Puts weighs in on Q…and more

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/6031d90a117e7cc00f78f9ee29a41ca9-8.html

 

Jeff

[digitalfx]

wow...so many words to say nothing.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

I think he devoted as many words as he thinks the Q and T, and Leica's strategy, deserve….apparently not much.

 

Jeff

[Herr Barnack]

 

...As I see it, Leica is at the crossroads. The M is the only product now in the Leica range without AF and they are under pressure to deliver a new system that would combine the iconic features of the M with AF...

Leica is being pressured to deliver an M camera with autofocus??

 

Who is pressuring Leica to do this?  I do not recall a massive clamoring on this forum for an autofocus M.  This leads me to believe that this pressure is not coming from Leica M connoisseurs. 

 

From what I have read of the Q camera, it has potential.  It is a more attractive non M Leica camera than either the X or T, but I agree with Herr Puts on the issue of price -

 

...The Leica Q is very expensive and while its feature range is quite convincing, it does not justify this price tag.

Leica does one thing extremely well - the M camera system, with the S camera being a fairly strong runner-up.  It is unfortunate to see them flail about as they do with the X, T and now possibly the Q.

 

I fervently hope that Leica will not bugger up the M system by creating an over-sized M Frankencamera  with autofocus, auto sensor cleaning, articulated back screen, texting, Twitter feed, cotton candy dispenser and other nonsense to pacify the masses.  Leica M cameras and lenses are not intended for the masses; they never were to begin with. 

 

To the Leica Overlords in Wetzlar, my plea is simply this: The current M cameras are masterpieces.  PLEASE: Don't f***  up the M system in order to cater to the photographic dingleberries of the world.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[digitalfx]

Leica is being pressured to deliver an M camera with autofocus??

 

 

From what I have read of the Q camera, it has potential.  It is a more attractive non M Leica camera than either the X or T, but I agree with Herr Puts on the issue of price -

 

 

Yes its expensive, but so is a 28mm M Summilux...when you consider that you are getting a similar (obviously the M lens is superior) lens and a body for less money...it makes the Q pretty attractive at its price point. I own the M240 and Monochrome and a stable of Summilux lenses. I was considering adding the 28mm Summilux when the Q appeared. For me, the Q was the better option...it gives me a complete system for less. 

 

The Q is pretty impressive, a well thought out design that seamlessly switches from AF to MF and is very M like. I am very pleased with the purchase.

 

Regarding the future of the M...I believe the Q is a preview. Maybe not tomorrow, but eventually it will be time to upgrade the M line to more advanced technology. The Q has demonstrated that its possible without drastically altering the M experience. I have been shooting with M rangefinders for 40 years now. My first Leica was a IIIf, and my first M was the M2, which I still own. I have also owned every iteration of the digital M's so I have resisted change as well, but after using the Q for a few days I can see the light. Its inevitable that the M will evolve...for the better.                                                                                     

Edited June 16, 2015 by digitalfx

[Winedemonium]

Interesting to see a thumbs down from Mr Puts. 

 

I think the biggest impediment for the Q is the 28mm focal length. I'm delighted its 28mm, but 28mm is a lot harder to compose well than 35mm, in my view. Sony's choice of 35mm has broader appeal.

 

Leica now has the best full frame fixed lens camera on the market (okay, that only increase the supply from 1 to 2). We would have a lot more to complain about if it wasn't well implemented. 

 

I do think Zeiss have a better strategy than Leica - i.e. be a lens specialist for every popular camera type. With the introduction of the Q, Leica now have the T, X, Q, M and S lines to keep up with for digital camera developments. Some cross-fertilisation, sure. But that's a lot of electronic innovation to keep across.

 

But I'm glad Leica do it, and I hope they remain successful. I'm looking forward to getting my Q tomorrow, and it will accompany me on a week long trip to Burgundy. Perfect timing.

 

But I'm also with Carlos - let's keep the M as simple as possible. I also agree that Erwin's view that there is demand for an AF 'upgrade' for the M. I don't get that at all. If anything, just a lightening and slimming down of the body to film body proportions, and improvements to the rangefinder mechanism. Frankly though, I'm happy to live with what we already have.

[alee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Who is pressuring Leica to do this?  I do not recall a massive clamoring on this forum for an autofocus M.  This leads me to believe that this pressure is not coming from Leica M connoisseurs. 

 

And therein lies the problem.  Loyalists are already customers, and loyalists will protect and defend the brand despite its product shortcomings in an ultra-saturated market of ultra-high performance cameras.  I'd hedge that Leica is not creating new customers nearly as fast as they should for a product line that requires an enormous amount of engineering and expense to produce, and the PanaLeica stuff is not the answer.

 

Bottom line - Leica is in the business of selling products.  Unless Leica defines itself as a technology company as much as it is a camera company, it's going to be thoroughly rejected by everyone, including the pros.  In the digital era, there is no "heirloom quality" camera like the film days.  

 

Leica's trying to replicate Fuji's brand revival that started with the X100 series.  I think Leica is super close to doing that.  The Q could be that gateway product for future Leica loyalists, but only if the M follows suit.

[colonel]

I think the Q is a perfect base for an upmarket FF interchangeable camera, just as the X style body with T mount lenses would be a cheaper option.

 

I don't think Leica should be afraid of pilfering the M. The M experience is so unique and it remains Leicas best seller

[jaapv]

Leica is being pressured to deliver an M camera with autofocus??

 

Who is pressuring Leica to do this?  I do not recall a massive clamoring on this forum for an autofocus M.  This leads me to believe that this pressure is not coming from Leica M connoisseurs. 

 

From what I have read of the Q camera, it has potential.  It is a more attractive non M Leica camera than either the X or T, but I agree with Herr Puts on the issue of price -

Leica does one thing extremely well - the M camera system, with the S camera being a fairly strong runner-up.  It is unfortunate to see them flail about as they do with the X, T and now possibly the Q.

 

I fervently hope that Leica will not bugger up the M system by creating an over-sized M Frankencamera  with autofocus, auto sensor cleaning, articulated back screen, texting, Twitter feed, cotton candy dispenser and other nonsense to pacify the masses.  Leica M cameras and lenses are not intended for the masses; they never were to begin with. 

 

To the Leica Overlords in Wetzlar, my plea is simply this: The current M cameras are masterpieces.  PLEASE: Don't f***  up the M system in order to cater to the photographic dingleberries of the world.

I doubt that this forum is representative of the general camera market. Market pressure is certainly about AF.

Dingleberries represent income.

And Herr Puts?? Since when has he become German?

 

[speculation mode]

 

The idea of implementing AF in the M series  has been kicked around in Solms, and now Wetzlar, for quite some years, so it is not surprising that somebody like Erwin, who is very well connected, should be hinting at a possible future development.

There has been speculation before that the Q is more than a very good camera, but a market test for a new direction in the M series.

Maybe not as an traditional M, but as a branch-off. That the ME is produced next to the M240 as a "Conservative" option should be reassuring in that respect.

 

That specifically the AF of the Q is very far developed should give pause for thought. It indicates that Leica has expended quite a bit of effort in that direction, and it won't be for just one camera.

 

If we are into conspiration theory, could Erwin be softening the conservative core customer up? [/speculation mode]

[Delcredere]

Is the idea that Leica could develop an autofocus camera that takes all the M lenses that the M240 is currently able to use a hopeless fantasy?

[Winedemonium]

...

 

[speculation mode]

 

The idea of implementing AF in the M series  has been kicked around in Solms, and now Wetzlar, for quite some years, so it is not surprising that somebody like Erwin, who is very well connected, should be hinting at a possible future development.

There has been speculation before that the Q is more than a very good camera, but a market test for a new direction in the M series.

Maybe not as an traditional M, but as a branch-off. That the ME is produced next to the M240 as a "Conservative" option should be reassuring in that respect.

 

That specifically the AF of the Q is very far developed should give pause for thought. It indicates that Leica has expended quite a bit of effort in that direction, and it won't be for just one camera.

 

If we are into conspiration theory, could Erwin be softening the conservative core customer up? [/speculation mode]

 

Very good points. I'm surprised how deeply developed and implemented the Q is. I didn't get along with the EVF for the Sony RX1R, and when I tested the one for the M240 I was so disappointed I didn't buy it. I'm heavily invested in the M system, which I love. 

 

Is Leica testing the waters to ween us off our optical rangefinder viewfinders? There is nothing too radical about introducing AF when the mode of photography essentially stays the same - for example, the Nikon F3 to the Nikon F4. AF allowed for new lenses, while the old ones remained compatible, and viewing and focusing was still through the lens via a mirror. 

 

As far as I understand AF on a future M would only be possible by switching from the rangefinder optical viewfinder to an EVF one, a la Q. That's a fundamental dropping of the M tradition.

 

As part of the 'conservative core customer base' we might resist, but new customers might be attracted in more numbers than core customers are lost. (I wonder how many customers bought the IIIg because the M3 was a bit too far beyond the hitherto 30+ year Leica paradigm?

 

I'm looking forward to getting my Q this week to see how I get along with the EVF experience. I've not met one yet that I've liked.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Winedemonium

[pgk]

Leica's trying to replicate Fuji's brand revival that started with the X100 series.  I think Leica is super close to doing that.  The Q could be that gateway product for future Leica loyalists, but only if the M follows suit.

We've been here before. Insert R for Q and you will appreciate that the R was far more in thinking with 'current' technology when Leica poured resources into its development. Oddly enough its now a dead product line. The M still battles on, perhaps something to do with being an 'iconic' design? Interestingly, my brother-in-law who is an archaeologist, believes that we rarely learn from history, because our present is always 'different' - or is it really (from history the answer is apparently seldom).

[jaapv]

I can only say that I personally have little interest in a further refinement of the M camera series for the time being. The M240 -246 seems to be a platform with only incremental improvements -better EVF, improved DR and noise performance, to a lesser extent higher pixel count- making sense.

 

Now if Leica were able to implement a radical departure like an AF-integrated M type camera with a really good view-rangefinder type experience, be it optical or EVF, that would certainly cause me to rethink my purchasing strategy.

 

 

We've been here before. Insert R for Q and you will appreciate that the R was far more in thinking with 'current' technology when Leica poured resources into its development. Oddly enough its now a dead product line. The M still battles on, perhaps something to do with being an 'iconic' design? Interestingly, my brother-in-law who is an archaeologist, believes that we rarely learn from history, because our present is always 'different' - or is it really (from history the answer is apparently seldom).

I do not think that the R development was all wasted. Quite a bit of it has formed the basis for the S series.

[rramesh]

Leica lenses are superior to any in the market. When you are getting a Summilux 2.8/1.7 for almost the price of a lens+body, what's the problem? The Q is a classic example of selling the lens and giving the body free.

[jaapv]

That too. I do think Erwin has misjudged the response to the Q. Even the usual suspects are not as negative as one would expect, nor are the "too expensive" comments as virulent as usual.

[colonel]

Is the idea that Leica could develop an autofocus camera that takes all the M lenses that the M240 is currently able to use a hopeless fantasy?

Leica will at some point develop an AF FF camera, however the M series will continue in parallel.

As said above the development from the Q will no doubt feed in

 

In terms of the mount the AF one will be a different one but Leica will put some thought into adaptors to allow M lenses to be used.

 

Why not the M mount ?

0. The same reasons it wasn't used for the T:

1. Not developed for AF

2. Not good enough for heavy telephoto lenses (note I read this in interview with the head of development in Leica, forgot his name)

3. Not ideal for electronic contacts

 

The M mount is an excellent mount for what it has to achieve BTW

 

Rgds

Edited June 16, 2015 by colonel

[jaapv]

Point 2 has been addressed in the M240; the mount was strengthened in anticipation of the use of heavier lenses. It may still be on the light side, though.

[mjh]

To add to that list, for a modern mirrorless system one would want a larger throat size while the flange distance is generous; it could be shorter, allowing for smaller bodies.

[colonel]

To add to that list, for a modern mirrorless system one would want a larger throat size while the flange distance is generous; it could be shorter, allowing for smaller bodies.

This is a very good point

 

One hunch I have is that Sony skimped a little too much on its E mount, for usage with FF, which has required extreme angles for light rays at the corners. Thus highly corrected designs like the FE 35 f1.4 are massive and unusually long, as a byproduct of trying to minimise distortion and achieve corner sharpness. Even with the amount of work gone into that lens it still needs a tonne of software correction at the corners.

 

This is also a reason why Olympus and Panasonic find it fairly "straightforward" to achieve corner to corner sharpness with their system due to the generous throat size.

Edited June 16, 2015 by colonel

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

To add to that list, for a modern mirrorless system one would want a larger throat size while the flange distance is generous; it could be shorter, allowing for smaller bodies.

Aditionally, it could be easier to engineer electrical contacts into a mount that has been designed with that feature in mind. Just consider the rather unpractical addition of a ROM to the R mount.