Looked at 'em all...can't pull the trigger

[willie_901]

Now, with the new Leica Q, I may be revisiting this topic.
Can't wait to get my hands on it.

How interesting.

Does this mean you have faith Leica has overcome all the issues you listed?

Do they all have that "annoying viewfinder lag", or noisy shutter, or slow autofocus, or small buffer, or lack of simple controls, or non-traditional menus?

Initial reports indicate the shutter is quiet, the AF performs well and buffer size should be irrelevant for all cameras in this price range.

I'm particularly curious how forgiving you might be about "annoying viewfinder lag" and "lack of simple controls" (no ISO dial).

I do not consider DPREVIEW's ad-hoc test results regarding ISO invariance to be definitive. Still, the visible banding at extraordinarily low exposures (silly-high ISO amplifications) could mean the Q will not be the weapon of choice in extreme low-light or in scenes with extraordinary dynamic range demands. Many of us really don't care about these.

No matter. Should the Q appear with a 35 or 50 mm lens, I will buy one. And, after the M8 IR incident, I swore I would never buy a Leica digital camera.

I guess the Leica brand has a remarkable capacity to facilitate forgiveness.

n.b. moderators: if mentioning DPREVIEW is unacceptable, please PM me and I will re-word that sentence.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I do like reading threads like this and realising I was right to stick with my Leica Digilux 2 for all those years (well over a dozen years); even though it's only (only?) pokes out 5 megapixels. OTOH, it handles like a film camera with old fashioned controls and the f/2 to f/2.4 Zoom lens goes from 28 to 90mm equivalent, EVR and nothing to complain about...

Regards, David

PS OTOH, I wish I could find a straight forward digital compact like the Olympus XA or the more modern Leica mini 3. That means no zoom but a good prime.