I don't get it . . .

[Timmyjoe]

The Leica Q.

I'm sure it makes beautiful images, but I don't understand why anyone would purchase one. With a fixed 28mm lens (albeit a great lens) that can't be changed, and costing $4250, it's only $546 less than the full frame Leica M-E, which can use practically every Leica M lens ever made.

I can see the Leica Q if it was priced in the $2000 - $3000 range, but $4250 for a fixed lens camera that doesn't allow you to change the focal length, I don't get it. I'm probably an outlier on this.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Photog9000]

I am in total agreement with you, Timmyjoe. While I do not and have not owned Leicas in the past I feel the Q is definitely overpriced for the average person. But Leica develops and markets for a niche so they charge what they want and Leicaphiles will pay it for the sake of carrying a Leica (albeit they make some fine lenses).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't get it . . .

I could apply this definition to ALL Leica-Leitz equipment ever made in terms of pricing.
Q is in the same queue.

 

[JP Owens]

Leica knows its target consumer for new Leicas. It isn't most of us. Leicas are not overpriced for its target consumer.

 

[Godfrey]

For some folks, it's the camera they've been waiting for. For others, it's a waste of money.

Who are we to decide that for anyone other than ourselves?

G

 

[btgc]

Question is just what depreciates faster - dollars one pays for new camera or camera one buys for depreciating dollars? Depending on answer people choose to either buy camera or keep dollars.

 

[daveleo]

Every new Leica product supports the fact that they own a small and very devoted niche of the marketplace.
That's neither good nor bad; it just is what it is.

So . . . you are not the "outlier" . . . the guys buying L-gear are the outliers.
Again . . . it's their money, none of my business what they do with it.

 

[mfogiel]

Well, while I am not interested in digital cameras, let's look at this equation from a point of view of somebody who would like to use one primarily with a 28mm lens.
I looked up B&H prices for 28mm lenses:
Summicron M - 3.780 USD
Summilux M - 5.950 USD

As some of you might shrewdly observe, the Summicron is F 2.0, while the Summilux is F 1.4, so a lens that would be half way= F1.7 should cost AT LEAST the average price of the two above, which works out as follows:
3.780+5.950=9.730
9.730/2= 4.865

So, not only Leica Q does not cost anything - they actually give you a 28/1.7 Summilux DISCOUNTED at least 20% plus, they give you a dedicated body FOR FREE !

So, how does this look now? - Better?
You see, your glass was half empty, but to other guys it is 2/3rds full...

 

[JoeV]

The Leica Q.

I'm sure it makes beautiful images, but I don't understand why anyone would purchase one. With a fixed 28mm lens (albeit a great lens) that can't be changed, and costing $4250, it's only $546 less than the full frame Leica M-E, which can use practically every Leica M lens ever made.

I can see the Leica Q if it was priced in the $2000 - $3000 range, but $4250 for a fixed lens camera that doesn't allow you to change the focal length, I don't get it. I'm probably an outlier on this.

Best,
-Tim

Tim, your calculation doesn't take into account the fact that, with the Q, you're getting a Leica lens as well as the body for that price. So a fairer comparison would be an M-E body plus equivalent M-mount 28mm lens. And the difference will be much larger than the $546 you are quoting.

~Joe

 

[Darthfeeble]

No dust spots!!!! Reasonable ISO!!! I favor the 28mm focal length on my M9 so this is a good deal for me. I can sell my M9 and the lenses for more than the cost of a Q, have a more modern and somewhat more compact camera and room in my bag for a p&J sammy.

 

[Timmyjoe]

The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck with 28mm. It's not like down the line you can add lenses. With the M-E for an extra $546, you can start with a 28 Elmarit, brand new for $1980, and build from there. With the Leica Q, you're stuck with 28mm from here to when the camera eventually dies. Seems like an awful lot of money to spend on a camera that is locked in to only one focal length. That would not work for me.

But, as I want to see Leica stay in business, I hope it works for others.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ko.Fe.]

M-E has very limited sensor in it. So limited I would not consider it as something competitive to Q in IQ department.

 

[Timmyjoe]

M-E has very limited sensor in it. So limited I would not consider it as something competitive to Q in IQ department.

We'll agree to totally disagree on that.

Or maybe put another way, I have never found the sensor on my old Leica M8.2 or my current Leica M-E to have limited me or been a detriment in image quality.

 

[Lss]

The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck with 28mm.

Yes, you are stuck as long you absolutely want and need the highest pixel count for each shot. The 35mm crop however is perfectly usable in terms of technical quality (see Leica X, see Fuji X100), and even the 50mm crop may prove quite okay for many users in many cases. I think many serious users view it as a digital 28-35mm zoom or something similar.

I think this is mostly a price discussion, but I'll skip that for now.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Limited Sensor?

Limited Sensor?

I'll take a CCD over a CMOS anytime. Some folks can't see the difference between film and digital, some prefer more megapixels for the sake of higher ISO but sacrifice color richness and modeling in shaded areas (a just plain richer image).

There are others who see the complete digital competence of today's cell phones as fully sufficient.

I shoot for arty images, not just a record of where I have traveled.

I love the Q, but would prefer the ME.

 

[nongfuspring]

I'm sure it makes beautiful images, but I don't understand why anyone would purchase one.

- 99% of photographers on every Leica product ever.

 

[Bille]

The point I'm trying to make is that for $4250 you are stuck with 28mm. No matter where your photography takes you, you are stuck with 28mm.

I dont think the camera is for anyone who is concerned a lot about money.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well, while I am not interested in digital cameras, let's look at this equation from a point of view of somebody who would like to use one primarily with a 28mm lens.
I looked up B&H prices for 28mm lenses:
Summicron M - 3.780 USD
Summilux M - 5.950 USD

As some of you might shrewdly observe, the Summicron is F 2.0, while the Summilux is F 1.4, so a lens that would be half way= F1.7 should cost AT LEAST the average price of the two above, which works out as follows:
3.780+5.950=9.730
9.730/2= 4.865

So, not only Leica Q does not cost anything - they actually give you a 28/1.7 Summilux DISCOUNTED at least 20% plus, they give you a dedicated body FOR FREE !

So, how does this look now? - Better?
You see, your glass was half empty, but to other guys it is 2/3rds full...

I totally missed this one. The case is closed for me. 🙂

 

[Timmyjoe]

Again, the point I'm trying to make is not about whether a CMOS or CCD sensor is better, it's not about whether if priced out separately a Leica FF digital body and Leica 28mm Summilux/Cron would cost more.

What baffles me is that someone would spend (what for me is a huge amount of money) $4250 on a camera with a fixed focal length lens that has no option of ever changing focal length.

Best,
-Tim

 

[rscheffler]

Again, the point I'm trying to make is not about whether a CMOS or CCD sensor is better, it's not about whether if priced out separately a Leica FF digital body and Leica 28mm Summilux/Cron would cost more.

What baffles me is that someone would spend (what for me is a huge amount of money) $4250 on a camera with a fixed focal length lens that has no option of ever changing focal length.

Best,
-Tim

That's fine and maybe no one can supply any answer to convince you otherwise.

Where the Q would interest me is as a quicker and smaller version of the M. I do a fair percentage of my M system work at 28mm, so the Q would fit in well with my way of seeing things. It could be as a second camera dedicated strictly to 28mm while I use the M with other lenses.

24MP is also decent enough resolution to allow a fair amount of cropping. Of course it will depend on your needs and where your work is used, but a lot of excellent images have been made over the last 10-15 years on much lower resolution cameras. Therefore I wouldn't consider it as a camera restricted to just 28mm. It could be used well in the 28-50mm equivalent angle of view range.

Anyway, the price is what it is. Someone at Leica made some calculations and decided it should be around $4000, which sits close to M pricing but maybe isn't too low to make people wonder why it's so 'cheap' or potentially drive people away from M. The question you raise definitely works in Leica's favour, relative to anyone wanting to buy into the brand and willing to spend the money. It's close enough to entry-level M that it could push some up to an ME and a lens, from which Leica will realize greater gain. And with this kind of product, price generally only ever goes down, so there is incentive for Leica to shoot a bit high and cash in with the early adopters (not to imply they are being suckered since they obviously see value in buying it now). Give it a year or so and you'll likely see a fair number of Q refurb bodies.