Puts weighs in on Q…and more

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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]

 

@Jaap,

My intent was not say that Puts had been miraculously transformed into German extraction; I merely used the German for "Mister."  If I had used Messr., would it be said that I was attempting to brand him as being of French heritage?  I hope not.

 

Upon further reflection, the price of the Q may be within reason after all.  It will sell for $4250 USD, while the 28mm Summicron ASPH will continue to list at $4295 USD, and an M-P to mount the 28 'cron on lists at $7950 USD.   

 

Regarding the autofocus of the Q, I think it could attract a certain type of photographer into the Leica fraternity.  The Q may be an attractive alternative to a photographer who wants the quality that comes with Leica M lenses, a 24x36mm CMOS sensor with 24 megapixels and 100-50,000 ISO capability - but is after a one camera one lens setup and has no real interest in assembling a kit consisting of an M240 or M-P and 3-4 lenses.

 

Regarding how all the above will affect the configuration of the M camera in the future, time will tell.  I would advocate for continuing to offer a camera like the M-P alongside any new and improved M that features autofocus.  The R&D for the manual M cameras has already been executed and paid for; why discontinue them?   After all, Leica did not discontinue the MP and M7 film cameras with the arrival of the digital M cameras.  In fact, now we have the M7, MP and the M-A as M camera film alternatives.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[diogenis]

The "Q" seems like an interesting idea, maybe it's also a step to define if M needs indeed AF.

I am not sure how the manual focus works on this camera, but I do know for sure that a hybrid M (hybrid in terms of AF, nothing else is really needed) could be an interesting approach.

I am also very curious how this electronic VF works.

Strange they chose this 28mm lens though.

Puts' take on the matter is -and he is right- that some old folks that have eyesight issues as they getting older perhaps might lean more towards AF.

I bet Leica has something in mind for the M

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

Puts has made some valid observations. I'm not usually a fan of his ramblings like these as he often seems to miss the point.

 

However I see the Q as a 'stepping stone' for Leica. Having gone a bit leftfield with the T they have returned to a traditional - even retro - style for the Q (shutter speed dial, aperture ring, DOF scale, M styling). The Q will stand alone regardless of whether it becomes part of a new range or not. It's a fixed lens camera and therefore can never be a 'system'. If it turns out to be a one off product it doesn't matter.

 

I do think we are seeing the possible type of camera that Leica have in mind to eventually replace the M.

[Herr Barnack]

 

...I do think we are seeing the possible type of camera that Leica have in mind to eventually replace the M.

Replace the M??  Abomination!!  Perish the thought!

Edited June 16, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[AlanJW]

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.

I have had mixed feeling about EVFs.  They are useful for framing, but have some negatives too.  Yesterday I picked up my Q and when I turned it on and looked through the VF I was quite surprised as it was bright and clear and I started looking for the rangefinder window in front.   Having also used many EVFs over the past several years, IMHO this is the best that is out there and if the technology keeps improving (why shouldn't it?) and ends up on a M mount camera I would not be upset and would buy one.  But I hope Leica does this as an option to the OVF and not a substitute for it because the OVF is to me still attractive if for no other reason than I am used to it.

[diogenis]

The only thing these two have in common is the Brand.

One is AFcentric the other is not

One has interchangeable lenses the other has not

And the M of course has a beautiful optical VF, that the other also has not.

 

Leica did a nice job with the Q, don't forget that it's all about usability and is already very generous with the Q: macro, fast AF, great lens, cheep overall package for Leica, compact, great IQ well, it's a fun prosumer camera, but not an M

 

...

I do think we are seeing the possible type of camera that Leica have in mind to eventually replace the M.

[timde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, I think he sums it up rather nicely

 

 

 

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

 

Aside from the regulars here, who can actually afford this camera? For even well off people the price is several months salary ... for a fixed lens camera you can just about forget it. As a point of reference, Ricoh GR is selling for 550 € - the Leica Q is 8 time as expensive! IMO they are nuts  

 

I see that Leica offers 5 different cases for the Q ... nice    still, the camera is nice 

[jonoslack]

I've not been able to read Erwin's piece, but if it's negative, then it's the first negative response to the Q that I'm aware of.

 

I can honestly say that I have NEVER heard of anyone asking for AF in the M. Not once.however a full frame AF Leica is quite another thing. (Very desirable I'd say!)

 

It always confuses me in these discussions that people suggest that Leica have to screw up the M system to produce such a camera rather than leaving the (clearly profitable) M alone and devising something new.

[Guest]

Thanks, I think he sums it up rather nicely

 

 

Aside from the regulars here, who can actually afford this camera? For even well off people the price is several months salary ... for a fixed lens camera you can just about forget it. As a point of reference, Ricoh GR is selling for 550 € - the Leica Q is 8 time as expensive! IMO they are nuts  

 

I see that Leica offers 5 different cases for the Q ... nice    still, the camera is nice 

It's a lot of money for sure, but relative to the "competition" (in terms of handling and image quality) it's not unreasonable imo. The Sony RX1® (which I still have and think is a great camera) wasn't much cheaper at launch (in the UK at least), and while it can be had for a lot less now, it's also significantly behind the Q for me in terms of handling, EVF, manual focusing etc. It's also not a Leica

 

Compared to buying a Leica M with a decent 28, it's also good value. Clearly the lack of interchangeable lenses in comparison is a major drawback for many people (but luckily not to me!), but you are getting the Leica feel, handling and image quality for a lot less money.

 

I had to think long and hard about spending so much on this camera, but I have absolutely no regrets (so far anyway!).

[jaapv]

Thanks, I think he sums it up rather nicely

 

 

Aside from the regulars here, who can actually afford this camera? For even well off people the price is several months salary ... for a fixed lens camera you can just about forget it. As a point of reference, Ricoh GR is selling for 550 € - the Leica Q is 8 time as expensive! IMO they are nuts  

 

I see that Leica offers 5 different cases for the Q ... nice    still, the camera is nice 

If I look around me at other boy's toys, I get a distinct impression that money is the least of obstacles..Bicycles, boats, cars, watches,golf club sets, you name it, all at sums with impressive numbers of zeroes...

[AlanJW]

I didn't read the piece as entirely negative.   I read it as there are merits to the Q but it is too expensive.  You could say that about an M(240) also. Price is always an issue for Leica.   They're not going to compete on price but on the Leica mystique.  So far, with some bumps in the road, they are doing okay with that.  I don't think it correct to lump in the Q with the T and the X's.   Leica seems to have learned from those and the Q ought to do better. Of course, customers will decide this in the end, not Puts or any other reviews for that matter. 

[-ph-]

I don't think the M should get AF. Actually, the Q shows a very interesting path for Leica. Keep the M as it is, perhaps even go back to a more "pure" M with less obvious electronic nature. But on the other side I see a huge opportunity or a camera with interchangeable lenses based on the Q. The native lenses would be AF lenses similar to the lens of the Q. So "Summilux" lenses with f1.7. But this camera would of course be able to adapt M lenses as well. So all, who mainly seek AF, would buy the native lenses for the Q format, but anyone who either owns M lenses, or would spend the extra dollars for a smaller and faster M lens would be welcome to use them on this kind of camera.

 

Peter

[rosuna]

Having gone a bit leftfield with the T they have returned to a traditional - even retro - style for the Q (shutter speed dial, aperture ring, DOF scale, M styling). 

 

My feeling is the development of the T system and the Q camera has been more or less parallel. 

[gpwhite]

I've not been able to read Erwin's piece, but if it's negative, then it's the first negative response to the Q that I'm aware of. I can honestly say that I have NEVER heard of anyone asking for AF in the M. Not once.however a full frame AF Leica is quite another thing. (Very desirable I'd say!) It always confuses me in these discussions that people suggest that Leica have to screw up the M system to produce such a camera rather than leaving the (clearly profitable) M alone and devising something new.

 

I have found Mr. Puts' more recent posts to be less insightful than his earlier work. But I think the members posting here are focused on M vs xyz, whereas Leica is focused on earning more Euro. As Jono wrote, let's hope Leica realizes that injuring the M cash cow makes no sense while it casts about trying to develop new customers.

 

When MBZ introduced the M class SUV, most of the marketplace scoffed. Of course the SUV was sold out for 18 months simply delivering to legacy sedan customers, and then MBZ rolled out an elaborate four-level mix which makes huge profits (the SUV's are not assembled in the same manner or from the same parts bin as the German sedans). I would expect the Q to be sold out for a while as M owners add the camera to their bags. Eventually, Leica can bring forth a Q+ with other lenses or even with an M mount giving limited Q-esque function. All the while, the M evolves slowly (as the S550 does, making fat profits).

 

Why do I expect this? Based on Jono's and Ming Thien's write ups, I jumped on a Q and have been shooting it for several days. Simply fantastic camera, and so portable! IQ is better than I anticipated and usability is just as fluid as an M, once you learn its niggles. BTW, I love 28mm FOV, so I am predisposed to like the Q...  if it were a 35mm, I would not have even tried the camera.

[uhoh7]

I think Puts maybe getting a bit grumpy.....but 

 

1) this is no 28 Cron sorry. Not even close. Check uncorrected images. 

 

2) I love the slam about innovation and Leica....expect the original Barnack, which the Q is sort of similar too, at least in the foot print. 

 

3) Current M models are too big and heavy. M6 is good. M240 needs a serious diet.

[Jeff S]

I've not been able to read Erwin's piece, but if it's negative….

Jono, it's quite short….see link at start of thread.

 

Jeff

[-ph-]

I think Puts maybe getting a bit grumpy.....but 

 

1) this is no 28 Cron sorry. Not even close. Check uncorrected images. 

 

As long as there won't be a film based Q, the uncorrected images of the lens don't matter. Actually that you see full colors in a digital image is already the result of a correction algorithm. And while the M lenses require less geometrical corrections, they do need to be corrected in camera for color shift for example. It would be interesting to see a careful comparison for those lenses, but after the full correction. In any case the 28 cron is slower and costs more than the whole Q... 

 

Peter

[Geoffrey James]

Contrary to what Puts says -- and he is something of a professional contrarian -- pretty much everyone who has handled the Q seems to have  been seduced by it,  including my own dealer,  who is getting one for me next week.   Since I shoot 99 percent of everything with 28 mm lenses, and have been putting off getting the 240,  I will now have a working camera that will allow me to send my M9 back for a new sensor and lease of life.  Neither the 240 nor the 246 seems to be convincingly superior to the 9  and MM to justify the cost.  I don't buy a camera because of the shutter sound.  The Q clearly outperforms the 240 at high ISO.  And while one poster claims that the Q's lens is inferior to the 28 M Summilux,  it will be a difference apparent only to those who look at pixels, not photographs.  I just hope it is a good as I think it will be.

[digitalfx]

Contrary to what Puts says -- and he is something of a professional contrarian -- pretty much everyone who has handled the Q seems to have  been seduced by it,  including my own dealer,  who is getting one for me next week.   Since I shoot 99 percent of everything with 28 mm lenses, and have been putting off getting the 240,  I will now have a working camera that will allow me to send my M9 back for a new sensor and lease of life.  Neither the 240 nor the 246 seems to be convincingly superior to the 9  and MM to justify the cost.  I don't buy a camera because of the shutter sound.  The Q clearly outperforms the 240 at high ISO.  And while one poster claims that the Q's lens is inferior to the 28 M Summilux,  it will be a difference apparent only to those who look at pixels, not photographs.  I just hope it is a good as I think it will be.

 

Its a great camera, but is not quite at the level of the M240 (other than ISO performance). Considering the price difference though it is exceptional.

After 4 days with the camera I would rate it 9.5 out of 10...Leica has really hit a home run. There is not much I would change other than what can be fixed with a FW update.

 

Honestly this is one of the best modern Leica's produced, a very well thought out design that is superior to all the previous Leica non-M models (X, T, etc). I have owned them all and they all fell short...this is a keeper and will work right along side my M240 and Monochrome.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Geoffrey James]

Its a great camera, but is not quite at the level of the M240 (other than ISO performance). Considering the price difference though it is exceptional.

After 4 days with the camera I would rate it 9.5 out of 10...Leica has really hit a home run. There is not much I would change other than what can be fixed with a FW update.

 

I am really curious as to where the slight failing is.  Is there something in the file quality?  Apart from better ISO performance,  the Q seems also to have a greater dynamic range,  by as much as 1 1/2 stops.  The files from all these cameras are so robust and malleable that you can do an awful lot with them.