Q looks pretty great

[KM-25]

I just checked out the Q here at Look3, Leica is letting folks take it for a spin. It felt pretty good in the hand, not cheap and light but still lightweight. The lens looks kind of....huge for a 28/1.7 but the AF and MF was nice as was the EVF. The buttons and overall ergos are quite nice, like a refined modern digital M.

Overall I think it "appears" to be a nice camera that will fill certain roles but obviously for many of us, a proper M mount Leica is still the main game.

All that said, I'm starting to keep my eyes peeled for a good user M9 the look of the sensor just has that special something out of camera.

If anyone has any handling questions about it, I can check it out again, but I have no SD cards with me because I have no digital with me.

 

[user237428934]

RFF culture as we know it: in a pure digital discussion someone jumps from behind a bush, drops his pants and shouts "film is better" (or something equivalent). I know it, but I never get used to it.

Excuse me for using a really perverted behavior as comparison. 🙂

 

[user237428934]

The shutter release button is not threaded for a soft release. What is to be done? 😱

Using the Leica camera app on your smartphone I think. I don't like the mechanical shutter release cables anyway.

 

[Godfrey]

We will all be tired of this cam in 4 mos...and on to the next thing..
...

I bought my Leica X2 in 2012 and sold it recently, having purchased the X typ 113 last October. I wasn't tired of the X2 at all, but the X is a compelling, superior camera so I upgraded.

The Q is a compelling camera but it's a different camera with a different format and a different field of view. It doesn't replace the X for me, I prefer the 35mm EFoV lens. I would love it if they did the Q with a Summilux 50mm lens. I might be interested to purchase one of those if they produce it.

I'm very happy with the X anyway—now several thousand exposures from new, it continues to produce excellent photos and is a wonderful complement to my M-P typ 240. Although it's left the latest forum buzz threads, it remains a superb camera that I'll use for years to come.

G

 

[user237428934]

I wonder how the Q might look in combination with my Frankenfinder... 🙂

 

[Kwesi]

Back on topic, before this thread completely implodes, The Q is Gorgeous.
Its a Leica, Its a premium product, and like other premium products it commands a premium price.
And lastly, no, a nikon coolpix is not its equal.

 

[CameraQuest]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0485265679/wait-for-the-q-leica-q-first-impressions-review

Blazing fast AF. Among the sharpest lenses of its kind they have ever tested.

$4250.

Yep, it would be great for a $800 camera.
Not so much for $4250
You can buy used M9 bodies for less,
or a used M240 body if you bargain.

The zillionaire Blackstone Boys are a bit disconnected from the real world.

Endlessly charging more and more as a marketing philosophy
is not the way to build a brand name or a long term viable company.

Stephen

 

[Lss]

I mean let's be honest, this is basically a Sony RX1 with a slightly wider lens and a red dot?

It's obviously not the same camera. And as a long-time RX1R user I expect the Leica Q to address most of the weaknesses found on the Sony (this is what the spec sheet, the product images, and the early comments suggest). It remains to be seen how it fares in practice.

Is that enough to switch at this price? At least it's free to consider the switch.

 

[user237428934]

Yep, it would be great for a $800 camera.
Not so much for $4250
You can buy used M9 bodies for less,
or a used M240 body if you bargain.

The zillionaire Blackstone Boys are a bit disconnected from the real world.

Endlessly charging more and more as a marketing philosophy
is not the way to build a brand name or a long term viable company.

Stephen

When the RX1 came out it was around 3000 EUR. Together with the EVF the package was approx. 3300 EUR. The Leica Q is 3990 EUR. Not a big difference for the Leica name (if that was the only difference).

In absolute terms the camera is not cheap. In relation to the only camera that comes to my mind as comparable (Sony RX1) it's not so expensive.

 

[DavidKKHansen]

Yep, it would be great for a $800 camera.
Not so much for $4250
You can buy used M9 bodies for less,
or a used M240 body if you bargain.

The zillionaire Blackstone Boys are a bit disconnected from the real world.

Endlessly charging more and more as a marketing philosophy
is not the way to build a brand name or a long term viable company.

Stephen

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?

 

[burancap]

When the RX1 came out it was around 3000 EUR. Together with the EVF the package was approx. 3300 EUR. The Leica Q is 3990 EUR. Not a big difference for the Leica name (if that was the only difference)...

And I would have no problem with paying an extra 690 for an inbuilt EVF rather than a socketable one. Not having seen the finder, I will venture to guess that Leica has spent a great deal of effort on getting this one correct out of the gates. The finder is where Leica has always stood apart, and as they venture further into EVF territory at this price point -it has to be the best available --and regardless of whether this is a harbinger of M's to come or not.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

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?

I think Stephen is yanking our chains! But this is a really good analysis. The Q seems to me a digital translation of the spirit of the original Ms, for photographers who don't have much baggage about them.

 

[NazgulKing]

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?

I am not so sure. Even for a camera like this, Sony would have charged at least 2500$.

 

[Huss]

If you like it, fine, go for it. I assume you would've liked it better if it didn't have a red dot and was $1,999?

I would have preferred if my M240 did not have the red dot and was $1,999 too.

 

[Huss]

Forgive me for this but... Ken Rockwell's take on the Leica Q:

"LEICA makes the best lenses, but they make the worst digital cameras"

Dood has not touched or used it...

Anyway, back to our regular programming.

 

[Corran]

Me too! But no one is making that camera at that price-point (digital RF).

I will state again that I think this is a "me-too" product that has little to no differentiation in the market place. Others seem to disagree because it may be marginally better than the Sony (or similar) offerings in certain ways.

 

[burancap]

...Others seem to disagree because it may be marginally better than the Sony (or similar) offerings in certain ways.

Does it really matter if it is only "marginally better than the Sony?"

Think about that.

Sony has been on fire the last five years, and now little ol' Leica has very quietly delivered a camera that arguably trumps a highly-regarded product from Sony.

That is the real story. Just as the very demise of Leica was on the back of most folks' tongues up until the very announcement of the Q --Leica delivered, and they delivered big. Is it the end-all-to-be-all? No, certainly not. But, the old grey mare ain't out of the game yet. I can't wait to see what they have to deliver next.

 

[Corran]

I wonder if the Q would exist if the Sony mirrorless FF cameras had not come to market yet? Is Leica being revolutionary, or just iterating on a popular design/trend? I see nothing revolutionary about it myself.

The funny thing here is I am not a Leica hater. I have an M9 and think it is a pretty good camera, though the screen sucks big time and its sensor performance is dated (no surprises there). This being the RF forum, I again point out the obvious lack of what makes Leica "Leica," at least to me.

 

[Rayt]

Dios Mios. Don't buy the thing. We get it.

 

[Richard G]

Tough school, with the Q surviving pretty well after several pages. Last time I saw hype like this was the pre-release discussion of the X100 by Fuji. That lived up to the hype and then some. Leica seem to have outdone Apple in keeping this under wraps till release, with some members having tried one already, and one at least already owning one. I agree with Jeff about the finder from what we read of it. I would have preferred a smaller lens for a smaller overall package. I don't need Summiluxes. I think an Elmarit (f2.8) would have made this more attractive for me. I haven't looked at all the images, but I hate any distortion. Sure you can fix it, but I don't want to have to.