I tested the Leica Q3 43 for a week and fell in love — there's just one problem
But as is the nature of my job, I'm very lucky that I get to test Leica cameras too. I recently reviewed the Leica M11-D rangefinder and the Leica Q3 43 compact camera. Both of them got glowing recommendations for me, and when I had to return the loan units, I had tears in my eyes (slight exaggeration but you get the sentiment).
Pin-sharp precision is what the Leica Q3 43 is all about. Featuring a 60.3MP CMOS sensor and utilizing Leica's best-in-class autofocus system, the Q3 43 captures stunning images with beautiful color reproduction. The new 43mm lens has a standard field of view and comes with a dedicated macro mode. The camera itself is compact and comfortable to use, and for those who like shooting video, it can record 8K/30fps and 4K/60fps footage.
Leica cameras are the pinnacle of sharpness and image quality, as my in-depth testing has proven. And I, for one, wish I could get one for myself. But there is a very big hurdle here: four figures that usually come after or before a currency symbol.
So what makes the Q3 43 worth the premium? Let me show you.
If you were active back in the good ol' days of Tumblr, remember how everyone used to say things like, "That's sharper than Benedict Cumberbatch's cheekbones"? (Or Tom Hiddleston's or Cate Blanchett's, fill in the blanks with your celebrity of choice.) That's how I'd describe the Leica Q3 43's image quality — it's sharper than all the knives in my kitchen.
The Q3 43 has a 60.3MP sensor and utilizes Leica's latest Maestro IV processor to make images feel almost ethereal yet lifelike. Color reproduction is absolutely fantastic with a great balance between shadows and highlights. Plenty and plenty of detail is packed in these images, even when you zoom in.
Just take a look at the photo of the swan in the gallery above. Feathers? Sharp. Water droplets? Crystal clear. You could use these images straight out of the camera without having to do any post-processing.
That's the beauty of the Q3 43. It is a ridiculously good camera that gives you barely anything to complain about.
The Leica Q3 43 won me over as soon as I took it out of the box, to be honest. Its ability to capture gorgeous photos and video were the cherries on top of an already delicious cake. There aren't many cameras I test that make me go, "That's a beautiful camera," but the Q3 43 did.
It made me actually gasp when I unboxed it. It looks like a million bucks, sporting a compact yet premium look, its front wrapped in a leather-like material. It's as comfortable to hold as it is a treat for the eyes to look at.
If you think the Q3 43 is good for stills only, think again. This camera can shoot 4K/60fps and 8K/30fps video, making it great for casual video — I say "casual" because it doesn't have a 3.5mm headphones/mic input/output port, limiting its use out in the field for videography.
"So, Nikita, should I buy the Leica Q3 43?" I hear you ask, and I say yes, you should.
But if you aren't familiar with the vast world of cameras and have heard whispers about Leicas being great, I have some news for you. These cameras do not come cheap. The Q3 43 retails for $7,380 / £5,900 — but at least it's a fixed-lens camera so you won't need to spend extra on glass over the years.
If money is a concern, I completely get it. If you can afford it, though, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't buy the Q3 43. I wouldn't let the price tag put me off because this camera is so ridiculously easy to use with a straightforward control scheme.
If it's pure power and image clarity you're after, I can't think of a better camera to recommend. I'm transferring some extra money to my savings account every month now so that I can eventually, one day, get the Q3 43 for myself. That red dot sure costs a lot but to me, it feels like it's worth every cent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
QBTS: D-Wave Quantum Stock Plunges After Q2 Earnings Miss Estimate
Aug 7 - D-Wave Quantum Inc. (NYSE:QBTS) shares dropped nearly 2% in premarket trading Thursday after the company reported a wider-than-expected second-quarter loss. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with QBTS. The quantum computing firm posted an EPS of -$0.08, missing analyst expectations by $0.03. However, there was a silver lining, revenue came in at $3.1 million, comfortably beating Wall Street's forecast of $2.59 million. Despite the earnings miss, D-Wave's stock performance remains impressive. The stock trades around $17.58, marking a 58% gain over the past three months and an eye-popping 2,098% surge over the last year. Analyst sentiment has been mixed, with two EPS upgrades and one downgrade in the past 90 days. Investors seem to be betting on the long-term promise of quantum computing, even as the near-term results remain volatile. D-Wave's earnings story adds another layer to the broader tech earnings season, where innovation-heavy stocks are either soaring or sliding, depending on how closely they align with market expectations. Is QBTS Stock a Buy? Based on the one year price targets offered by 9 analysts, the average target price for D-Wave Quantum Inc is $20.11 with a high estimate of $30.00 and a low estimate of $12.00. The average target implies a upside of +14.40% from the current price of $17.58. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
QBTS Stock Gains on Tangible AI Use Cases: More Upside Ahead?
D-Wave Quantum QBTS is accelerating its momentum across both real-world quantum AI applications and deep tech hardware innovation. In terms of application, the company's quantum-enhanced AI is already yielding measurable gains across various domains. Earlier this week, the company's shares jumped following D-Wave's announcement that Japan Tobacco, which leveraged D-Wave's technology for quantum-assisted drug discovery, achieved superior results compared to traditional classical model training. Similarly, the Julich Supercomputing Centre in Germany reported improved accuracy in protein-DNA binding predictions. Added to this, TRIUMF, Canada's national particle accelerator center, demonstrated significant simulation speedups by integrating AI with quantum systems. These early successes validate the practical advantages of combining quantum computing with artificial intelligence. Complementing these use-case achievements is D-Wave's strategic investment in advanced cryogenic packaging, an initial step in scaling both its annealing and gate-model quantum architectures. The company is collaborating with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to develop superconducting bump-bond interconnects, a critical innovation aimed at enhancing the performance and manufacturability of quantum processors. This initiative is expected to unlock multiple hardware advantages, including higher qubit density, extended coherence times and support for multichip quantum processor designs, all essential for progressing toward D-Wave's ambitious 100,000-qubit roadmap. During the first few days of August, shares of D-Wave rallied 6.5% backed by the above developments. Month-to-Date QBTS Share Rally Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Diverging Paths Among Quantum Computing Rivals IonQ IONQ: It is advancing in quantum AI through its gate-based architecture, focusing on hybrid AI model training and partnerships with cloud providers. While strong in developer tooling and quantum machine learning, IonQ is yet to introduce a blockchain framework like QBTS, leaving a potential gap in its emerging markets strategy. Rigetti Computing RGTI: The company remains hardware-focused, prioritizing qubit fidelity and government contracts via its QCS platform. Though exploring AI, Rigetti lacks blockchain-specific initiatives and domain toolkits like D-Wave's PyTorch integration, making its approach more tech-centric and less diversified across emerging commercial applications. Average Target Price for QBTS Suggests Near-Term Upside Based on short-term price targets offered by nine analysts, D-Wave Quantum's average price target represents an increase of 8.7% from the last closing price of $17.18. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research D-Wave Quantum currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report IonQ, Inc. (IONQ) : Free Stock Analysis Report Rigetti Computing, Inc. (RGTI) : Free Stock Analysis Report D-Wave Quantum Inc. (QBTS) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
Tom's Guide
4 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I biked 11 miles with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — here's the winner
I biked 11 miles wearing the Garmin Forerunner 570 on one wrist and the Apple Watch Series 10 on the other to find out which of these modern, powerhouse smartwatch models is the more capable fitness tracker. This is the second time these two have gone head-to-head in a Tom's Guide tracking accuracy challenge. In their previous showdown, where I walked 5,500 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570, the Garmin came out on top, but only by the thinnest of margins. Will the results be the same when I swap out walking for cycling? There's only one way to find out. The Garmin Forerunner 570 is a sporty, long-lasting smartwatch built for passionate runners. It comes packed with all sorts of fancy features to help you train for marathons and other racing events, improve your running form, maximize your recovery, and more. A bright AMOLED screen and comfy design make it a pleasure to have on the wrist. The Apple Watch Series 10 is one of the most well-rounded smartwatches you can buy today, with a sleek and comfortable case design, a bright and immersive screen, useful safety and wellness monitoring tools, features to help you keep tabs on your physical fitness and sleep, and access to an enormous library of apps. But first, how do these two smartwatches stack up? While the Apple Watch Series 10 debuted last fall, with a starting price of $399, the Garmin Forerunner 570 launched earlier this summer for $549. With better battery life than the Apple Watch, more fitness training and recovery tools, and a sporty aesthetic, the Forerunner 570 is designed to be a runner's best friend. The Apple Watch 10, meanwhile, is built to be the ultimate do-it-all smartwatch, offering a mix of useful fitness and wellness-tracking tools and plenty of useful smart apps. Both boast sizable AMOLED screens, but the Series 10 has a higher maximum brightness, making it easier to read in direct sunlight. Under the hood, you'll find comparably holistic tech, including optical heart rate sensors, pulse oximeters (though access to this is turned off on the Apple Watch 10 for U.S. customers), GPS for location tracking without a phone, altimeters for elevation tracking, and thermometers for body temp insights. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. However, one potential advantage you get with the Garmin when it comes to keeping tabs on outdoor workouts is a comparably more capable multi-band GPS antenna; the Series 10 only has a single-band antenna. The advantage of more bands is better connectivity and, as a result, potentially more precise tracking, particularly in locations with obstructed skies. My bike ride took me around Seattle, Washington's Lake Union, which is located right smack in the middle of the city, with tall buildings, bridges, and more blocking the heavens. It also took me through a heavily wooded area. Did Garmin's fancier GPS result in better data? Scroll down to see the results of my 11-mile bike ride with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570. As always, I ran Strava on an iPhone mounted to my handlebars as a control for this test. To avoid either device piggybacking location, elevation or speed data from the iPhone, I made sure to unpair both smartwatches before setting off. Apple Watch Series 10 Garmin Forerunner 570 Strava Distance 11.03 miles 11.09 miles 11.14 miles Elevation gain 647 feet 741 feet 663 feet Average speed (moving) 10.7 mph 11.7 mph 11.7 mph Max speed 20.7 mph 25.8 mph 25.8 mph Average heart rate 163 bpm 163 bpm n/a Max heart rate 178 bpm 179 bpm n/a Calories burned 615 calories 710 calories n/a Battery drain 16% 6% n/a All three tracking methods recorded similar total distances of just over 11 miles, with the Garmin being slightly closer to Strava's tally than the Apple Watch. Elevation data is an entirely different story. While the Series 10 was in the same general ballpark as Strava, Garmin seemingly way overcounted my climb for the ride. In fact, I shouldn't say seemingly. The Forerunner 570 did over-calculate my elevation gain. I know this because I take a similar ride frequently, almost always while running Strava or wearing a smartwatch. For example, in my last bike test with the Apple Watch 10 vs. Samsung Galaxy Watch 8 along nearly the same route (just without a little more flat-ground distance added), my elevation gain was 665 feet (according to Strava). The Garmin watch redeemed itself slightly with average moving pace data and max speed data that perfectly mirror Strava. The Apple Watch wasn't too far off with average speed data, but it calculated a noticeably slower max speed. This is similar to my results for the previous Apple Watch 10 bike test noted above. Both the Series 10 and Forerunner 570 clocked the same average heart rate and nearly the same max, though the Garmin measured slightly more total calories burned over the course of my one-hour-and-change bike ride. Finally, the Apple Watch Series 10 burned considerably more battery tracking my trek than the Garmin. Then again, the latest Apple Watch averaged between 18 and 24 hours per charge (when using GPS) and the Garmin watch averages three to four days per charge (again, without GPS). If we're splitting hairs, the Garmin Forerunner 570 technically beats the Apple Watch Series 10 distance-wise, but the margin is less than one-tenth of a mile, hardly a decisive amount. With that in mind, and because of the Forerunner's vastly inflated elevation gain data — likely an anomaly as Garmin tends to be very good in this department — I'm officially crowning the Apple Watch Series 10 the winner of this head-to-head. Ultimately, I'd strongly recommend either of these snazzy-looking, capable, and overwhelmingly reliable wearables to help keep tabs on your physical fitness journey. (Keeping in mind that even the best smartwatches in the world occasionally have a data hiccup.) The real question is, do you prefer a hardcore sports training watch or something more well-rounded with smart features? Which smartwatches or fitness trackers should I test head-to-head next, and should I walk, bike, run, hike, or some other form of workout comparison? Let me know in the comments below.
