Leica Q - Leica M 28mm comparison and street photo review

N

Nick De Marco

Well-known
Local time
5:49 PM
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
902
Nick,

Fun review and love your images!

In part 3 you were wondering about the DNG file size differences between the Q and M. I believe the Q is strictly uncompressed DNG while the M allows the option for lossless DNG compression, hence the smaller file size, which I assume you've set. Not sure why Leica doesn't allow a lossless compression option for Q raw files, since it would take less disk space. Maybe it's more processor intensive?

Thanks also for the comparison against the 28 Cron, which is also one of my favourite lenses in the M system. The two seem surprisingly similar, though in your f/2 near distance comparison, I think I slightly prefer the Cron.

Ron
 
Thank you for the review. Looks still like an interesting model indeed.
I think someone described the Q as a reportage camera rather than an artists camera.
Your review seems to support that idea without coming right out and saying it!

Cheers!
 
Then I would be with a fixed lens camera I happily abandoned in 1966, Waltz Envoy to Pentax Spotmatic.

Going backwards, sdrawkcab. no thanks
 
Oh, I also wanted to ask about the photo of the sheep in the field: is that a dust spot on the sensor? Hopefully not and just a bug in the air. But sensor dust is one major concern I would have with the Q.... If (when) dust gets on the sensor, it will mean a trip to Leica, which if out of warranty, I expect won't be inexpensive.
 
Thanks for all the comments, and for looking. In brief response:

1. The strap - Lars was wrong with the supplier, but perhaps more apt than he realised with the analogy. It's actually a rather politically incorrect titles 'tie her up - camera bondage' leather strap. Beautifully made, though: http://www.tieherup.eu (and sorry, I could not have a strap called Lance!)

2. I do think it is more of a reportage camera than anything else - in that I think it is one of the best cameras made for reportage. But I'm not sure that means I don't think it is an artists tool too. It depends, but if you like wide angle then it certainly can be. As a landscape or architectural tool it's as good as the M with a 28mm lens, in my view, and a 28mm would be my favourite for those.

3. F6.8? I agree - I mentioned on the blog I don't think photoshop accurately recorded the camera data on my M. I'm sure I set it to f5.6, but PS said f6.8, and f9 or 10,5 when I set it for f8 etc. It might be a problem with the M recording things - I noticed the first shot in my post of the Q and if is recorded on flickr as being shot at f4 on the M, whereas I know for certain I shot it at f16 using a tripod - you will notice it's a 24 second exposure for example.

4. That spot above the sheep. I noticed it too. I don't think it is a sensor spot - more likely the UV filter I bought the day before got a spot of dust on it - I myst check.

Nick
 
jsrockit said:
Thanks... just seemed like a weird thing to say. I mean, Art can be made with anything.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I don't think T.O. indicates differently. I certainly don't believe differently either.

The point being more that Leica produced a tool more aimed at reportage than at fine art.
It's fast, has af, wifi enabled... etc. The opposite of the film M-A or the digital M-60 Special edition.

In my opinion the Q is leica's first attempt at fully realizing the technology and viewing mediums that are in play in 2015 world.
It's built to work clean and fast with little of the typical nostalgia and Leica Pomp that may have slowed down previous models.
That's a big step for a company so seemingly reliant on its traditions.
 
f16sunshine said:
The point being more that Leica produced a tool more aimed at reportage than at fine art.
It's fast, has af, wifi enabled... etc. The opposite of the film M-A or the digital M-60 Special edition.
Click to expand...

I got ya... I ordered a Q and I consider myself to be more into Art than reportage. Art is a wide open field and reportage can be Art. I get what you mean though ...
 
It's the only Leica that I'd be interested in, so it's great seeing real world reviews.

I don't think I can justify the cost right now (especially with already having the Ricoh GR), but I'll be keeping an eye on it.
 
Nick De Marco said:
3. F6.8? I agree - I mentioned on the blog I don't think photoshop accurately recorded the camera data on my M. I'm sure I set it to f5.6, but PS said f6.8, and f9 or 10,5 when I set it for f8 etc. It might be a problem with the M recording things - I noticed the first shot in my post of the Q and if is recorded on flickr as being shot at f4 on the M, whereas I know for certain I shot it at f16 using a tripod - you will notice it's a 24 second exposure for example.

4. That spot above the sheep. I noticed it too. I don't think it is a sensor spot - more likely the UV filter I bought the day before got a spot of dust on it - I myst check.

Nick
Click to expand...

Regarding point 3: This is typical with digital M cameras. The lack of a physical link between the camera and lens prevents the camera from knowing the actual aperture used. Instead it uses a light sensor on the front just to the left of the Leica logo, combined with the ISO and shutter speed to estimate the taking aperture. It's very common for it to be off by a half or full stop. During long exposures this system doesn't appear to work. The camera has no idea what the taking aperture is and will always default to f/4.

I'm sure you did have the Summicron set to f/5.6...

Point 4: Hopefully it is just something on the filter or in the air near the camera, since it didn't appear in any other images, as far as I could tell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom