just buying a camera....you are buying into a camera system. Is the Q2's 28mm f1.7 lens the only lens you are ever going to need? if you are sure that is indeed all you will ever need, then you can kindly disregard my previous statement. Otherwise, make sure to look at what other lenses you might need in the future and what cameras will be needed for them. once you start needing (or wanting) different lenses, you need a camera that allows you to swap lenses as well and that will easily start getting pretty cost prohibitive where Leica is concerned.

if money is no concern then go nuts. that Leica boasts insane specs, but in all honesty, I don't really see it producing significantly better results than any number of other camera systems that would justify the price tag. for the price of that one fixed lens Leica, you could get into several cameras/lenses from pretty much any other manufacturer.

I don't understand the idea that full frame cameras are much better if at all. I've never shot one of course, but with my camera's I get picture's I like. probably if I shot FF I'd also get picture's I like! But on the down side I could probably look at a photo taken by both, same photo, and I wonder if I could tell the difference?

 

[pixmedic]

I don't understand the idea that full frame cameras are much better if at all. I've never shot one of course, but with my camera's I get picture's I like. probably if I shot FF I'd also get picture's I like! But on the down side I could probably look at a photo taken by both, same photo, and I wonder if I could tell the difference?

"better" is a relative term. I'm not implying that one is "better" than the other, only that it's something to consider. a full-frame sensor does have advantages over smaller sensors, especially concerning low-light situations. modern technology has largely bridged much of the gap between large and small sensors due to higher ISO capabilities and pixel handling, but it is still an important feature to consider when looking to purchase a camera system. That being said, larger sensors require larger lenses to cover said sensor, and lens size can also be a determining factor when choosing a camera system.

as for noticing a difference... honestly, modern cameras are so good now that for most purposes I doubt many people that aren't very experienced photographers themselves would notice any difference between pictures taken with various cameras. Good glass is far more important than the camera it is on so for me, I would prioritize lens selection and quality over the camera body itself, especially when talking about relatively new camera bodies. (that part is less relevant for a fixed lens camera, but there's still a lens to compare)

a question to ask yourself though... if you don't think you could tell the difference in photos taken with an FX vs a DX sensor, why drop $5k on a Leica when a $1k or $2k camera would, in theory, work just as well?
I would like to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't buy the Leica, only that as an inexperienced photographer you should make sure you have done your due diligence research-wise to make sure that it's suitable for your purpose.
if so, go for it.

 

[LensOfDylan]

[...]

Having said all that, Leica is, no doubt, the Rolls Royce of the camera world. If you truly have your heart set on it, and you can afford it, then why not? You would certainly enjoy using it. But there are other options out there. I don’t know much about fixed lens cameras, but maybe you should try a few different ones out before choosing which to buy, whether it be a Leica or not. You can hire cameras. Have a play around with them before deciding.

This sentiment is something I definitely feel. I don't know why it never came to mind, but I will be sure to try out a variety of cameras before committing to one.

Like Ozzie above your TMTR post was a bit much. As to the decision to purchase a Leica Q2, I see it more suited to someone with a brand fetish, than someone really interested in pursuing photography.

I like to talk and at some point, maybe it would help to think before I start spouting whatever lol. I don't care much for the Leica brand. To be frank, it was until a month ago that I thought the entire brand was stupid. It surely isn't stupid, but it surely would be financially unwise for someone with a restricted budget to buy a product for the brand rather than buy the product for the product. I have no interest in Leica beyond the Q series.

First off with a release date of 2019, in the tech world that's ancient. New full frame bodies only, are near the same price today, and offer the latest in technology. Start adding lens options and you can easily drop more than double the cost. The Q2's fixed 28mm f/1.7 is a good quality lens, but so are many other brand name fast lenses (some of which can cost more than the camera). The Leica is a fixed focal length that relies on digital zoom software to mimic up to an equivalent 75 mm. Digital zoom, crops a portion of the image and then enlarges it back to size. Image quality/resolution is reduced in comparison with the original one. However, there is no relation between optical zoom and the resolution of the photo, as optical zoom only enlarges the whole image or the subject to a certain range. So image quality only depends upon the mega pixel (MP) of the camera. I would think, the limitations of focal length options of the Q2 would make it unsuitable for most serious photographers. 75mm is the bare minimum for most portrait work I do in studio, outside a 70-200mm is my go to. Sports/wildlife routinely use from 300-600mm plus, and with a minimum focus distance of 6.6 inches, it wouldn't be ideal for macro.

I'm well aware of the tech world; I live in the Silicon Valley. Things move rather quickly. Let's say I went for a Q3 instead of a Q2. Would you say the extra few hundred dollars for better sensor, battery, video capabilities, etc vastly improve the value proposition? The Q2 has 47Mp and the Q3 has 60Mp. The reason the Q2 works for something like 35 mm and 50 mm crop is because the sensor has a surplus of pixels to work with. Would you say that the ~11.8Mp remaining would be viable when you bring it to a 50 mm crop? I wouldn't really consider asking about 75 mm crop on a Q2, but a Q3 seems like it could make the 75 mm crop viable for a digital format, and depending on other factors, possibly decent for prints.

After quickly investigating my favorite photos on my phone, the vast majority of the shots were 26 mm equivalent and a select few were even in 13 mm equivalent. I won't be doing portraits, and macro is more of just something to mess around with and has nothing to do with any of the work I want to be front and center in my portfolio (as previously stated, the portfolio isn't even about photography even if my work is assisted by photography).

For fear of becoming a TMTR reply, I won't say anything about the other limitations other than to mention erganomics, ISO, stabilization, etc that would apply to any older model.

Whatever you choose is your choice, my reasons above are my choice and may not be the same as yours. Good luck with whatever you choose.

Thank you for your input. This would certainly help me with setting my own expectations should I follow through with the purchase.

[...]

specific cameras aside, don't forget that you aren't just buying a camera....you are buying into a camera system. Is the Q2's 28mm f1.7 lens the only lens you are ever going to need? if you are sure that is indeed all you will ever need, then you can kindly disregard my previous statement. Otherwise, make sure to look at what other lenses you might need in the future and what cameras will be needed for them. once you start needing (or wanting) different lenses, you need a camera that allows you to swap lenses as well and that will easily start getting pretty cost prohibitive where Leica is concerned.

[...]

This is why I intend to investigate other cameras. However, from what I understand, the single lens with various cropping modes work really well on the Q2 and especially well on the Q3 due to the number of Mp in their sensors respectively. I have yet to find a photo I have taken on my phone that is in anything but 26 mm (and occasional 13 mm) equivalent that I like and would use for anything I personally find important. Why use different lenses when I could find different distances or perspectives?

as for noticing a difference... honestly, modern cameras are so good now that for most purposes I doubt many people that aren't very experienced photographers themselves would notice any difference between pictures taken with various cameras. Good glass is far more important than the camera it is on so for me, I would prioritize lens selection and quality over the camera body itself, especially when talking about relatively new camera bodies. (that part is less relevant for a fixed lens camera, but there's still a lens to compare)

a question to ask yourself though... if you don't think you could tell the difference in photos taken with an FX vs a DX sensor, why drop $5k on a Leica when a $1k or $2k camera would, in theory, work just as well?
I would like to reiterate that I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't buy the Leica, only that as an inexperienced photographer you should make sure you have done your due diligence research-wise to make sure that it's suitable for your purpose.
if so, go for it.

It primarily comes down to the shooting experience. Two technically identical cameras with a different shooting experience will make you feel differently about what you're doing and two technically different cameras will make you shoot differently. I like what I've heard about the build quality, I love what I've seen of the visual design, I figure I'd love the ergonomics (I cannot stand using things designed with a heavy emphasis on ergonomics), but most importantly, I love the straightforward nature of the process and the corresponding limitations described in reviews and other materials found during research.

 

[smoke665]

It primarily comes down to the shooting experience

Out of everything you've said, you finally hit your nail on the head. In photography there are many individual genre which have different equipment requirements. If it suits your needs it's as good as any, just consider that as @pixmedic said above when you buy into any camera system you're locking yourself in. It's like taking a wife, you can look, even try it out for a time, but once you say I do, it's going to cost you $$$$ to change your mind.

As to the Q2 vs Q3, my experience with manufacturers is that support tends to dwindle the further you get from the release date, especially when a new model release comes out. There's more than just the increased megapixels, the Q3 features the Maestero IV (rather than II) processr, a significant increase in processor capabilities. The Q3 has unlimited video record vs limited on the Q2 and 8k resolution vs 4k. The Q3 has 319 focus points vs 49 on the Q2. One thing I find extremely useful is the Q3 features a tilting LCD screen vs the fixed screen on the Q2. One thing I did note is the Q2 has a faster frame rate.

There's more but these are the most important to me. Enough so that I would go with the Q3 over the Q2.

 

[LensOfDylan]

Out of everything you've said, you finally hit your nail on the head. In photography there are many individual genre which have different equipment requirements. If it suits your needs it's as good as any, just consider that as @pixmedic said above when you buy into any camera system you're locking yourself in. It's like taking a wife, you can look, even try it out for a time, but once you say I do, it's going to cost you $$$$ to change your mind.

As to the Q2 vs Q3, my experience with manufacturers is that support tends to dwindle the further you get from the release date, especially when a new model release comes out. There's more than just the increased megapixels, the Q3 features the Maestero IV (rather than II) processr, a significant increase in processor capabilities. The Q3 has unlimited video record vs limited on the Q2 and 8k resolution vs 4k. The Q3 has 319 focus points vs 49 on the Q2. One thing I find extremely useful is the Q3 features a tilting LCD screen vs the fixed screen on the Q2. One thing I did note is the Q2 has a faster frame rate.

There's more but these are the most important to me. Enough so that I would go with the Q3 over the Q2.

Haha, sorry it took me a while to clearly state my most sober and level point which I hope I attempted to communicate previously. While I’m fairly happy with the idea of the Q2, I'm definitely leaning towards the Q3 after my interest has been validated here. Given that I’ve been thinking I’d do video with an iPhone 14 once I upgrade, I wasn’t originally planning to use the Q2 for much video because I wanted to use the iPhone to be able to edit depth of field and focal distance in post for my video series to make composite and freeze frame depth of field effects. However, for the less DoF effect heavy shots I think the Q3 would be great.

My main/only concern is the rolling shutter artifact for 4k video (which isn't even my primary purpose for the camera), but I don't need much in the way of action shots. For the most part, I'd be doing atmospheric and static medium and long shots with only a bit of character movement at most, which would be great to do with a Q3 given the way I have operated with my iPhone previously. I've been looking for information on the severity of the rolling shutter artifact but haven't found many conclusive statements...

 

[Don Fischer]

I think the OP should spring for the $5000 Leica. Be a good lesson in life!

 

[Rickbb]

First things first.

Take a basic photography class. This will teach you what a camera does and does not do.

Get a less, (cheap), expensive camera to learn on.

Then and only then jump in the deep end by getting the most expensive camera money can buy.

Just because I can drive a car does not mean I can enter and win a formula one race. (Or even be on the track with one.)

 

[cgw]

The OP left the building in August...