Q looks pretty great

Ned Bojic said:
Still makes it a Sony to me. Time will tell.

Also, adjusting prices for 2015 is way too simplistic.

If back then people had access to all kinds of photo and video devices as we have now, the asking price would have been cut in four. And its adjusted price in today's dollars would probably be around the 1500-2000$ mark.

And you have to realize that back then, there was only one provider in the family: The man. So you have to view the price of this camera as being worth the double in relation to the household income. So according to your bogus calculations it would actually be worth 12,000 in today's dollars. Is this realistic? Absolutely not.

Or Take a pair of Nikes and pitch them back in 1947, 1936 or 1954. It would be worth the double or even quadruple in today's dollars. And they simply wouldn't sell.

Things have to be put in perspective intelligently. Not bluntly.
Click to expand...

Ned I've been a fan of yours for almost a decade, and you know that, but there's nothing "bogus" about inflation. It's simple math. There's no "trickery" or bull****. Numbers don't lie.

And if you brought modern Nikes to athletes in 1954, they'd sell for 100x the price of normal shoes. Please. Anything to get an advantage. Look at how revolutionary Chucks were when they first came out.
 
DavidKKHansen said:
Stephen, I think you run a great informative site and have a forum in which photographers around the world can share ideas and have opportunities to meet up in real life. Cool stuff, beats the heck out of L-Camera-Forum.

But your above comments reflect what a lot of younger (under 30) people feel about Leica (and film photography in general). In that it still consists of grumpy old men in which anything made today is rubbish and life back in the day was so much better.

Leica MP? Doesn't have the slanted rewind crank.
Leica M7? Shutter dial turns the wrong way, battery dependant.
Leica M (Typ 240)? Should have been named the M10.
Leica Q? Should have cost $800.

It seems anything Leica tries to make today is never good enough. On the flip side, there's a growing number of photographers who aren't emotionally attached to Leica's past, they think it's great that wars, politics and life in general were captured with a Leica. But those same people are open to the technological offerings available today, and are happy for Leica to filter away what's superficial and then only take the important bits and put them into a camera...

...the Leica Q.

It's an exciting thing that appeals to the modern minimalistic photographer. Is it expensive? Of course, did you expect any less coming from Leica? There's no reason to belittle the camera or spell doom over the brand because you think the camera isn't worth $4250. The M9 and "M10" cost more than that when new (sans lens, even), but that seems to have been forgotten now that their used prices have fallen under or near the Q? Perhaps in a few years when Leica releases the Q2, will you then be saying the Q2 is rubbish because the Q1 can be had used for a fraction of the price?
Click to expand...

If you want to comment on my post, try sticking to what I wrote, not what you imagined in creating a BS straw man argument. Your "not good enough" misdirection smoke screen rant is the rubbish in this discussion. I like the current CMOS M digital Leicas. I own the M-P. If it were not for the sensor problems, I would like the M9 series as well.

Like me, Blackstone does not seem to think things are going so well at Leica. Knowing the Q was about to be introduced, Blackstone just ousted Kaufman's choice of CEO and installed their own choice for CEO. It remains to be seen if the new CEO will be allowed to make any real difference. Unlike Blackstone, I don't expect big Leica profits and product lines improvements until Blackstone sells out or takes a back seat to a company that does know cameras - most likely Panasonic - but perhaps Fuji or even Sony. I would like Blackstone to prove me wrong on this prediction. Time will tell.

Stephen
 
I wonder how does the new Q work with Ricoh GW-3 adapter. It worked quite nice with 28mm eq. aps-c cameras… Does anybody have this combo?
 
CameraQuest said:
If you want to comment on my post, try sticking to what I wrote, not what you imagined in creating a BS straw man argument. Your "not good enough" misdirection smoke screen rant is the rubbish in this discussion. I like the current CMOS M digital Leicas. I own the M-P. If it were not for the sensor problems, I would like the M9 series as well.
Click to expand...

With all respect, for the most part he did stick to your argument and he makes a decent point. Relatively speaking within the Leica line up (and also against similar Sonys) it is quite a reasonable deal. You can say it's expensive or not not worth it, but it's not overpriced.

If the Q doesn't turn out to be a successful product it will fail on the basis of it competing in a market that is too small or too competitive. Value wise, it's not so bad.
 
Not a good or bad thing necessarily but when I first picked up the Q the first thing I noticed is how light it felt compared to an M. I mean even compared to my M8 with the tiny Summaron 3.5 cm F3.5 Q feels lite, with out that Leica M heft to it. Now on the technical side I only got to play around with it for about 10 minutes or so but liked how the MF worked but having viewfinder zoom in when you turn the focusing ring and then switch to showing the whole scene/view through viewfinder/lens when you 1/2 press the shutter release was a bit weird for some one who's never really used an EVF like myself. Don't see getting one myself as I like the flexibility of the M series but if I was retired and doing a lot of traveling I think the Q plus an X-Vario would make a nice travel kit.
 
Mcary said:
...Now on the technical side I only got to play around with it for about 10 minutes or so but liked how the MF worked but having viewfinder zoom in when you turn the focusing ring and then switch to showing the whole scene/view through viewfinder/lens when you 1/2 press the shutter release was a bit weird for some one who's never really used an EVF like myself.
...
Click to expand...

Yes, confirming focus with zooming and focus peaking is an effective technique. I agree it does take some adjustment and practice before this becomes second nature.

I use focus peaking all the time.

Once one realizes FP is contrast based (or biased) and also is less selective as DOF increases (which is not a significant disadvantage), FP assist is quick and accurate.
 
Ned Bojic said:
I believe this Leica Q is a Sony product.

Time will tell
Click to expand...
That is quite a big compliment to Leica - none of the cameras Leica released up to now could really compete with their Sony (or Fuji) counterparts. The Q seems to be raising the bar for an upcoming Sony RX2/RX1 mark II.
 
Yesterday I could handle the Q for a few minutes at a photo exhibition. I'm a little bit impressed! Nice handling, nice manual focus, nice weight and balance with the lens. After handling the Leica, I went to the Fuji booth and looked through the X-T1 viewfinder. My personal impression is, that the Q viewfinder is better.
 
What's becoming clear as the camera is already in a number of hands who actually bought it, is that this is Leica directing Panasonic in making a new camera. The core tech here is panasonic, the EVF (great), the AF (great), and I suspect the lens itself, which is very nice, but the 28 Summicron is way ahead, technically.

The huge native distortion of the Q 28, which is then heavily corrected, tells me the lens has no relation to current Leica M 28 designs.

But I suppose it's can be seen as the best of both worlds. Panasonic technology made usable and comprehensible by Leica.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Yesterday I could handle the Q for a few minutes at a photo exhibition. I'm a little bit impressed! Nice handling, nice manual focus, nice weight and balance with the lens. After handling the Leica, I went to the Fuji booth and looked through the X-T1 viewfinder. My personal impression is, that the Q viewfinder is better.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What characterizes Better in this comparison? Which lens did you have mounted on the XT! ?
Different focal lengths will give a diferent impression.

I've not handled the Q and have not lifted the XT! since last year.
Very curious your impression.

Cheers!
 
f16sunshine said:
Interesting. What characterizes Better in this comparison? Which lens did you have mounted on the XT! ?
Different focal lengths will give a diferent impression.

I've not handled the Q and have not lifted the XT! since last year.
Very curious your impression.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

Ab bit sharper and the Q viewfinder image looked less artificial. I don't think it had anything to do with the focal length. But that's just a personal impression.
 
It will be interesting to c what happens next.. I think the q is a good product from Leica. Out of my price range these days...Will Leica ever do a mirrorless m mount for example?

Gary
 
Corran said:
Uh, the M240?
Click to expand...
Non-drf when I said mirrorless. The q is af..mirrorless. W/o the extra cost of the rf mechanism, but good focus peaking instead like the Ricoh gxr m module, can one get a m mount from Leica at a more reasonable price? This I would be interested in.

Gary
 
uhoh7 said:
What's becoming clear as the camera is already in a number of hands who actually bought it, is that this is Leica directing Panasonic in making a new camera. The core tech here is panasonic, the EVF (great), the AF (great), and I suspect the lens itself, which is very nice, but the 28 Summicron is way ahead, technically.

The huge native distortion of the Q 28, which is then heavily corrected, tells me the lens has no relation to current Leica M 28 designs.

But I suppose it's can be seen as the best of both worlds. Panasonic technology made usable and comprehensible by Leica.
Click to expand...

As a Panasonic Lumix micro-4/3 user, I sure would like to see them release a Lumix-branded version of the Q for about half the Leica's price.

~Joe
 
Corran said:
Something from Leica at a more reasonable price? Nah.
Click to expand...

Leica hasn't much choice.

The steady, downward pressure on price to performances forcing all manufacturers to reassess. When a $600 camera trumps a $6,000 camera due to sensor qualities, and with a growing equivalence in optics due to advanced CAD/CAM at much lower price points, those premiums can longer be charged for IQ but only for status. Money used to be measure of IQ and user experience. Now? Nope. The hierarchy has flattened. (Same for autos, BTW)

The Q is entirely about economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom