What future for the Leica Q ?

[Hunter S Thompson]

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

You lose all of the characteristics of a RF when you switch to a tiny TV set. Not very Leica-ish.

 

[uhoh7]

All will be decided by Leica's customers.

If this were true the CL might have had a longer life LOL

I'm very happy the Q has had a mostly positive reception, because there are lots of nice things about it.

But I think what alot of Leica customers might appreciate is something in this footprint which is more versatile and field ready. A digital CL, that's all we want. 🙂

They may make one, they may not. The Sony A7 project was cancelled several times in one year. Who knows what causes something to clear all the hurdles and make it to production?

I liked your point in another thread that the Q must have been developed under the ousted CEO, though I have no idea what that really means 🙂

Maybe he named it the "Q" for quit?

 

[Monochrom]

Leica avoids getting directly into the NEW CL... they know it's very important but they they go around the idea. Cats don't hesitate like Leica does.

 

[JoeV]

Regarding the Q's sensor, Ming Thein in his review suggested it's a CMOSIS but different from those in digital M's, as told to him by Leica rep in Kuala Lumpur. As for the body and lens, the design suggests to me Panasonic manufacture, but I could very well be wrong. I'm hoping it's Panasonic because: 1) That suggests there could be a full-frame Lumix version in the near future, at a significantly lower price; and 2) It would suggest that someone can effectively compete with Sony on camera sensor design.

~Joe

 

[Hunter S Thompson]

Regarding the Q's sensor, Ming Thein in his review suggested it's a CMOSIS but different from those in digital M's, as told to him by Leica rep in Kuala Lumpur. As for the body and lens, the design suggests to me Panasonic manufacture, but I could very well be wrong. I'm hoping it's Panasonic because: 1) That suggests there could be a full-frame Lumix version in the near future, at a significantly lower price; and 2) It would suggest that someone can effectively compete with Sony on camera sensor design.

~Joe

Does Panasonic have a plant in Wetzlar?

 

[gustavoAvila]

I'm hoping it's Panasonic because: 1) That suggests there could be a full-frame Lumix version in the near future, at a significantly lower price; and 2) It would suggest that someone can effectively compete with Sony on camera sensor design.

Every sensor manufacturer sells to whomever ponies up the cash.

There is nothing stopping Panasonic from from creating a full-frame Lumix other than the cold, hard reality of return-on-investment, or lack thereof.

 

[Ken Ford]

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

Or apparently some of us are more interested in the destination than the car and road used to get us there. I see the Q as fitting in perfectly with the philosophy of Leica photography. Who cares if it's fixed lens and EVF only?

 

[phatnev]

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

I'm an M shooter and I'm interested in the Q. Just because one shoots M cameras doesn't mean that's the only camera they shoot. Nor does it mean it's their favorite. Sure the older shooters might not like the Q, but Leica needs to garner favor with a younger generation.

 

[dave lackey]

I'm an M shooter and I'm interested in the Q. Just because one shoots M cameras doesn't mean that's the only camera they shoot. Nor does it mean it's their favorite. Sure the older shooters might not like the Q, but Leica needs to garner favor with a younger generation.

That is rather unnecessary.

 

[Ken Ford]

That is rather unnecessary.

But he has a point. The Q is designed for today's photographers, not the old guard.

 

[jkjod]

I'm an M shooter and I'm interested in the Q. Just because one shoots M cameras doesn't mean that's the only camera they shoot. Nor does it mean it's their favorite. Sure the older shooters might not like the Q, Leica needs to garner favor with a younger generation.

I'm an M shooter, I'm the younger generation and I have no interest in the Q. I can, however, see where it would be useful for other people than myself. I hope they sell a boat load, only so they can STILL make a true mechanical rangefinder because that's what I, personally, enjoy shooting with. If the Q works for you, that's great. More importantly, I can see the value in the "older shooters" as they by far and away know way more than I do about Leica, rangefinders, and photography in general.

 

[Keith]

But he has a point. The Q is designed for today's photographers, not the old guard.

Old guard! 😱

Mind your lip sonny. LOL 😀

 

[Calzone]

I think Godfrey and John above have it right. Somehow I own 7 Leica bodies, my M-bodies are not going anywhere, I most recently ventured into Leica-R, I own and shoot screwmount, I own a MM9,and pretty much am interested in Leica's new offerings like the M-246 and the "Q."

Understand that I don't intend on selling any old gear to buy new gear, but if an interesting product comes along there will be additions. I own other makes/brands of gear, but somehow I am loyally a bit Leica-centric.

The "Q" is an elegant camera for me. I can see me shooting my MM9 and a M-246 together with my 28 Cron and 50 Lux ASPH. I can see me owning a "Q-28" and a "Q-50" as a compact long-short color pair instead of buying a M-240. I like carrying two rigged cameras and don't like lens changing.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I'm an M shooter and I'm interested in the Q. Just because one shoots M cameras doesn't mean that's the only camera they shoot. Nor does it mean it's their favorite. Sure the older shooters might not like the Q, but Leica needs to garner favor with a younger generation.

I'm 57 and I like the "Q" very much. Also I am a M-shooter.

Leica just needs to sell cool cameras to cool people.

Cal

 

[dave lackey]

But he has a point. The Q is designed for today's photographers, not the old guard.

Really? 😉 I would love a Q! And I consider myself a today's photographer!

Leica makes great products and I hope they sell a million of them. 😎

 

[willie_901]

...
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?
I hope so. My money is patiently waiting for a 40 or 50 mm lens equipped Q. If this never happens, I'm content to continue and possibly upgrading my X-Pro 1 while enjoying the Fujinon primes' excellent results . I

3) Will there be interchangeable lens Q's ?
That depends on the new CEO's view regarding cannibalzation of existing product lines. Apple (and others) fearlessly release new products that kill of very successful existing products (iPhone killed the iPod). Nikon's behavior is the exact opposite. Of course, the iPod was completely devoid of heritage compared to the Leica M. At the same time I read the Q's sensor/lens were designed to be a match pair. This implies a heterogeneous sensor micro-lenes assembly. At least that's the technology Fujifilm used to minimize the size of the X100.

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

5) Will Q features morph into an M mount camera?
The differentiation will be an EVF finder versus an optical RF. And, of course AF. If the Q sells well, the M becomes even more of a niche product. I can't imagine Leica abandoning the optical RF. At the same time there are a large number of M/LTM lenses just waiting to be repurposed. Without understanding anything about the engineering challenges, I speculate M/LTM lenses are incompatible with the Q. A significantly thicker EVF body with an M mount would not be a Q. It would not be a M either.

Please ignore these characters required for the post to appear.

 

[phatnev]

I'm an M shooter, I'm the younger generation and I have no interest in the Q. I can, however, see where it would be useful for other people than myself. I hope they sell a boat load, only so they can STILL make a true mechanical rangefinder because that's what I, personally, enjoy shooting with. If the Q works for you, that's great. More importantly, I can see the value in the "older shooters" as they by far and away know way more than I do about Leica, rangefinders, and photography in general.

I'm with you. I absolutely love the M6 and M2. Two of my all time favorite cameras. And products like Q will ensure that Leica continues to produce RF for people to enjoy and also allow Leica to potentially bring new customers into the fold by embracing some of the more recent technological advances in the industry.

I for one think the Q would be the perfect travel companion for a film M + 50mm.

 

[jsrockit]

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.

Well, not everyone photographs the same way. I don't need minutes for composition. Snapshots... cute, 🙄

 

[willie_901]

About the EVF.

There are a wide-range of EVFs. I've used rather poor EVF's and excellent EVF's.

EVF's have four unavoidable issues.

o In extremely bright light they can be difficult to use. This problem is minimized by well-designed eye-cups and high-quality displays. But so far this is a consideration. Some optical RFs aren't so great in bright light as well.

o There is a delay between reality and what you see. More sophisticated electronics minimizes this delay, but it can never be zero. Honestly, learning to anticipate and fast bursts of exposures is a practical way to deal with this. People tend to confuse automated operational (exposure, ISO and AF) delays with EVF display delays. With minimal effort many newer EVF cameras can be configured to be very quick.

o One can not see outside the frame. This is the only disappointment I experience with EVFs. This is the main reason I still use a X-Pro 1 as my daily carry instead of the two X-T1 bodies I own.

o In extremely low light the EVF becomes noisy. The display quality degrades. Of course using an RF patch in extremely low light has completely different challenges. Some EVFs will strobe (alias) when used in strong fluorescent lights. Modern CFLs aren't so bad, but old, tube-based lighting with slower cycling rates can be a problem.

I assume the Q's EVF implementation is competitive. So the EVF is a fine with me. I'll adapt to composing without seeing outside the frame.

 

[dave lackey]

Living in Atlanta is bad when it comes to Leica. There is no Leica dealer within a two-day drive! It would be nice to see the Q (stupid name for a great camera) but I can't afford it anyways. I am waiting to see how Jim likes his! Oh, yeah, he is old, too. Sorry.😛