Leica Q 2nd edition

Leica Q 2nd edition

  • 24mm

    Votes: 9 3.5%

  • 35mm

    Votes: 70 27.2%

  • 40mm

    Votes: 75 29.2%

  • 50mm

    Votes: 91 35.4%

  • 75mm

    Votes: 12 4.7%
  • Total voters
    257
  • Poll closed .
jsrockit said:
It seems silly to put a FF sensor in a camera in order to use it as a half frame sensor. With a half frame sensor, its a cropped 28mm lens that doesn't have any of the characteristics of a 50mm lens. While I respect that you are ok with this, please respect that many of us want the real deal lens matched to a FF sensor.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear!

Personally, I am comfortable with cropping, but mostly to set the aspect ratio to the scene.

I would not buy a camera where the majority of my images would have to be heavily cropped.

Perhaps Leica perceives Asia as being the "target" market for this camera. Huge populations, brand conscious and a preference for the 28mm focal length.
 
Yep, everybody has their preference. For me I think it will work very well - probably 70% of my shots at 28mm, 20% at 35 and 10% at 50. All three are focal lengths I enjoy working with and I rarely print large size, so all will be perfectly good enough for my needs.
 
I voted 50. I would like a rigid version of the 50/2.8 Elmar collapsible latest version. An f2.8 maximum aperture should be no problem given the high iso ability of the sensor. Then the whole rig would be light and compact but high quality, like the original Leica concept.
 
I'm sure many US photographers love 28mm EFoV as well as Asian photographers. I just happen to prefer the pairing of 35 and 50, with a third lens around 75-90, and a fourth around 21-24. I'll use the 35 and 50 about 90% of the time. So I'll use my X and await the Q50.

Meanwhile, I'll use the M-P when I want something different. It's not like this is a problem. :)

G
 
For me the ultimate would be a 35/75 bi-summicron: hybird approach between the tri-elmar/zoom and use of an add-on tele-conversion lens such as for the x100 series. Namely the basic focal length would be 35mm at f2. Add on a two element asph conversion lens via front bayonet (much smaller and lighter than the x100 teleconverter), simultaneously twist a ring on the lens barrel (a la tri-elmar) and you have 75mm f2. Both with excellent imaging characteristics.

I don't really know if such a design is optically feasible... So short of that, a 50mm/f2 would be great (or 40mm).
 
I love the 28mm focal length and a 50mm would be a very nice pairing.

..... it would be nice to have a Tri-????? lenses on the Q, 28, 35, and 50 with, at least, a 2.8 aperture.

The pricing is at the high-end and would be great to be able to take advantage of the FF sensor at three different focal lengths.
 
Heck, if they put a 40/2 on it and sold it with 2x and .6x front optically-matched converters, they'd almost exactly reproduce the CL Kit. Which was always very near to ideal ...

G
 
Magic would be if they did a fixed 2/40 or 50mm with a real Mechanical RF.

After initial excitement, I'm having a hard time getting my head around a EVF camera at this price point.
Leicas high price has for me always been based on that magical Rangefinder.

So v2 of the Q .... A fixed 40mm rangefinder please.
 
jsrockit said:
No, it's been based on Leica being a luxury brand. The rangefinder in the current M costs like $750 or something like that.
Click to expand...

Ok it's luxury also.. What does the evf "cost" in the Q... About $35?
Not to develop but the actual cost to order them by the train car?

You see my point ?
 
f16sunshine said:
Ok it's luxury also.. What does the evf "cost" in the Q... About $35?
Not to develop but the actual cost to order them by the train car?

You see my point ?
Click to expand...

The parts for the EVF (not counting the ocular lenses, etc) cost Leica on the order of $400 to $600, depending on volumes and order size, last time I spoke to some folks in that business. The EVF assembly is the second most expensive single component in the Q, second only to the imaging sensor itself.

G
 
f16sunshine said:
No offense but, I find that hard to believe.
How do Japanese makers sell their cameras for what they do?
Click to expand...

Andy,

Good question.

Realize that Leica and the Japanese cameras have to be looked upon as two different markets: in one economy of scale due to high production numbers creates an "economy of scale" that lowers costs; in the other a boutique camera maker that promotes itself as a luxury brand sells limited quantities so that the higher costs have to be passed onto the consumer.

Really two seperate business models that are opposite. Hopefully the boutique manufacturer has enough "percieved value" where customers will be willing to pay rather costly premiums for the luxury product.

Cal
 
Huss said:
Exactly. A whole Sony A6000, EVF and all, is $548.
Click to expand...

Different business relationships and margins are in operation. There is also the question of how much QA time Sony applies to the inspection of the incoming parts they don't manufacture and what their variance limits are vs what Leica apply for their production process.

If I recall back to the Leica CL, which was a joint manufacturing project between Minolta and Leica, Leica rejected for rework something greater than 40% of all the body assemblies they received from Minolta that were to be branded "Leica CL". Minolta rejected for rework far fewer of the ones that were branded "Minolta CL" which sold at a somewhat lower price.

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom