What future for the Leica Q ?

[CameraQuest]

My initial thought on the Q was simply too much money for a fixed lens camera to generate many sales, especially compared to what $4200 can buy in used M. Nonetheless it is aimed squarely at serious photographers.

The Q is generating a lot of interest. One M9 owner wrote me:
"The Leica Q. It's everything I would want. Is everyone going to be selling their M's now? "

What are the possible Q implications for the Leica nutz?

1) Several years ago Leica introduced the T, an interchangeable lens system aimed more at the bling crowd than at serious photographers. The Leica T failed in the marketplace, probably taking a few promising careers at Leitz Park with it.

2) Will there be more Q's with different fixed lenses?

3) Will there be interchangeable lens Q's ?

4) Will there be any compatibility between Q and M lenses via adapters ?

5) Will Q features morph into an M mount camera?

The answers to all depend upon the Q's reception in the marketplace.

Lots of sales = lots of future Leica Q options.

Leica T Sales for the Q = not so much except a foot note.

Time will tell. All will be decided by Leica's customers.

Stephen

PS

Imagine a similar question posed in 1953 "What Future for the M3 ?"

In 1953 the M3's future was definitely undecided.
Most Barnack owners strongly disliked the M3's larger size.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

I think we will have to wait until October as that's when I believe Leica will announce the newest update to their M line. So far Leica has been following a 3 year pattern on major updates to the M and at the 2 year mark the M-P update. 3 years is this October.

So far no one has said who makes the sensor in the Q but it has been said who didn't make it; CMOSIS or Sony. Will be interesting to see if this new sensor will be in the next M.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't understand the constant sense of negativity towards Leica implied in your comments, Stephen. Why the antipathy?

The Leica Q looks to be a fine piece of equipment, just like the Leica X is and the Leica Ms are. They each address different parts of the camera buying audience.

I could see Leica producing a couple of flavors of the Q ... one with a fast 50mm lens would be of particular interest to me, another with a modest speed zoom or Tri-Elmar-like three-focal length lens would also be interesting. (Actually, given that my M lenses are all fast, a Q_Tri-Elmar would likely be the most interesting to me...)

To turn the Q into an M-compatible interchangeable lens camera will/would take a massive re-engineering effort since the Q is designed around a dedicated lens and leaf shutter. More doable would be to update the T with a more Q-styled body, a full-frame sensor, and compatibility to existing and future T system lenses, and leave M lenses to adaptation using the existing M->T adapter.

What Leica actually intends ... I'd just wait to see what they announce in the Fall, personally, rather than speculate endlessly about what I personally would prefer. I kinda like what I have of theirs already, Leica knows their business better than any of us do. Their M/M-P 240 cameras are excellent, the MM246 is excellent, the X, X Vario, and Q are excellent, and the T is similarly an excellent performer if not to everyone's taste. Diehards love the M9 CCD, others love the M8 CCD, and of course there are the generations of dedicated M and R film camera lovers. I think they have a pretty good track record overall, having changed history and invented the 35mm camera ... ;-)

G

 

[Pioneer]

I recognize that this is likely an attempt to expand their offering in the marketplace and I do like the looks of the Q. But won't this camera steal sales from the M digital cameras?

 

[jsrockit]

I think, if the reviews are right about its performance, it will be a hit (well, in Leica terms). The T is a really nice feeling camera, but its performance is on the slow side. That puts it into the still life category which doesn't do well these days.

As far as what the future holds... at least Leica isn't resting on the M. They've brought out the X, the T, the S series, etc. In the past it would be many years between film M refreshes and they would be minimal. I think the Q is the right move forward.

As far as stealing M sales, I don't think so. M users like the mechanical RF, optical VF, and manual focus. This is clearly an AF camera first and a MF camera second IMO. The EVF will turn off some M users as well.

I'm getting more interested in the Q every day. I just don;t like grip cameras...and most of the newest mirrorless are grip cameras.

 

[Highway 61]

To turn the Q into an M-compatible interchangeable lens camera will/would take a massive re-engineering effort since the Q is designed around a dedicated lens and leaf shutter. More doable would be to update the T with a more Q-styled body, a full-frame sensor, and compatibility to existing and future T system lenses, and leave M lenses to adaptation using the existing M->T adapter.

Actually what will be done in the future (it's more than obvious now) by Leica will be the contrary of what you describe in your first sentence quoted above. They more than likely will turn the M into a Q-like camera by producing a camera which will be an M but without any optical viewfinder and rangefinder and with an EVF instead.

I don't see any antipathy towards Leica in what Stephen wrote, just questions about their marketing policy and common sense.

 

[Highway 61]

Definitely not. There always will be a M with a rangefinder/optical viewfinder. As long as there is a demand for this expensive piece, they will produce it. They may add another camera-line or special M-series with an EVF instead of the rangefinder.

I haven't written that I was thinking that the M as it is for now would be discontinued. My opinion is that there will be another line of "M" but with an EVF and no OVF/RF any longer.

Yet - the day they produce an "M" sporting an outstanding EVF only (and with all the refinements of what the best EVF of that time will have in terms of critical manual focus etc), the demand for the M as it is for now with its OVF/RF system may very well go down the path and PDQ.

If they didn't believe the least bit in the EVF technology they would definitely not have accomodated the Olympus EVF for their M240 and M246 bodies.

 

[jsrockit]

If they didn't believe the least bit in the EVF technology they would definitely not have accomodated the Olympus EVF for their M240 and M246 bodies.

One could argue that they implemented an EVF for adapter R lenses and for video (since the optical VF wouldn't work).

 

[Highway 61]

One could argue that they implemented an EVF for R lenses and for video.

Yes... possible.

But, I don't think so re. R lenses. For them, the R system is dead and belongs to the past already.

Like... tears in rain. 😉

BTW what's a "grip camera" ?

 

[Bill Clark]

I hope they sell out!

It has some features I like such as wifi and, from what I read, parts from the S series.
The ISO range would allow creative photography with moody light. It should be a possible PJ photogs camera as it looks like more time could be spent on what's happening in front of the camera.

I hope they stay in business far into the future.

 

[jcrutcher]

I had an interesting conversation with a Leica salesperson at the Leica store in San Francisco. I have one on order from another Leica Store but I wanted to hold it and feel it. (by the way it is very well balanced, light and quick to focus).

He was in his late 20's I'm guessing. I told him I don't shoot 28mm very often so it will take a bit to get used to. He agreed but then went into the reasoning Leica made it a 28mm. "In my generation we only use our phones to snap photos. The average focal length of a smartphone camera is 29-32mm. Therefore his generation may be more likely to get into a real camera and quit using the smartphone since its a perspective they are very comfortable with"

I have no idea if this thought is sponsored by Leica or him alone but if the facts are correct he may be right. i then though of the cost for these young people until he told me he has a M-246 on order for himself.

I'm looking forward to owning a Q and I'm fortunate I can afford to add one to my collection.

Jim

 

[jcrutcher]

Oh I also have a "T" and love it. The convenience of using M lenses and the quality of the sensor makes the camera. i don't intend to buy T lenses for it. With lenses the T can be expensive but if you have a few Leica and CV lenses just buy the body, adapter and the EVF and you're good to go.

Jim

 

[jsrockit]

BTW what's a "grip camera" ?

I like my cameras shaped like a M... not like a DSLR with a right hand grip.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm looking forward to owning a Q and I'm fortunate I can afford to add one to my collection.

Let us know how you like it... 😀

 

[Highway 61]

"In my generation we only use our phones to snap photos. The average focal length of a smartphone camera is 29-32mm. Therefore his generation may be more likely to get into a real camera and quit using the smartphone since its a perspective they are very comfortable with"

I'm pretty sure there are tons of selfie sticks dedicated to the Leica Q on their way to the western world already... 😀 😛

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

I recognize that this is likely an attempt to expand their offering in the marketplace and I do like the looks of the Q. But won't this camera steal sales from the M digital cameras?

Not if you are interested in a rangefinder. Frankly I cant see any M shooter being much interested in a Q.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Definitely not. There always will be a M with a rangefinder/optical viewfinder. As long as there is a demand for this expensive piece, they will produce it. They may add another camera-line or special M-series with an EVF instead of the rangefinder.

Spot on. The vast majority of M users desire an optical viewfinder. Looking at an EVF is no different than watching life on a tiny television set.

 

[Corran]

Not if you are interested in a rangefinder. Frankly I cant see any M shooter being much interested in a Q.

Check out the thread below this one in the Q forum. Apparently many folks would rather the EVF / AF than a RF 😕.

 

[jsrockit]

Looking at an EVF is no different than watching life on a tiny television set.

It's a framing device... it works fine as such. I use it for a couple of seconds... not minutes.

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

It's a framing device... it works fine as such. I use it for a couple of seconds... not minutes.

I guess an EVF is OK for snapshots, but I do spend minutes looking through the viewfinder, making compositional decisions. Spending minutes looking at those tiny TV's is very frustrating and headache inducing.