Q looks pretty great

For someone like me who still likes to shoot films (M7 or...) and likes to have a small (not too large) digital beside for its flexibility (variable iso etc) Q could be an interesting option...
Now, the price is another story I guess it's correlated to the Quality 🙂
robert
 
I too carry a small digital along side my film M bodies for flexibility ...iso ect
The Q would have to offer some significant improvement over my GR V .

I can`t see that being the case at the moment.
 
I think the Q is certainly a niche camera.

I also don't think that Leica expects it to sell like a mainstream camera would. Anything Leica produces now is somewhat "niche", if only because of the price point. The UK is apparently sold out now, but, although that initially sounds dramatic, the pragmatic amongst us will hazard a guess that will be because Leica's first batch of the Q will have been tiny and will likely to continue to produce it via trickle feed, in order to keep the hyperbole going for as long as is practicable for them.

I have no issue with the Q and all of the issues pointed out so far - lens correction etc. And for me, it will have an advantage over the RX1/R (which I have both previously owned) as I prefer the 28mm FL. In lieu of that too, I prefer as larger sensor as possible, as I prefer a shallow depth of field as possible in my shots (which, although I understand will be less apparent than vs the 35mm Sonnar of the RX1, is a compromise I am will to take because of the FL), so for me, this would personally trump the GR (which I have tried to love in both the GRD IV and newer GR form, but couldn't).

So, as is with most things regarding gear, its very subjective and I understand that it will likely leave a lot of people cold, as did the RX1 when that was released. I am also very conscious of the internet forum pandemic of hating through word of mouth before even trying. I am also aware that I can not claim to love it yet, as I've not shot with one. But, on paper at least, its appears to be a natural progression for me from my fantastic time with the RX1 and RX1R.

There's seemingly a lot of bang for your buck with a fixed lens full frame compact that can do decent macro - its an extremely flexible arrangement where its perfect for street and can very effectively turn its hand to portraits, too, despite the wide FL (indeed, the RX1 was amazing in this respect)*

As for the fixed lens issue - although this is likely to lead to a new line of interchangeable lens bodies for Leica, I do subscribe to the ethos that restrictions can aid creativity.















*albeit portraits with such wide lenses are often an "in your face" experience
 
Michael Markey said:
The Q would have to offer some significant improvement over my GR V .I can`t see that being the case at the moment.
Click to expand...

Serious? FF, 24MP, means also more MP for crop mode, EVF, faster lens, definitely faster AF, better manual focusing, and last but not least no ugly 'Blue Halos' in nightshots.

Don't get me wrong, I really love the GR's, and with 24MP + internal EVF I would prefer maybe the smaller size instead of FF and 1.7. But the current update (after 2 years) of the GR is more than disappointing.

However, I think it makes no sense to compare them directly, except the FL and street shooter capabilities , they are totally different cameras.

Yogi
 
I'm going to check a Q out tomorrow at Tamarkin, my idea is to default it to 35mm crop mode for most shooting so I get the brightline shooting experience. Let's see if it's a valid concept.
 
Had a brief grope of a Q at Leica Manchester today. Really liked it. Very responsive and the right amount of heft. EVF is a very nice experience, too. Can't wait to pick one up, now.
 
mod2001 said:
Serious? FF, 24MP, means also more MP for crop mode, EVF, faster lens, definitely faster AF, better manual focusing, and last but not least no ugly 'Blue Halos' in nightshots.

Don't get me wrong, I really love the GR's, and with 24MP + internal EVF I would prefer maybe the smaller size instead of FF and 1.7. But the current update (after 2 years) of the GR is more than disappointing.

However, I think it makes no sense to compare them directly, except the FL and street shooter capabilities , they are totally different cameras.

Yogi
Click to expand...

Thanks Yogi ...
 
Black said:
I have no issue with the Q and all of the issues pointed out so far - lens correction etc. And for me, it will have an advantage over the RX1/R (which I have both previously owned) as I prefer the 28mm FL. In lieu of that too, I prefer as larger sensor as possible, as I prefer a shallow depth of field as possible in my shots (which, although I understand will be less apparent than vs the 35mm Sonnar of the RX1, is a compromise I am will to take because of the FL), so for me, this would personally trump the GR (which I have tried to love in both the GRD IV and newer GR form, but couldn't).
Click to expand...

The 28mm focal length is more versatile for me, and I agree about the larger sensor and more shallow depth of field.

Compared with the Sony RX1, the depth of field issue might not be as different as you think. The crop from 28mm to 35mm is only 1.3x, which means that at f1.7, the equivalent aperture is f2.2. Not far off from the RX1 at all.

I adored my GRD III and now the GR, and I also make use of the 35mm and 47mm crop modes in the GR. The Q is essentially the melding of the GR and Leica M, which is absolutely fine with me.

The jury is still out on the look of the Q files, though. So far, I've run a number of DNG's through Lightroom and I am not yet able to get the kind of colours and 'look' that I like from it. And it's not just a matter of pixel-level sharpness, it's something to do with the colour balance and shadow detail. The M9 makes everything look creamy but tonally rich, if that makes sense. Ricoh GR files have a 'pop' that I can't quite get with the Q, and was disappointed to find absent tin the Leica X113. I will continue to investigate...
 
Archiver, I would be very interested in your findings. I have the camera on order. I'm used to that lovely M9 look, if the Q is lacking in pop that may be a deal breaker.
 
Ken Ford... did you get to try out the Q? In 35mm crop mode, is the finder like shooting an M, seeing the subject as it enters the frame?
Dave
 
New Leica

New Leica

Lovely small camera however it simple is too expensive for me . I am not convince that my Sony A7II images would not be on par with Leica to most viewers eyes. I love my Leica cameras but sometimes I feel we spend far too much time on the specs and not enough time on photography and it's many pleasures.
 
krötenblender said:
It seems that the Q is a step in a really new direction for Leica. Ming Thein wonders at the end of his review, if the Q is the first step for Leica to give up the classic RF concept completely.

I think, this is a hard to accept part of the Q for many of the classical RF lovers: it could be, that in the next few years Leica starts to mix and give up the last real RF stuff (the optical RF) in favour of EVFs or hybrid finders, software corrected lenses and so on.

The Q may be economically a good thing to Leica. I can imagine, that it will be a well sold camera. Personally I'm not interested, because 28mm as only focal length is too wide for me and from Leica, I'm only interested in real optical rangefinders. I would accept and in fact love a hybrid finder (think Fuji X100t), that is a real rangefinder with add-ons. For compact, fixed lens cameras there are IMHO better solutions.

Nevertheless, I think, the Q could be a success for Leica - and a threat to all purists. By the way: being a purist is not a bad thing.
Click to expand...

God I don't think they'd kill off their rangefinder line in place for a Q like system… they always blabber on about their heritage and stuff like that, and it seems important to them, so I don't think purity is under threat.

Anyway I can't take anything Ming Thein says seriously. Not when the images he takes always look the same from any camera, and heavily processed to the point they lose all reality.
 
The user reports so far describe the AF on Leica Q very fast and reliable. This is one aspect that greatly increases my interest in the camera over the Sony RX1R that I already own. There was yesterday a user comment (overall a pretty negative one) on l-camera-forum describing the AF as fast but less accurate than the Sony. I cannot find the comment nor my reply to it anymore, so they must have been deleted. Better to continue here I guess.

Any new user feedback on the AF performance? (And, yes, the accuracy does matter at 28mm.)
 
Speaking of AF... does anyone know if the Q uses contrast-based or phase-detection AF? Perhaps it has a hybrid system where either PDAF or CDAF can be used?

When used properly CDAF is very accurate on mirrorless cameras. Unfortunately it's speed and focus success depends on the contrast of focus objects. Perhaps the user comment had to do with the AF system deciding to choose an unintended, higher contrast object for focus. With some cameras this behavior can be minimized by optimizing AF menu parameters.

Also, for manual focus mode does the Q lens focus mechanically or with focus-by-wire?
 
Lss said:
The user reports so far describe the AF on Leica Q very fast and reliable. This is one aspect that greatly increases my interest in the camera over the Sony RX1R that I already own. There was yesterday a user comment (overall a pretty negative one) on l-camera-forum describing the AF as fast but less accurate than the Sony. I cannot find the comment nor my reply to it anymore, so they must have been deleted. Better to continue here I guess.

Any new user feedback on the AF performance? (And, yes, the accuracy does matter at 28mm.)
Click to expand...

Played with one on Nanjingxilu this weekend. Damn fine camera. The AF was great. Gonna wait a while before I buy though because Leica's got a pretty terrible track record with digital camera QC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Featured
  • Article Article
What exactly is a point & shoot camera? Glad you asked!The Kodak of 1888 may have been the first, and even Leica got into the act!
Replies
16
Views
520
Jason Schneider
J
Roastchestnuts
lens decisions?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Roastchestnuts
Roastchestnuts
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
3
Views
288
NIKON KIU
NIKON KIU
S
Fuji GFX 100S - thoughts and impressions over time
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
sojournerphoto
S
J
  • Article Article
The Pentax Papers, Part 3, from the Super A of 1983 to the *ist of 2003: great shooters often overlooked.
Replies
11
Views
2K
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
Back
Top Bottom