David Dennis

My SL2 and Leica Fotos app shows no way to upgrade. Did they pull the update?

I always justified the SL price in my mind by noting that the Nikon D5 is $6,500 and Wifi costs $700 and GPS costs $250 so we are almost up to the $7,500 price of the SL. And of course as David Farkas knows, I really love the SL design and user interface. Ironically enough considering the brand's old school image, their software is just crushingly superior to Nikon's. Justifying the price of the glass is a lot harder, lovely though it is. And sadly glass prices have not budged an inch. If they could harmonize glass prices in the same way they did camera prices, I'd definitely be a lot more interested. But the lower SL price makes me think maybe I could use the Nikon mount and keep my Nikon glass for the time being. That would also make the outfit quite a bit lighter than it is with the Leica glass.

I think this would work,great, let's see the results!

How much space do you have now? 128GB? When I get a new iPhone, I like just starting over from the beginning, so during the life of the phone I might use only the 128gb instead of continuously chomping up more and more space by copying the old version. It also helps me consider what apps I really use as opposed to what clutters up the available screens and space. What do you think of the new camera features of the new phone as you've seen?

The biggest problem raised with this video is that Nikon and Canon need volume in order to survive. It seems to me that there will always be professional cameras, for sports and wildlife if nothing else, and so there would always be demand for something like a D5 (high-speed professional full-frame), D500 (high-speed professional crop sensor) or D810 (medium speed professional high resolution). (I am most familiar with Nikon so forgive the exclusion of our Canon-using friends). However, the iPhone 7 is aimed straight at the heart of people who have, say, a D3400 or D5400. These are inexpensive DSLRs that are very confusing to use in ways that deepen your creativity and artistic understanding of photography, because there are tons of electronic fail-safes that try to save you from setting exposure manually or taking pictures that aren't at least adequate in focus or exposure. Ironically enough, the Leica Q, while nearly 10 times the price of a D3400, is a much better camera with which to learn photography. For shame. So if the D3400 user is discouraged from playing with manual settings so he can understand how bokeh works, he's going to look very favorably at an iPhone 7, which just does it automatically for you at the press of a button. Thus, Nikon is really killing the main bridge from beginning DSLR user to the type of person who will get full advantage of professional-style cameras. It almost goes without saying, but Apple has at least 10x, probably more like 100x, the research and development budget of companies like Nikon. Even the portion of the R&D budget dedicated to photography is probably close to those order of magnitude differences. There is no question that the quality of software engineering in Apple products simply overwhelms that of camera makers. I think Leica could become the last surviving camera maker, because they have essentially no dependence on volume and the low end of the market. People who aspire to be professional are always going to want to have pro cameras, and if that can be a successful business exclusively, Leica is positioned well to thrive.

Glad you liked the video! It was a lot of fun to make. I definitely enjoy using the Q as my video camera. Alas, there is no audio input jack in the Q. Perhaps they can put that into the Q's eventual replacement. On the other hand, hooking up a bulky external microphone or diversity microphone receiver to the Q would probably ruin the basic small and light ethos that makes the camera so wonderful. So using the old style dual system sound with an external audio recorder might actually be the best idea. If you have Final Cut Pro, working with double system audio is a snap. Make your sound recording with a separate external recorder. Just import your sound recording and video into the project, right click on both and select the synchronize option. It will take the scratch track recorded by the camera and match it with the separate audio track. Most of the time it's worked very well for me. My video was taken using the standard Q microphone. It's not that bad, although of course it's not that great, either. While I'm here, I should give you a hint for recording yourself, because I notice it's not entirely obvious for most people. Use your iPhone or Android smartphone and the Leica Q app to view the video as you are recording. Use the WiFi network to hook them up and change your autofocus mode to tap to focus. Then face the camera, frame yourself and tap on your face to focus. You will probably want to use a somewhat higher f-stop so you can get larger depth of field, depending on how much you are moving forward and backward within the frame. The manual says that the camera respects that setting when you make it before starting the camera. I found that trying face detection or tracking autofocus didn't work as well as finding a single focus point and sticking to it. Alas, if you want 4K video, you need to buy a SL. It looks like the SL is not that much larger and heavier than the Q if you use Leica M-style lenses, but it's a bit of a beast with the typically promoted 24-90 lens. I have a feeling I would love the SL if I gave it a chance, but it and typically used lenses are ghastly expensive, no getting around it ... Hope that helps, I look forward to seeing your creations!

Based on your description, I think the problem may be that your card was fragmented. Once you add and delete a lot of stuff from the card, its performance can decline. Reformatting it reset it and caused its performance to recover. So if you do see that again, reformat the card again and the problem should go away. Also I wonder if you came close to running out of space on the card. An 8gb card is pretty small in today's day and age. Get a 64GB card and I don't think you'll regret it.

Glad you liked it! There are a few more in the channel if you want to check them out. All three Miami videos were done mainly with the Q, with the first two also featuring X-U footage. That sounds to me like an artifact of image stabilization. If stabilization is on it may try to hold your position even when you are moving deliberately. This would be especially likely if you are trying to move the camera gradually. Try switching off video stabilization under the video menu and please report back and let us know what happens. My memory card is a Sandisk Extreme Plus 90mb/s 64 GB card. I think it cost about $100 at Best Buy but it might have been on sale for under that. I have not noticed any video problems using this card, and as you can see I've used video quite extensively, both in the Q and the X-U.

Ashlee, I'm really curious. The only video mode I know of in my Q simply changes the display so it shows video-related information. The camera still shoots still pictures just fine, including the standard magnification (which does not work when shooting video). So how could having the camera in video mode ruin your pictures? I did the experiment. I turned on my Q, punched the Set button until I saw the little video icon, and took a picture. Focus peaking and magnification worked just fine. My picture came out great. So what is the problem? I'd like to defy convention here and defend the Q's video mode. It creates really gorgeous video, even under tough low-light conditions. The smooth manual focus with focus peaking really helps me a lot and makes it much easier for me to successfully pull focus when shooting moving subjects. I really love it, actually. Better than any true video camera I've owned. For example, check out my video here: (The underwater shots were taken with my Leica X-U; the rest were taken with the Q.) Now, I do feel your pain about exposure. There definitely needs to be a manual-exposure video mode. I find it curious that Canon and Nikon have the same problem, so there must be some sort of engineering challenge here. Anyone know why it's technically difficult to enable a camera to change exposure during video or set manual exposure while shooting?

You know, I would count a camera ridiculous if the people who bought it got awful shots out of it, or if they hated its ergonomics, or something like that. But the admittedly self-sampled set of people who actually bought the SL seem to love it to pieces and get wonderful results from it. I have to admit, though, that I'm curious about the Sonys. No reviewers seem to like them. They say, well, the ergonomics and design is mediocre, the camera is sluggish, but they can't quite not recommend it because it's possible to get wonderful results with them in the right hands. This seems to be a decent summary of what both Thom Hogan and Ming Thien say. A Sony A7R II outfit with the 24-70 f/2.8 lens is $3,300 for the camera and $2,100 for the lens, so roughly $5,400. The comparable SL outfit with the 24-90 f/2.8-4 is $7,500 for the camera and $4,950 for the lens, so roughly $12,450. Sony's defenders seem to focus entirely on that price difference, which is understandable since it's enormous. I have checked out the Sonys at the store, and there's something intangible about them that makes me find them not particularly likable. By contrast when I saw the SL in the Leica store I was quite impressed by it. The interesting bottom line is that I'm not sure why I didn't like the Sonys better. On paper they are very similar to the SL. I wanted to go back and see the Sonys again, but Best Buy no longer carries them. Not sure if that's because a new model is coming or because they just don't see much in the way of sales. (I don't want to bother the staff of a real camera store since I doubt that I'll ever be seriously interested in the Sonys). So I'm curious, since Sonys are actual full frame cameras capable of taking pictures, why do you not consider them to exist?

John, how have you found handling the heavy lens compared to similar products? Is it similar to other DSLR/lens combinations of similar style? How would you compare it to a Nikon 80-400 or Canon 100-400? Thanks!

Ming Thein said this in his "cameropedia" page about the 24-90: I would think that if the focus shift was a significant problem, we would hear more about it on the forum, especially since most SL users seem delighted with the SL and that lens specifically. Any feedback? (Ming's page is https://blog.mingthein.com/equipmentdatabase/ ).

If you don't go over 49' – admittedly a big if – the X-U is worth a look. I got one and I've been really enjoying underwater photography with it. It's just a simple integrated camera with a APS-C sensor and it's worked perfectly underwater so far. I really love it, although I did switch to the Q for above-water shots.

I'm impressed by how carefully you've thought this out. With this new information, I'm certain the new M would make you happy. I echo the thoughts that you might not want to replace your Canon right away, especially if you've been using telephoto lenses, since they are essentially not compatible with the way a rangefinder works. At least here in the USA there is a sale going on with a Leica M with a 50mm lens for US$5,995. Might be a good way to start without breaking the bank. Check to se if there's anything comparable in your country. Note that the bundled camera has a LCD for image review but will not let you shoot video or use live view. http://leicastoremiami.com/collections/leica-m-system-m-system-camera/products/leica-m-typ-262-bundle-with-summarit-m-50mm-f-2-4-sf-40-system-case-m

I think the best advice is Earleygallery's, except that the author of this posting already said he isn't anywhere near Leica stores . If your interest is macro photography, I invite you to check out the Q Macro thread, which has some really cool macro shots (including my own, of course). I found the wide lens much more effective for macro photography than I'd thought it would be, largely because the camera can be handled easily, without the clumsiness typical of DSLRs. Small and light really has a place in the world of macro, much to my surprise. I've taken some of my best butterfly pictures yet with the Q, and I have the Nikon D5 with the 70-180 Nikkor lens I bought just for butterfly photography. If you want to test-drive a M without owning one, try switching your lens to manual focus mode and see how well you do when you use it all the time. That's not going to be perfect, because a rangefinder is easier to focus manually once you get the hang of it, but you will at least have a general idea of how comfortable you are with full-time manual focus. Still, it's tough not to recommend the Leica Q as the best solution for you. You can get your feet wet without spending an extraordinary amount of money, it's undeniably small and light, and you will get great results for it. If you are hung up on more megapixels, you might want to check out the 42 megapixel Sony RX1R II. People who use it say it's not nearly as good a camera as the Q in terms of handling, but it will give you the larger images you desire. Reviews that compare them are pretty even, largely depending on what you think your needs are. The Leica Q will be faster in shooting, the RX1 will give you higher resolution shots. I have the Q and are absolutely delighted with it. I recommend it without reservation. Based on my own testing, and having my own problems with fading eyesight, I think you would prefer it to the M. I tried the M and found it cool but awkward to focus. However, I didn't give it much of a chance and my opinion might have changed if I'd had more time with it.