tgm Posted June 11, 2015 Share #81 Posted June 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Leica may think forward, only ‘forward’ may be a different direction than some people think. Yep, I think so. I have said repeatedly that Leica shouldn’t be concerned overmuch if some photographers are buying M lenses to use on an A7. As everyone knows a rangefinder is not for everyone; it is a niche product. If Sony helps Leica to sell M lenses even to those who despise rangefinders, then more power to them. Yes, rangerfinder is a niche product, and the niche is getting smaller and smaller, since EVF are getting better and better. Further, with new lenses for the sony A7 models become available less people will purchaise M lenses for A7 cameras. A leica Q based line with interchangebable lenses can be a modern, compact version of full frame camera with lenses made for digital sensors. The shutter of the Q is almost silent, why not a camera with leaf shutter? I owned a Mamiya 7 for more then 15 years which also had leaf shutter and a rangefinder. For me it was ineresting because its small size compared to all medium format SRLs, not because of the rangefinder. When I saw today the EVF of the Q I would say it is almost as good as the finder of older SLs cameras, such as nice Olympus OM models. If such Q based line accepts M lenses with the adapter (and a shutter) , even better. Thomas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Hi tgm, Take a look here Is the new Q the future M-E. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
luigi bertolotti Posted June 11, 2015 Share #82 Posted June 11, 2015 They could make a Q with dedicated AF lenses that accepts also M lenses, it will be a second system .... and nobody will buy a M anymore :-) Probably such a camera could be, for me, the first camera that I will buy to be used together with my "current" one (as of today, the M240) : I have always had more than one camera, but only one , in turn, has been the camera I use normally : to have a classic RF and a fine EVF, with similar interface and the same lenses' set is quietly becoming a sort of dream, for me (from the time I started to use the EVF of M240) , and maybe I am not the only one to be in this mood. And, people who buy "real" M (I mean, RF M) will continue to exist for long, I think: despite future improvements in EVF technology, the VF/RF continues to be (for many user, even if in shrinking number by sure) one of the best way to take pictures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted June 11, 2015 Share #83 Posted June 11, 2015 Leica may think forward, only ‘forward’ may be a different direction than some people think. Yep, I think so. I have said repeatedly that Leica shouldn’t be concerned overmuch if some photographers are buying M lenses to use on an A7. As everyone knows a rangefinder is not for everyone; it is a niche product. If Sony helps Leica to sell M lenses even to those who despise rangefinders, then more power to them. As long as the M was the only Leica FF body taking Leica's best lenses, it was possible to argue that the M with OVF/RF was the only way to get those great photos. The moment there is a Leica FF body with IBIS and quality EVF, and a range of similar quality Leica AF/MF lenses, that niche is going to get smaller. If they can take the same images (and do macro, long telephoto etc), then the extra tech in a smaller, cheaper body will win out. I have an M240: without the Q concept, I would be likely to get the M successor - if there is a Q ILS on the horizon, I'd get it instead without a thought. I doubt I'd be alone. I bet there were the same discussions on the internet when the M3 was introduced! (and there are still screw Leica photographers, in their niche). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 11, 2015 Share #84 Posted June 11, 2015 I would gladly suffer a good EVF if it means giving up focus calibration issues (either RF or (d)SLR). A Q with interchangeable lenses and a smart adapter to use R lenses would open my checkbook, otherwise Sony gets my money. Leica may be too late for me, my migration has begun. Leica now has Q, S and T products, Have they noticed the gap in this sequence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 11, 2015 Share #85 Posted June 11, 2015 Well Q is not a system, S and T don't bring much money on the table and what you call the "gap", you meant the M system i presume, is the only guarantee of Leica's survival so far so it's not tomorrow that Leica will adopt a new full frame system i'm afraid but again i may be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 11, 2015 Share #86 Posted June 11, 2015 Well Q is not a system, S and T don't bring much money on the table and what you call the "gap", you meant the M system i presume, is the only guarantee of Leica's survival so far so it's not tomorrow that Leica will adopt a new full frame system i'm afraid but again i may be wrong. The alphabet: Q. __, S, T Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 11, 2015 Share #87 Posted June 11, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just a dream i fear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 11, 2015 Share #88 Posted June 11, 2015 I would gladly suffer a good EVF if it means giving up focus calibration issues (either RF or (d)SLR). A Q with interchangeable lenses and a smart adapter to use R lenses would open my checkbook, otherwise Sony gets my money. Leica may be too late for me, my migration has begun. Leica now has Q, S and T products, Have they noticed the gap in this sequence? Yep, the gap is the absence of the R. A Q with interchangeable lenses and a smart adapter to use R lenses would go a long way to fill that gap, especially having the best EVF of any camera (as it apparently has). So not only would it bring new customers interested in an AF "M", but it would please some existing customers with R lenses. Without it, Sony gets your money, and that's not good for Leica. People forget that the survival of the M system requires survival of the company that makes it, and losing customers to Sony is not a step in the right direction. A Q with interchangeable lenses could be a serious competitor to the entire Sony A7 line along with the RX1, not to mention any future high end mirrorless from Canon / Nikon. To me it seems like the obvious next step forward. Not as a replacement of the M but as an addition to it. It would also create and lock in a market for a new line of Q lenses — and aren't lenses where most of the profit in the camera business happens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 11, 2015 Share #89 Posted June 11, 2015 Why even build a Q, even this current fixed-lens Q, if it risks some potential M customers buying the Q instead of the M? The Q is going to be cheaper and easier to use, while offering the same or nearly same IQ for many purposes. Clearly Leica is willing to take some risk in that direction. The Q being a compact camera at the same time limits that risk. And it makes sense to develop a compact camera in preference to a system camera because it carries no costly obligations for years to come. If people buy it in droves, fine; you develop a Mark II then. But if it fails in the market then the money burnt doesn’t threaten the company. If you introduce a new system you commit yourself to developing a string of products over many years – it takes some time until a system becomes fully established. Introducing a new system carries a much higher risk. While Leica might take that risk, they may wish to break new ground rather than complementing the M system with yet another 35 mm system. Have you noticed how thin the Q looks? Beautiful. The Q isn’t that much thinner actually. You can fit an M in the day bag for the Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted June 11, 2015 Share #90 Posted June 11, 2015 ... plus the S system but i wonder if you got what i meant. There are several Ms already. I imagined that we could have two different Ms in the future. A classical one with rangefinder (M as Messsucher) and a modern one with EVF (M as Mirrorless). Pure speculation from my part though. Now I understand. Thanks for reminding me of the S. I can see a monochrome Q in 2-3 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted June 12, 2015 Share #91 Posted June 12, 2015 Just a dream i fear. please re-read with sense of humor engaged. A Q with interchangeable lenses could be called "R". Doesn't have to have any similarity to the R cameras of the past. Leica has re-used names before: the original S1 was nothing like the S2, the current Visoflex is nothing like the earlier models, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted June 12, 2015 Share #92 Posted June 12, 2015 please re-read with sense of humor engaged. A Q with interchangeable lenses could be called "R". Doesn't have to have any similarity to the R cameras of the past. Leica has re-used names before: the original S1 was nothing like the S2, the current Visoflex is nothing like the earlier models, etc. That's true. It could be called an R. It could be called any letter of the alphabet except for M. Calling it an M would freak people out because the idea of an autofocus M with its own set of AF lenses and, um, face detection , has been ridiculed for years now. It just can't be an M or have an M in its name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted June 12, 2015 Share #93 Posted June 12, 2015 I wonder if Nikon worried about losing rangefinder sales when they decided to make the F system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
holgerf Posted June 12, 2015 Share #94 Posted June 12, 2015 I didn't bring a ruler, but I held it side by side to my M9 and it was about 3-4 mm thinner and about 5 less wide. Also it felt quite lightweight, the whole Q package about as much as the M9, perhaps with the 28/2.8 attached. With my 35/1.4 attached, the M9 felt way heavier. So just from the body size and feel the Q is for me the better digital "M". Peter Well, it’s an interesting thought to compare the Q with the M6 in terms of size because that’s we all did when we complained size of M8, M9… So here we go. What is from the view of our perception (which my differ from specs) the most important dimension to look at? I think it’s the depth without protruding details like viewfinder or quick-wind lever: M (240): 37,5 mm M 6: 33 mm Q: 32 mm Though the width is not as important: M (240): 137 mm M 6: 137 mm Q: 129 mm Weight is another meaningful player: M (240) + Summilux 1.4/50: 987 g M 6 + Summilux 1.4/50: 861 g (without film ;-) Q + Summilux 1.7/28: 675 g So it’s fair to say, that the Q aproached the tactile feeling of the M6 in terms of body size very much. Best Holger Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/246202-is-the-new-q-the-future-m-e/?do=findComment&comment=2832998'>More sharing options...
Peter H Posted June 12, 2015 Share #95 Posted June 12, 2015 I'd like to know what young people, coming fresh to serious photography, think about the main differences between the M and the Q. They will shape the future far more decisively than the current users' myriad wish-lists. 1- RF v EVF. I'm guessing that the majority of younger photographers won't feel committed to a RF if the EVF is good enough for them to feel they can see what they're going to get. I think the RF is only going to be really important for people who are already very familiar with them, and to a very small number of people who either genuinely appreciate them or want the hipster-style cache of using what to them is an attractive, quirky old technology. 2 - MF v AF/MF. Again, I think you'd need to have a long experience of learning the benefits of MF to feel that MF-only is preferable to a good AF system with a decent MF option. There are some who will, but very few, I'd guess. 3 - Are there any other significant differences that could not be interchangeable between the M and the Q? I do believe that if the Q was an interchangeable lens body, it would expand Leica's appeal enormously. It would, however, bring them into direct competition with everyone else in the bear pit, Sony, Nikon, Canon etc. Even Fuji just need to drop a FF sensor into their next new body and anyone not wedded to Leica will have to work really hard to find anything persuasively unique in an IL Q Leica, however attractive it may be to those of us with a bunch of M and R lenses to fix to something, an an affection for Leica that we are finding increasingly difficult to justify on purely rational grounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevelap Posted June 12, 2015 Share #96 Posted June 12, 2015 .......................Introducing a new system carries a much higher risk. While Leica might take that risk, they may wish to break new ground rather than complementing the M system with yet another 35 mm system........................ Mirrorless medium format anyone Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted June 12, 2015 Share #97 Posted June 12, 2015 .. .... It would, however, bring them into direct competition with everyone else in the bear pit, Sony, Nikon, Canon etc. Even Fuji just need to drop a FF sensor into their next new body and anyone not wedded to Leica will have to work really hard to find anything persuasively unique in an IL Q Leica, however attractive it may be to those of us with a bunch of M and R lenses to fix to something, an an affection for Leica that we are finding increasingly difficult to justify on purely rational grounds. Meanwhile Leica should be confident enough to take the challange of a competition with other companies like sony, nikon, canon etc. Leica produces solid bodies (stiff bodies), great lenses (including a solid mechanic, not just good for a few weeks of testing, they are good for livetime) and great service, even many years after the product cycle ended, and don't forget the brand value. Porsche does also compete with Nissan, Mazda, Ford and other big companies and does very successfully marketing cars, clearly overpriced. Nobody ask for any justifying. I would go for a Q with interchangable lenses with M-Mount or a perfect M-Mount solution (data transfer of lens-data should be given to correct vignetting). And I would go to buy additional autofocus lenses esp. for portrait. But this seems to be a dream, like the digital R (that's why the R is missing: Q .. ST) Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxo Posted June 12, 2015 Share #98 Posted June 12, 2015 Mirrorless medium format anyone Good idea, but the Leica format (24x36) already gives such a tremendous resolution (up to 50Mpx) that the market for MF is still decreasing. Compared to analog times, there is nearly no need anymore for MF. I only use my Hasselblad and Rollei MF equipment with film. I've no digital back. Too expensive, too inconvienient, and the plus of resolution is minor. Martin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mijo Posted June 12, 2015 Share #99 Posted June 12, 2015 Good idea, but the Leica format (24x36) already gives such a tremendous resolution (up to 50Mpx) that the market for MF is still decreasing. Compared to analog times, there is nearly no need anymore for MF. I only use my Hasselblad and Rollei MF equipment with film. I've no digital back. Too expensive, too inconvienient, and the plus of resolution is minor. Martin Is that really true of digial MF? I've considered getting into MF film b/c I can see the difference in prints, most of the people that use the community dark room that I belong to use MF. I just assumed that digital MF would yield similar resutls when compared to FF. I can't afford digital MF and my M9M is as close as I'll get. I'm excited about the possible paths the Q could lead to. As much as I like M line, at some point my eyesight is going to hinder my use of manually focusing a lens and I'll need autofocus. I would love a system that takes M lenses natively while also offering up some autofocus lens options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted June 12, 2015 Share #100 Posted June 12, 2015 . I would love a system that takes M lenses natively while also offering up some autofocus lens options. same for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.