Jump to content

Leica Q -general-


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So the full frame sensor is there so we can be sloppy in our composition? Some really creative excuses for a redundant feature here (if, indeed it is a feature of the camera) . How many here take a photograph thinking 'I'll crop it later'?

 

 

Mike.

Errr.. I do. To quote the late Fritz Pölking: "Wildlife photography is cropping photography". I would venture most if not all street photographers do, HCB certainly did. Dynamic photography does not allow the luxury of taking one's time for careful composing and frame-filling.

See the shot, compose the shot, focus, choose the moment - shoot. Then crop the loose part away, if needed, later.

Frame-filling  is a thing for static subjects.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

With a short-range (24 or 28mm to 50mm) f2 lens that doesn't extend (i.e. something like my Digilux 2) it would be perfect for what I require. With a full-frame sensor, 50mm would be long enough (for me) and would help keep the lens size reasonably small. I recently bought a used X Vario as an updated Digilux, and while the camera & lens are fine I don't like the external viewfinder; it spoils the low-profile lines of the camera and is vulnerable to damage. The new Leica Q, with built-in EVF sounds very promising, but I would not want a fixed wide-angle lens camera. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Ricoh GR and that has the crop function. As a 28mm it's great , as 35 or 50 it's ok ... But I only use it that way for birthday shots. If you want a 35 or 50 then you really need a different camera. It's pointless to buy an expensive FF and then use it in crop mode most of the time ... Just get the X IMHO, unless you really want the EVF.

at least for me (i cannot speak for anyone else)  the concern  was will a wider angle materially change my shooting style. I will i adapt..  i agree with everyone (my wife included) who says why buy it if you are going to crop to 35 or 50........ i have been looking at as many images as i can find on the internet taken by 28mm lenses and i have made up my mind (assuming the Q is what we think it is and it comes in under $5000US ) I am going to get it....YMMV

Edited by prk60091
Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr.. I do. To quote the late Fritz Pölking: "Wildlife photography is cropping photography". I would venture most if not all street photographers do, HCB certainly did. Dynamic photography does not allow the luxury of taking one's time for careful composing and frame-filling.

See the shot, compose the shot, focus, choose the moment - shoot. Then crop the loose part away, if needed, later.

Frame-filling  is a thing for static subjects.

Jaapv, I don't crop; or at least I don't take a photograph with a view to cropping it later. Adding a digital crop to a camera is like adding a facility to imprint the date in the corner of a photograph. It doesn't belong on a high-end camera. Let's agree to disagree.

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you add smileys to your photos with the Q?

 

Yes why not? Add some other 'fun' stuff you can add to the photos in camera, like a rainbow or silly hats if you're taking portraits! And some other effects - fake fisheye, or circus mirror distortion.

 

Anyone that doesn't like the idea can simply ignore those features too, eh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

at least for me (i cannot speak for anyone else)  the concern  was will a wider angle materially change my shooting style. I will i adapt..  i agree with everyone (my wife included) who says why buy it if you are going to crop to 35 or 50........ i have been looking at as many images as i can find on the internet taken by 28mm lenses and i have made up my mind (assuming the Q is what we think it is and it comes in under $5000US ) I am going to get it....YMMV

 

I wondered the same thing when getting the Ricoh GR with its effective 28mm. It took a while to get used to but now I really like that 28mm, the technique which works for me is to compose the shot, and then no matter what, take a step forward and compose the shot again - always works.

 

I really like this Q camera too, however anything above 3.000 € ... I don't think it will sell very well above that price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the built in EVF (assuming there is one) is a whole lot better than the miserable device in my C112. That is so poor, it was barely worth their while putting it there. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the built in EVF (assuming there is one) is a whole lot better than the miserable device in my C112. That is so poor, it was barely worth their while putting it there. 

 

Wilson

They can't put in one which is worse, can they?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the built in EVF (assuming there is one) is a whole lot better than the miserable device in my C112. That is so poor, it was barely worth their while putting it there. 

 

Wilson

 

There's definately an EVF as you can see in the link to leaked photos I posted somewhere earlier. Apparently it's got 300K + pickels or whatever. Optical would have been much nicer IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if there is a setting for shooting 35 or 50mm equivalent there will be superimposed framelines on the EVF.

 

That would be an unfortunate design. No framelines are needed if the screen simply shows FF with no zoom, 35mm or 50mm. WYSIWYG!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definately an EVF as you can see in the link to leaked photos I posted somewhere earlier. Apparently it's got 300K + pickels or whatever. Optical would have been much nicer IMHO.

In this case, regarding the possible manual focus, I think an EVF is a real good idea.

Especially if the leak is true and the res. is about 3.7 MP.

To put an additional optical finder in the hot shoe is not forbidden as I heard. :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definately an EVF as you can see in the link to leaked photos I posted somewhere earlier. Apparently it's got 300K + pickels or whatever. Optical would have been much nicer IMHO.

James it is mainly the tiny size of the EVF on the C112 that is its problem rather than the number of pixies. If you remember the primitive EVF on the Digilux 2, it still worked OK because although it hadn't very many pixies, it was quite usable, as it was quite large. 

 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

fascinating thread, I've been checking it in China. Not long to wait now. Having loved the little GR I'm pretty excited about this camera.

I look forward to your review based on your trip to China :rolleyes:

 

I would be interested if it is a similar size to the GR (I have the GRD4), but I suspect the lens, excellent though it will be, will be too big for real pocketability. One can but hope.

 

I've still seen no facts/speculation about the shutter, and if there'll be a silent electronic option, for totally discrete shooting.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...