Pioneer
Veteran
I already have the Sigma DP2M! Why would I need a second fixed lens digital camera?
GaryLH
Veteran
A dp1m, dp3m, dp0q, dp1q, dp2q, and dp3q...mix and match so your dp2m won't be lonely?
Gary
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
If I had the money for a Leica Q, I'd buy a truck, pay off some debt and save some towards my hopeful future mortgage.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
1 / Wouldn't buy a 28mm-only camera.
2 / The bokeh is not so good.
3 / Costs too much for what it does.
4 / The size doesn't really make sense for me. Not small enough to be a 'real compact,' and not large enough to be comfortable. Too large to not have interchangeable lenses - at that price.
5 / Leica is very likely to abandon or not repair it within a few years.
6 / Other cameras are better and/or more versatile.
7 / At 28mm, just about everything is going to be in focus, and any camera can do that. Pictures will not look much different from cell phone snaps. If I pay this much for a camera, it's got to be able to differentiate itself. A 'sharp' lens with a not-so-high res sensor doesn't impress me. Why not just get a Sony with a Zeiss?
8 / Next year, Leica will improve this camera by adding some small feature they could have implemented already, and those with the old one will feel cheated.
How many people would have been interested in a Leica CL with a fixed 28? If there was a Hexar RF just a touch wider, also available? Why?
lukitas
second hand noob
I like 28.
KM-25
Well-known
Last weekend I tried both the Q and the 240, shot photos on my own card with them. I liked the feel and other things about the Q but it was the 240 that really did it for me, I thought the files were just beautiful.
I bought a 240 from the classifieds a few days ago.....
I bought a 240 from the classifieds a few days ago.....
richard_l
Well-known
I don't recall ever having used my 28mm Ultron. Anyhow, for full frame I'm satisfied with film. A 50mm in the X series might be handy.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Just a test, i went and picked up one of my Nikon DSLR's, looked down my pants, Yeah!!...I'm still a man
Excellent camera, and the rest of the series 1 and 3......all for $550 each.
ktmrider
Well-known
I am thinking the Sony with the Zeiss 35 for a bit more then half the price. However, I am content with the M9 and a slew of M mount lenses.
uhoh7
Veteran
There are some very good shooters already at work with the Q, and I agree, many shots look very nice, like they have the processor in "M9 emulation"mode with better DR, very good color, and of course less noise at high ISO.
But please, Leica, just give us the body with an M bayonet, and credit the cost of the lens.
Kate-the-Great
Well-known
Money aside, the Q is easy for me to resist as I much prefer the 35 & 40mm focal lengths to 28 on 135. If I liked 28 I'd be all over it though!
:: Mark
Well-known
Well, one reason is that I already have a Ricoh GR - possibly my favourite camera ever.
The Q is too large for a one-trick fixed lens camera. If I am going to use a camera that big, I really want changeable lenses.
If I am shooting wide-angle street photography, I really do not want to use something as large and obviously pretentious as the Q. And the small increase in image quality is not going to suddenly make my street photographs suck less...
The Q is too large for a one-trick fixed lens camera. If I am going to use a camera that big, I really want changeable lenses.
If I am shooting wide-angle street photography, I really do not want to use something as large and obviously pretentious as the Q. And the small increase in image quality is not going to suddenly make my street photographs suck less...
GaryLH
Veteran
I would rather wait for a GR mk3 w/ a 24mp sensor..if by then it has a evf then that would be a plus. 24mp would allow a more usable crop 47. Currently I only use crop 35. I already have the GR and I don't feel the urge at all for the Q.
The other reason is digital rot vs my personal max budget for digital cameras (<2k), puts this camera on the pass list, which basically means all Leica drf's and non-Panasonic Leica clones are on this list for me. But that is just me. I do appreciate the simplicity of the leica design points in their drf's as well as what I have seen in the X and Q series. While the m8 or older m9 are coming into my budget constraint, parts availability becomes an issue for these cameras.
Given my budget constraints, I will admire from afar.
I applaud Leica for the Q and I hope they sell a lot of them. I am w/ others though that thought they should have done a 35 or 40 mm version.
Gary
The other reason is digital rot vs my personal max budget for digital cameras (<2k), puts this camera on the pass list, which basically means all Leica drf's and non-Panasonic Leica clones are on this list for me. But that is just me. I do appreciate the simplicity of the leica design points in their drf's as well as what I have seen in the X and Q series. While the m8 or older m9 are coming into my budget constraint, parts availability becomes an issue for these cameras.
Given my budget constraints, I will admire from afar.
I applaud Leica for the Q and I hope they sell a lot of them. I am w/ others though that thought they should have done a 35 or 40 mm version.
Gary
Godfrey
somewhat colored
"digital rot" ? What do you mean?
I haven't seen any degradation in performance yet with my Olympus E-1, and it's coming up on 12 years old. That was a $2200 body in 2003... It's actually gotten better with time because current raw converters allow me to shoot at ISO 3200 with very satisfactory results now; the original Olympus raw converter kinda limited it to ISO 400-800.
A Q with a 50 to 75mm lens would be dangerous territory for me ... I'd almost have to have one. With a 28mm on the Q, I can save my pennies for the MM246 body and a Summarit-M 75mm lens.
G
GaryLH
Veteran
For me there are several factors that are involved in digital rot, for others maybe not
- do I still like the technology of the older product vs what is available currently
- EOL (end of life), is the components on the camera EOL, then so long as my luck holds out, that camera is still good to go, I am ok
- is there a fw bug on that product that could be fixed, but the manufacturer has decided not to fix in favor of just releasing the next gen product
-- in the past, I felt Sony did a lot of this, but looking at their a7 fw updates, they seemed to have learned
- is the batteries still available, so long as your batteries are good, no problem, but once they are dead, your only choice maybe third party vendors or nothing at all. For example, Apple MacBook pro's that used the removable batteries are getting harder to find these days
The oldest digital camera I still use often is my Olympus IR converted epl1. The oldest digital I occasional use is the Sony r1. I am starting to c battery degradation in terms of recharge life cycle, but have not gotten around to looking for replacement batteries yet. Now that u asked about digital rot..thanks for indirect reminder
I have never gone back to re-evaluate high ISO performance of my older cameras in light of better raw converters. Are u seeing a stop better?
Gary
- do I still like the technology of the older product vs what is available currently
- EOL (end of life), is the components on the camera EOL, then so long as my luck holds out, that camera is still good to go, I am ok
- is there a fw bug on that product that could be fixed, but the manufacturer has decided not to fix in favor of just releasing the next gen product
-- in the past, I felt Sony did a lot of this, but looking at their a7 fw updates, they seemed to have learned
- is the batteries still available, so long as your batteries are good, no problem, but once they are dead, your only choice maybe third party vendors or nothing at all. For example, Apple MacBook pro's that used the removable batteries are getting harder to find these days
The oldest digital camera I still use often is my Olympus IR converted epl1. The oldest digital I occasional use is the Sony r1. I am starting to c battery degradation in terms of recharge life cycle, but have not gotten around to looking for replacement batteries yet. Now that u asked about digital rot..thanks for indirect reminder
I have never gone back to re-evaluate high ISO performance of my older cameras in light of better raw converters. Are u seeing a stop better?
Gary
Austerby
Well-known
It feels like buyers remorse is setting in quite quickly with the Q - the first reaction was very positive but now I'm reading more considered opinions, which is right and proper when you consider the actual cost.
Personally, I have an X100s and an M8 and am still trying to decide whether I need an upgrade on either of these. I'm edging towards the A7ii but the Q for me isn't the one that I want, though I look forward to seeing what people do with it.
Personally, I have an X100s and an M8 and am still trying to decide whether I need an upgrade on either of these. I'm edging towards the A7ii but the Q for me isn't the one that I want, though I look forward to seeing what people do with it.
Corran
Well-known
Well luckily I am a photographer and not a camera geek.
Hsg
who dares wins
What I find interesting about Q is why would Leica copy a name by Ricoh-Pentax, secondly the break with tradition of going with a fixed 28mm instead of 35mm and the groove for thumb grip, which is a breakthrough in ergonomics for cameras.
I have a shot for years with a 28mm equivalent, its not easy, so that means this camera is not for everybody. So, who's the target market for Leica Q?
I have a shot for years with a 28mm equivalent, its not easy, so that means this camera is not for everybody. So, who's the target market for Leica Q?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Ah, so that has nothing to do with the camera you are evaluating, it has to do with your expectations. ;-)
Hmm. So you're considering end of life to be a conflation of "are components available for a repair" with "does the manufacturer care enough to update the camera any more".
I'm not sure how much that has to do with the camera vs how much it has to do with your expectations, again.
I bought batteries for my friend's 2005 PowerBook just the other day. ;-) But, honestly, I wouldn't mix up the computer battery market with the camera battery market. The computer market cycles through things far faster than the camera market.
This could be an issue, except that most of the better cameras from the past 15 years use batteries that are all still available, either originals or third party. I mean, heck, half my film cameras use batteries that haven't been available for 20 years, but I can still get batteries for them via adapters or alternatives.
The oldest digital camera I still use often is my Olympus IR converted epl1. The oldest digital I occasional use is the Sony r1. I am starting to c battery degradation in terms of recharge life cycle, but have not gotten around to looking for replacement batteries yet. Now that u asked about digital rot..thanks for indirect reminder
http://www.bestbatt.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=Olympus+E-PL1
http://www.bestbatt.com/SearchResults.asp?Search=Sony+DSC-R1
$13 apiece..
With the E-1, an excellent upgrade is to use the BLM-5 (and its charger) from the Olympus E-5 rather than the original BLM-1. More capacity, same voltage, same form factor. It nets about a 50% improvement in exposures per charge over the new performance of the BLM-1.
The BLM-5 is available new from Olympus, and there are aftermarket replacements available too, of course. With my E-1 on its default settings producing JPEG+raw files, without optional noise filtering turned on, a sequence of exposures from ISO 100-3200 demonstrate that the in-camera JPEG engine (indicative of the raw processors of its time) produces the same level of noise as LR6.1 produces with ISO 3200 on the raw file. With a bit of Luminance noise filtering in LR6.1, that same ISO 3200 image looks like the ISO 400 JPEG. So two stops solid improvement in noise control, three if you do some tuning. That's huge.
The dynamic range is better too, but that's harder to evaluate since I don't have a 2003-2005 era raw converter available to compare against (it's always going to be best if you're working with the raw files).
By your standards, the E-1 is probably "digitally rotted" since (I believe, not sure) Olympus turned off their standard flat-rate service for it a couple of years ago and many parts are becoming scarce. But it's still a camera that produces beautiful results, it's a bit slow to write files but is responsive as anything modern when it comes to shot to shot performance, and in the hand it still wins my award for "best designed DSLR body ever made."
Nothing to debate here, I was just wondering what you meant by "digital rot." I understand now it has mostly to do with your expectations and desires rather than mechanical or electronic degradation of the camera over time. Nothing wrong with that ...
G
GaryLH
Veteran
I guess a better way to put it if u sum it all up..my idea of digital rot..is...though I may hang onto a specific digital camera for as long as I can, eventually it cannot be repaired for one reason or another.
On the other hand, I have some film cameras that date back to the early 1930s that I can still find people that know how to repair them (if u are willing to pay). I have other film cameras that are part of the electronic era, where the components are EOL and right now if I need a repair, it can only happen if the repair person can canibilize from another camera. That is an example of not really digital rot but electronic rot as it relates to anolog film cameras such as a Minolta cle.
Once cameras needed a battery for more than just a meter, the complexities of electronics age EOL issues crept it's ugly head into the picture. Prior to that, if internal meter died, just keep on shooting using external meter and good guesstimate..
Gary
On the other hand, I have some film cameras that date back to the early 1930s that I can still find people that know how to repair them (if u are willing to pay). I have other film cameras that are part of the electronic era, where the components are EOL and right now if I need a repair, it can only happen if the repair person can canibilize from another camera. That is an example of not really digital rot but electronic rot as it relates to anolog film cameras such as a Minolta cle.
Once cameras needed a battery for more than just a meter, the complexities of electronics age EOL issues crept it's ugly head into the picture. Prior to that, if internal meter died, just keep on shooting using external meter and good guesstimate..
Gary