GaryLH
Veteran
+1 but I don't think it will ever happen, one can only hope, one day they will...
The cameras like the x, t and now the q series seem to be Leica exclusives. Designed w/ help from Panasonic (maybe), but manufactured in Germany.
In terms of Panasonic m43, they still seem to be committed using their own sensors and digital path electronics. They have been using Sony for some of their other cameras like the 1inch sensor.
Gary
GaryLH
Veteran
This is what I am thinking as well..but I only hope for reasonable realitive to Leica...something like 3-4k for a mirrorless m mount body w/ focus peaking and/or the Fuji split image.. If it was some like Ricoh doing a new ff module, I would expect closer to 2k for example..
Leica is really doing a tightrope act in terms of satisfying the drf crowd looking for one within reach vs appealing to those who maybe more interested in the lenses then a rf experience vs the those who buy it for the symbolism.
For me, when I look at digital rot, 1-2k is the normal max I will pay... I might reach to maybe 3k for that mirrorless m mount, but that would really be stretching it.. Best hope is probably if Ricoh ever will do another m module but in ff.
Gary
hlockwood
Well-known
Stephen,
You should have also called him on the "grumpy old men" comment. I resemble...um, resent that.
HFL
Corran
Well-known
I don't know how you can look at Leica's history with FF cameras and say that.
Their entire (modern) brand identity is a higher-cost item with exclusivity and price premiums to go along with that. The M cameras were all outclassed in technical specifications by pretty much any camera, at half the price or less. The M9 I own I would readily admit is probably not much better than an entry-level DSLR except in good light, and of course has 1/10 the "features" (which yes, are superfluous for most).
Now maybe if they extended the Digilux (or Hasselblad
) model with a FF Sony rebadged as a Leica camera, it may happen. Hopefully sans wood trim.I don't really understand how the Q is "about economics." If they even extend this idea into an interchangeable lens mount, with AF lenses, then are people really going to be persuaded to switch systems? I don't think so myself, not when DSLRs still dominate the marketplace in most areas (hobbyist, amateur, pro, etc.) and other mirrorless offerings are more mature, way cheaper, and probably offer 95% of the "user experience" other than the prestige of the Red Dot.
The other idea would be a Q with an M-mount, so no AF. Which means we are back to a scaled-back M240 with no RF and a built-in EVF? Is that what people want, here or elsewhere? I think very few people are going to switch systems to a mirrorless camera, even if it came in at $3k, with manual focus lenses, which then cost more than most mid-tier FF cameras themselves. Zeiss/Voigtlander offerings might help but still. The average camera buyer won't spend that kind of money, the serious amateur or hobbyist will gravitate towards systems that have 95% of the performance at 50% of the cost, and the pros will be wondering where their 70-200mm and wide or midrange zoom is, not to mention the 300mm f/2.8. So we are back to the niche club that bought the M9/240/Monochrom I guess.
To end this on a positive note, I recently read that the Q has a leaf-shutter that of course offers major benefits for flash sync. That, in my opinion, is the only interesting thing about this camera. An M-mount camera with a built-in LS rather than a FPS would be, for me, quite interesting.
nlubis
Well-known
I just came back from Leica Washington DC. I agree to Tom's impression above, and Ming Thein's review. I like it.
Lss
Well-known
Sure, I'll have one.
I don't know how you can look at Leica's history with FF cameras and say that.
Their entire (modern) brand identity is a higher-cost item with exclusivity and price premiums to go along with that. The M cameras were all outclassed in technical specifications by pretty much any camera, at half the price or less. The M9 I own I would readily admit is probably not much better than an entry-level DSLR except in good light, and of course has 1/10 the "features" (which yes, are superfluous for most).
Now maybe if they extended the Digilux (or Hasselblad
I don't really understand how the Q is "about economics." If they even extend this idea into an interchangeable lens mount, with AF lenses, then are people really going to be persuaded to switch systems? I don't think so myself, not when DSLRs still dominate the marketplace in most areas (hobbyist, amateur, pro, etc.) and other mirrorless offerings are more mature, way cheaper, and probably offer 95% of the "user experience" other than the prestige of the Red Dot.
The other idea would be a Q with an M-mount, so no AF. Which means we are back to a scaled-back M240 with no RF and a built-in EVF? Is that what people want, here or elsewhere? I think very few people are going to switch systems to a mirrorless camera, even if it came in at $3k, with manual focus lenses, which then cost more than most mid-tier FF cameras themselves. Zeiss/Voigtlander offerings might help but still. The average camera buyer won't spend that kind of money, the serious amateur or hobbyist will gravitate towards systems that have 95% of the performance at 50% of the cost, and the pros will be wondering where their 70-200mm and wide or midrange zoom is, not to mention the 300mm f/2.8. So we are back to the niche club that bought the M9/240/Monochrom I guess.
To end this on a positive note, I recently read that the Q has a leaf-shutter that of course offers major benefits for flash sync. That, in my opinion, is the only interesting thing about this camera. An M-mount camera with a built-in LS rather than a FPS would be, for me, quite interesting.
Absolutely correct Corran! It's amusing that people think Leica needs to lower their prices. Does Ferrari need to lower their prices too? Leica NEVER has played in the same market as Canon, Nikon, or Sony. Leica's prices have nothing to do with material cost but instead play on their image and exclusivity.
If you want a Leica, a real Leica not a Panaleica, step up and pay for it.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I know Leica has come to be thought of as a luxury brand, but I honestly don't think they're making higher margins on their cameras than other manifacturers. Happy to be corrected on this if there is data to the contrary. They're just making niche products, using somewhat unusual materials, at extreme tolerances. Economies of scale would inevitably make them expensive.
rbelyell
Well-known
i would love to be educated on the 'unusual materials at extreme tolerances' that went into the xvario, the latest 35mm x and the Q. understanding that would certainly help me put leica pricing in a better perspective. ive heard these expressions bandied about as gospel, but never saw a single place where they were enumerated in specific juxtaposition to competitive products from other manufacturers, and i for one would love to be educated by reading the factual underpinnings of these statements. on the other hand, if these underpinnings cannot be supplied with certainty, perhaps as rational beings we should treat these statements more like we do greek mythology: amusing tales that were the results of an oral tradition that began based on kernels of truth but that have long ceased to approach reality. just sayin'...and also sayin' that anyone who compares building a modern digi leica to a ferrari really doesnt understand how ferraris are made.
phatnev
Well-known
Leica used to be the working photographers camera of choice. Almost all of the greats used them up until the 1970s. Now it's the wealthy's camera of choice. Prestige items for those with more money than sense.
There's no need to justify your purchasing decisions to me or anyone else(except maybe your wife!) but 99% of the photos made with digital Leica Ms could be made on almost any DSLR. I love Leica as much as the next guy but the quality of their products(bodies specifically) has fallen dramatically while the costs of said products increases. On the other hand, the competition has to continuously stepped up their game while making their products even cheaper.
If you want a "real" Leica, buy a film M.
willie_901
Veteran
You do realize the Q's sensor assembly is manufactured by CMOSIS? I think time has told.
I don't know who manufactures the EVF. It is Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCOS) technology, which is a good thing.
I must concede both neither the SONYs nor the Q have an OVF.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
If I can interrupt the pissing and moaning, let me say that I like the concept and will be checking one out as soon as possible with an eye to buying one. It will be a major investment, but it will force me to finally sell off excess underutilized gear to help offset the cost.
I see this as a modern day version of a traditional Leica. I don't care that it is fixed lens; I can crop. I don't care that it is EVF only; in fact, I prefer it. I don't care that it costs what it does.
I've learned to really enjoy my X100S, but I am constantly annoyed by the little fidgety buttons and dials that festoon the thing. What I've always wanted is a camera that handles like an M, but without the durability problems of a true RF. I see EVFs as the best path available for carrying the direct view tradition into the future. I'm not an inveterate lens twiddler and switcher so the fixed 28 is of no concern to me - in fact a 24 or 35 was what I usually shot with back in SLR days, I really didn't start using a 35 as a normal until I started shooting Ms in 1983 or so because of the OVF limitations.
Haters gonna hate while the rest of us are going to be out there creating good and not so good stuff with the Q. It ain't always about the hardware.
I see this as a modern day version of a traditional Leica. I don't care that it is fixed lens; I can crop. I don't care that it is EVF only; in fact, I prefer it. I don't care that it costs what it does.
I've learned to really enjoy my X100S, but I am constantly annoyed by the little fidgety buttons and dials that festoon the thing. What I've always wanted is a camera that handles like an M, but without the durability problems of a true RF. I see EVFs as the best path available for carrying the direct view tradition into the future. I'm not an inveterate lens twiddler and switcher so the fixed 28 is of no concern to me - in fact a 24 or 35 was what I usually shot with back in SLR days, I really didn't start using a 35 as a normal until I started shooting Ms in 1983 or so because of the OVF limitations.
Haters gonna hate while the rest of us are going to be out there creating good and not so good stuff with the Q. It ain't always about the hardware.
AndyGarton
Member
Wise words Ken, I don't really have anything to add (beyond that, for me, a 28mm "default", but with the opportunity to still use high quality 35mm, and "good enough quality (for me)" 50mm, is the perfect lens "combination"), but wanted to reply in agreement
Clearly the Q won't suit everybody (or even the majority), but it's a fantastic camera for some, so it is quite tedious and pointless to read all the hating. If it's not for you, move on!
rbelyell
Well-known
yes, to those who have factual questions about the constant statements regarding objective issues like superior 'build quality from singular materials' and unique 'engineering tolerances', either take those statements on faith or move on. you are not welcome here! it is not possible for you to both want those answers and at the same time think this is an interesting an intruiging product. you are haters! argh!! what is to be done with you people??
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I'm not sure whom that invective is directed against? Anyway, I don't think Leica has some kind of magical engineering acumen, just that, if you make a weird product for a small number of consumers, it's going to cost more per unit than something popular and standardized. I certainly don't refute that Leicas are out of reach for most people, just that maybe it's not merely a crass cash grab. I doubt they could be cheaper than they are. The Q seems about as pricy as you'd think for an RX1-like camera with a good EVF and a fast 28.
uhoh7
Veteran
"except in good light", well that covers alot of conditions LOL, and you could add: except with a fast lens, which will take the M9 anywhere.
It's the Glass. The M9 has a fantastic sensor for M glass. The Q looks like a sweet rig, but technically the M9 and 28 Cron will beat it easily for landscape or architecture. That's because the 28 Cron is the real thing with very tight tolerances. The Q has the bells and whistles, AF, Macro, but at cost: loose and heavy native distortion, which has to be corrected in a way which is telling on close look.
I think Ming and other reviewers have mostly glossed over this.
KM-25
Well-known
I handled it over the weekend, shot some 2 dozen frames through it. The lens is very sharp, so it induces substantial moire in fabrics. The lens is also large so while the body is small, the Mamiya RF sized lens makes the camera look a bit larger overall than a standard M.
The AF is super fast and dead on, love the selector lever on the MF focus tab. But the MF action is not anything like an M lens nor should it be expected to be.
It's going to be a great camera for those looking for that feature set but for me I need and want great MF action and an optical VF.
Audii-Dudii
Established
Right now, I have a pair of RX1s that I use as my everyday and travel cameras. I'm happy enough with them, but I have long preferred a 28mm focal length to 35mm, so it would seem like the Leica Q is an obvious choice for me.
Except that it's not, because I also do a lot of nighttime photography and a 30-second maximum exposure makes it a non-starter for me. If Leica could push this to even 60 seconds (or preferably 120 seconds) without a significant hit to performance, I would be all over it.
But as it is, I have no choice but to pass on it.
This is also the reason why I don't own a Sigma DP1 Merrill or quattro.
Except that it's not, because I also do a lot of nighttime photography and a 30-second maximum exposure makes it a non-starter for me. If Leica could push this to even 60 seconds (or preferably 120 seconds) without a significant hit to performance, I would be all over it.
But as it is, I have no choice but to pass on it.
This is also the reason why I don't own a Sigma DP1 Merrill or quattro.
Corran
Well-known
I didn't define good light - but push the M9 just a little and the advantage melts away. In reality, I'm being nice. I bought my D800E for $3300 brand new the day it came out, and the M9 for about $3000 last summer used. The D800, as an example of a camera half the price of the current M when new and about the same price as you can buy a used M9 now (but significantly cheaper used, the D800), will beat the pants off the M9 in any situation, in any light, and in any condition. Even the M240.
My point is it's not always about the tech specs. And a fast lens? Well I wonder how the M9 stacks up against those m43 f/0.95 lenses then? I can't test, but I bet it loses.
Michael Markey
Veteran
Took me a long time to get accustomed to 28 and now its my go to length for general shooting.
Probably the odd one out here but I prefer AF providing its fast enough ...so yes ...this is the ideal camera for me in many respects.
Probably the odd one out here but I prefer AF providing its fast enough ...so yes ...this is the ideal camera for me in many respects.