Leica Q/T/X Cameras

[dave lackey]

I have read that, for most of us, the majority of our photographs are probably done with a smartphone, right? But for more discriminating tastes, if you want really good IQ for printing or sharing and you like the ergonomics and aesthetics of Leica digital cameras, you have a lot of choices.

Raid was correct here:

Post #63

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=107783

I don't need anymore digital cameras than what I have with the X1. Honestly, for most of us, the Q/T/X cameras from Leica do just fine...reasonably priced cameras, great form, beautiful images.

I am considering another X1 for my other Billingham bag to make gear selection automatic. If I had the cash, I would like two X cameras or even two Q cameras.

Either will do what I need to take pictures of: family, landscapes, buildings, portraits, street, documentaries, photo essays, abstracts, cars, motorcycles, travel... and the list goes on!

Instead of a fortune in two expensive M bodies and expensive lenses, I can carry two fine, smaller and lighter Leica digital cameras for a small fraction of the cost! I am good with that!😀

 

[dave lackey]

Why not get the even smaller, lighter, and higher quality Fuji equivalents for a fraction of that cost though?

EDIT: I guess smaller and lighter may come into question depending on what you consider an equivalent.

Sorry, I don't do Fuji. Thanks for the thought.

$600 for another X1 is affordable even for me should I decide to sell some gear to pay for it. I love the X1. Period. Digital is great but I shoot mostly film these days and I don't fantasize being a famous photographer, I am just me. I love the form of Leica cameras and I use only the cameras I love. Fuji is great for those who love them. But I stick with Leica and a few Nikons and I am quite happy.:angel:

 

[dave lackey]

By the way, I just read Steve Huff's review of the Q. Sounds terrific but I will wait a long time for the trickle down of depreciated cameras makes one affordable.

Steve also adores the X1...:angel:

 

[majid]

Sorry, I don't do Fuji.

That's rather narrow-minded. I loved my X1, but it was promptly retired when the X100 came out, and subsequently the Sony RX1 and RX1RII.

 

[Black]

By the way, I just read Steve Huff's review of the Q. Sounds terrific but I will wait a long time for the trickle down of depreciated cameras makes one affordable.

Steve also adores the X1...:angel:

Um, Steve "adores" everything he reviews. Its his raison d'être - he doesn't do negative reviews. Also, given that his positive reviews are the majority of his income (sponsors, equipment loans etc), I'd take anything that Steve says (he of the paranormal investigations) with an EU food mountain of salt...

 

[Doug]

I have read that, for most of us, the majority of our photographs are probably done with a smartphone, right? But for more discriminating tastes, if you want really good IQ for printing or sharing and you like the ergonomics and aesthetics of Leica digital cameras, you have a lot of choices.

Raid was correct here:

Post #63

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=107783

I don't need anymore digital cameras than what I have with the X1. Honestly, for most of us, the Q/T/X cameras from Leica do just fine...reasonably priced cameras, great form, beautiful images.

I am considering another X1 for my other Billingham bag to make gear selection automatic. If I had the cash, I would like two X cameras or even two Q cameras.

Either will do what I need to take pictures of: family, landscapes, buildings, portraits, street, documentaries, photo essays, abstracts, cars, motorcycles, travel... and the list goes on!

Instead of a fortune in two expensive M bodies and expensive lenses, I can carry two fine, smaller and lighter Leica digital cameras for a small fraction of the cost! I am good with that!😀

Dave, I think the "Q/T/X" cameras are interesting, and I nearly got an X2 a couple years ago since I do have the Olympus clip-on EFV that would fit. OTOH I'm not a fan of live view, and that EVF is slow and jerky anyway! The Q is another point of interest, with its high-quality internal EVF. OTOH it's stuck with a fixed 28mm lens. I like 28mm fine but it's not my most common choice. I may be off-base here but it seems the T is essentially an interchangeable lens version of the X2... and takes a different clip-on EVF.

Now both the T and X have APS-C size sensors I believe. I already have crop-sensor interchangeable lens OVF cameras... two ancient M8 bodies I got when they were somewhat pricey. Now they're almost worth too little to bother selling. Why not just use them as secondary cameras (and I do) and forget the T/X? And I already have sufficient M-mount lenses to fit them... and the M240 too which would seem to obviate the Q with greater flexibility (except for the AF). So as you can see, when that urge for one of those other Leicas arises, with a bit of rational thought it fades away. Same essentially for the Fujis and Sonys to a lesser degree, as I think I'm pretty well set.

Further, as you have your Nikon stuff, I have my Pentax stuff that fills in when called for; AF, IS, long lenses etc. Does getting more sound frivolous? 🙂😱

 

[dave lackey]

Dave, I think the "Q/T/X" cameras are interesting, and I nearly got an X2 a couple years ago since I do have the Olympus clip-on EFV that would fit. OTOH I'm not a fan of live view, and that EVF is slow and jerky anyway! The Q is another point of interest, with its high-quality internal EVF. OTOH it's stuck with a fixed 28mm lens. I like 28mm fine but it's not my most common choice. I may be off-base here but it seems the T is essentially an interchangeable lens version of the X2... and takes a different clip-on EVF.

Now both the T and X have APS-C size sensors I believe. I already have crop-sensor interchangeable lens OVF cameras... two ancient M8 bodies I got when they were somewhat pricey. Now they're almost worth too little to bother selling. Why not just use them as secondary cameras (I do) and forget the T/X? And I already have sufficient M-mount lenses to fit them... and the M240 too which would seem to obviate the Q with greater flexibility (except for the AF). So as you can see, when that urge for one of those other Leicas arises, with a bit of rational thought it fades away. Same essentially for the Fujis and Sonys to a lesser degree, as I think I'm pretty well set.

Further, as you have your Nikon stuff, I have my Pentax stuff that fills in when called for; AF, IS, long lenses etc. Does getting more sound frivolous? 🙂😱

Ah, yes, pretty well set. What that means, I really don't know.
The point of this thread is how much is enough for me? I don't even know what that means either. But I don't need anything more than what I have.

I do know I can use any camera to make the photos I need.., meaning I am no longer shooting professionally. I gave that up long ago. The X1 is enough digital for me personally. I hate smartphones but use them for snaps, record keeping etc but they are a poor substitute for a decent camera.

Should I get back to shooting for hire, my changing needs will dictate the gear to use. But I don't see that happening. Meanwhile I just enjoy where I am... How is that for mindfulness?😀

 

[dave lackey]

Um, Steve "adores" everything he reviews. Its his raison d'être - he doesn't do negative reviews. Also, given that his positive reviews are the majority of his income (sponsors, equipment loans etc), I'd take anything that Steve says (he of the paranormal investigations) with an EU food mountain of salt...

I agree, reviews are opinion. Opinions are like certain anatomical features we don't like to hear. But Steve was not too adoring in his Q review.

Personally, I don't read many reviews. Opinions here on RFF don't mean much to me either as I am not an upgrade geek. I just do what I do and use what I like.

So, does character determine fate?

 

[jsrockit]

The Q appears to be a very mature digital camera.

 

[dave lackey]

The Q appears to be a very mature digital camera.

That is a cool statement, John.., I presume you mean it is well thought out, etc. but just checking on clarification.

As much as I love M bodies, I will never be able to afford the digital versions. So, Leica does offer some good alternatives and that is a good thing..,🙂)

 

[jsrockit]

That is a cool statement, John.., I presume you mean it is well thought out, etc. but just checking on clarification.

Well, it seems to have it all. A fast lens, fast AF, a decent sensor, good ergonomics, a great EVF, a decent size to it (not too small or large), etc. No other Leica can claim to have all of these things in one package. If they ever make a 50mm version, I will certainly figure out a way to pay the $4250.

 

[fenixv8]

I have owned an X2 before my M8 and M240 and I would say that my Fuji X100T is a much better camera than my X2 was. The X2 felt so slow to turn on and focus and it wasnt a great experience. I purchased it new and it would be the last camera I ever purchase new. I am a Leica guy and I love my leica gear but I dont think you should dismiss the fuji x100 if you are going to be considering a leica x1.

The Q on the other hand is so sexy.

 

[dave lackey]

I have owned an X2 before my M8 and M240 and I would say that my Fuji X100T is a much better camera than my X2 was. The X2 felt so slow to turn on and focus and it wasnt a great experience. I purchased it new and it would be the last camera I ever purchase new. I am a Leica guy and I love my leica gear but I dont think you should dismiss the fuji x100 if you are going to be considering a leica x1.

Jeez, I have been wearing Levis for 59 years. I have been shooting the X1 for the exact same reason for 5 years. I don't do Fuji. I don't do Canon. I don't do Sony. Blah, blah, blah.

This is a thread about the Leica compacts. Can we please stop trying to sell me a product I do not like?

 

[robert blu]

I own an X1 since more than five years. I love it, I hate it (sometimes).

So long my scanner works I like to shoot film, develop, scan, work the file, inkjet printing on selected papers, etc etc...

My x1 is not the main camera, is an excellent complement to my film bodies (Leica and Nikon).

Being used to the 35mm lens on my M7 I managed to use the X1 as the only camera for a special work, like this one which ended in an exposition I made together with my wife in Prague (she shot her DSLR).

Is the old x1 a complete camera? Not at all. Can be used with satisfaction? yes, specially if you have enough photography experience not to rely only on the automatism and if you can work within its limits (generally speaking this applies to any tool you select, do not shoot macro on a RF ...)

My view on the Q is that for sure is much better than the x1, I evaluated the option to buy a Q to substitute my x1. Quicker AF, better IQ , reasonable size. I really think Leica made a good job with it. But I?m not ready to pay that amount of money for a not interchangeable lens camera. It's me. I shoot 70% wide, 28 or 35 are ok. But sometimes I feel the need to shoot a moderate tele...

The T would be a valid option, with the 23 (35 EQ) and one of my M 50s (75EQ) for the few times I need it. Maybe one day...but there are other minor bugs with this camera like the impossibility to turn off the exposure simulation with the latest firmwares...

So for the moment I'll stay with film and the old x1...not sure if this is an answer to Dave points...each one of us (if not professional) has the right to mix rational elements with some irrationals when it comes to decision about photo gear...

What is important is to enjoy our passions with the tools we like and we can afford 🙂

Just my opinion which is personal and could be wrong

robert