Puts weighs in on Q…and more

[digitalfx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

#1- Interchangeable lens

#2- superior lenses

 

I dont see a big difference in dynamic range, but Ive only been shooting for a few days. The Q is outstanding, but the M240 accepts many lenses and has an edge in image quality. The Q offers AF and an amazing EVF that is superior in all ways to the M240 EVF. The Q retains the same feel of the M, and has a seamless transition from AF to MF. 

It boils down to better and more lenses...otherwise the Q is stellar.

[Feudal1]

I have no idea who this guy Puts is, but I for one think the Q is a good product introduction for Leica.  It's actually something new, and not just another X (do we really need anymore of those?).  It's a good body design, comfortable with fast AF, a full-frame sensor, with a 28mm f/1.7 lens, and nice bells and whistles like Wifi, OIS, and a brilliant EVF.  There is no other camera out there like this.  The Sony RX1 is the nearest rival, but it's missing a lot of the stuff that Leica has packed into the Q.  A lot of us like 28mm as a general purpose fixed-length prime lens (I have shot the Ricoh GR extensively, and love the 28mm focal length).  And the one-button crop mode (35mm, 50mm) works like a charm - IQ is still great.  About the only negative is the price, but that's to be expected with Leica.  $3500 would have been a sweet spot for the Q, but that is not the Leica way.  That said...

 

The Q should be looked at on it's own, as a product unrelated to previous products.  It's a great camera.  It has a lot of the elements that people have wanted.  It ticks a lot of checkboxes.  And certainly based on what I've see so far, most photographers who like 28mm love the camera.  Leica deserves praise for this camera.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Feudal1

[Geoffrey James]

When I look at Sean Reid's fruit tests, which include a 1.4 Summilux.   I simply don't see any difference.  The standards now are so high that the limitations come from us and not the camera.  Another big plus for the Q is the macro mode.  I am working on a book on an architect who also make liturgical objects,  and I am doing the whole thing with the Monochrom,  which simply doesn't do closeups,  so for a few pictures,  I shall use the Q and convert.  It is seductive indeed. 

[Geoffrey James]

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...

Sometimes I'm irritated by the rich,  but to paraphrase Dizzy Gillespie on Louis Armstrong ("no him, no me") it's a case of "No them, no Leica."

[jmahto]

....  The Q clearly outperforms the 240 at high ISO.  ....

 

According to Ming Thein, 240 is similar to Q for high ISO. See below in his review:

" I would say noise is pretty much nonexistent up to ISO 800, with hints creeping in at 1600, 3200 being noticeable, 6400 usable with some work, and 12800 being strictly for emergency use only. I wouldn’t bother with anything above that. This is pretty much in line with the M240, and about 1/2-1 stop behind the D750."

[microview]

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.

If I remember correctly what I read, Sean Reid still preferred an optical viewfinder attachment when working with the Q.

[earleygallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no idea who this guy Puts is

 

Erwin Puts is an authority on all things Leica, author of numerous books and articles, revered and respected by Leica users worldwide. 

 

Unless he dares say anything critical, in which case he's just an old luddite duffer who's lost his marbles.

[digitalfx]

Erwin Puts is an authority on all things Leica, author of numerous books and articles, revered and respected by Leica users worldwide. 

 

Unless he dares say anything critical, in which case he's just an old luddite duffer who's lost his marbles.

 

ROFL!!!!!

[microview]

Obviously the Q ticks a sufficient number of boxes to make it a great camera (price included, I'd say). I do wonder, from some of the pics online, whether the out of focus areas have a rather disagreeable smeary character – landscapes in techradar review, for example. Maybe through the quantity of in-camera lens correction? And 28mm does produce those exaggeratedly sloping verticals if the camera is not level, for architecture. Correct in LR6 and you lose lots of your framed image!

Hope some owners will disagree strongly.

[rivi1969]

I can't read a paragraph with more than 5 lines. This one has 30 or so. Please someone tell us the short story.

[rivi1969]

I thought the Leica authority was Steve Huff 

[gpwhite]

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.

 

The Q is great. What is the difference in files? The M9 and M240 files seem to be truly RAW to me. I am sure that someone on the forum will explain that all digital images go through in-camera processing, so nothing is really RAW. OK. But the Q files I have shot so far seem more processed to me than M240. Turning off the stabilization, as Stefan Daniel recommended in the info-clip posted on line, did reduce the processed look, as well as weaken the edges (as he stated).

 

I suggest that if you look at prints, the Q files will appear a little over-sharpened vs. M. You can adjust that to a degree. If you only pixel peep, as you mentioned above, the Q files will appear more crisp and lively. Prints show more 3D to me from M 28mm files than Q files, but this is not a large difference. Again, the Q is great.

 

Regarding the 28 Summilux-M vs. the Q, I would urge you to make some prints from both lenses and then decide which look you prefer. They are surely different. Additionally, my 28mm Summicron by f/3.4 renders much better corners than either 28mm Summilux lens at both near and deeper focus. Just my experiences so far....

[gpwhite]

When I look at Sean Reid's fruit tests, which include a 1.4 Summilux.   I simply don't see any difference.  The standards now are so high that the limitations come from us and not the camera.

 

Yes, exactly, that the photographer makes 99% of the difference.

 

I read Sean Reid's stuff too, and that is pixel peeping for sure  .

[jdlaing]

Now I'm going to have to jump off a friggin bridge because Erwin Puts doesn't like the Q. 

[colonel]

Now I'm going to have to jump off a friggin bridge because Erwin Puts doesn't like the Q.

He didn't say he didn't like it

[Geoffrey James]

The Q is great. What is the difference in files? The M9 and M240 files seem to be truly RAW to me. I am sure that someone on the forum will explain that all digital images go through in-camera processing, so nothing is really RAW. OK. But the Q files I have shot so far seem more processed to me than M240. Turning off the stabilization, as Stefan Daniel recommended in the info-clip posted on line, did reduce the processed look, as well as weaken the edges (as he stated).

 

I suggest that if you look at prints, the Q files will appear a little over-sharpened vs. M. You can adjust that to a degree. If you only pixel peep, as you mentioned above, the Q files will appear more crisp and lively. Prints show more 3D to me from M 28mm files than Q files, but this is not a large difference. Again, the Q is great.

 

Regarding the 28 Summilux-M vs. the Q, I would urge you to make some prints from both lenses and then decide which look you prefer. They are surely different. Additionally, my 28mm Summicron by f/3.4 renders much better corners than either 28mm Summilux lens at both near and deeper focus. Just my experiences so far....

Thanks for this.  It's the first time I have heard first-hand experiene with how the files look. I don't own a 28 Lux.   On my M9 I actually prefer everything about the Elmarit V4 28: less vignetting,  more subtle colours,  and highly resolved but smooth.  (On the Monochrom,  my 28 Cron is just as good, but I can take one or the other.  )  I shoot exclusively with 28s,  so this camera seems to be made for me.  To the poster who worries about converging verticals,  there is a simple trick on the Ms to counter this -- simply make sure that the range-finder square is aimed at your own eye level.  This isn't going to work on the Q, though. 

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!

[jdlaing]

 

[imants]

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.

 

 Leica digital has been ignored by the bulk of pros (Nikon/Canon country). The pros the Leica attracted have found the market for their work greatly diminished over the last decade and this has sorta placed Leica between a rock and a hard place.

 

Yea fuji  has done well and catered well for photographers. I am sure that the R&D was expensive and probably not worth the outlay in the short term.............For a relatively cheap outlay there are a variety of cameras to choose from with a good stock of lenses. I still use the x100 with the wide convertor plus the xe2 ($500 US) is great with third party manual lenses be it  a Leica, Voigtlander, Rokkor Nikon, Canons etc

Edited June 18, 2015 by Imants

[colonel]

Some professionals do use Leica but to say it's a pro camera is incorrect. Professionals use Canon and Nikon largely. They need the lens and accessory range. Fuji cameras are probably even less used by professionals.

Leicas market is advanced amateurs, pros second cameras and a limited use in the fine art pro world. I don't see anything wrong with this target group.

To survive Leica needs to make desirable cameras which produce excellent results. It helps to have a fair dose of niche innovation.

Some products have been a bit hit and miss lately, but the M, Monochrom, X1, X2, S and now Q are reviewed highly and seem to be selling well, although only Leica knows.

I am sure that further developments of M, S, Q, X and T will be more hit then miss.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[rscheffler]

Regarding the question of AF in future M bodies... Physically this is not a difficult task. A suitable sensor and processor, such as used in the Q and the necessary software is 'all' that is needed for off-the-sensor AF, and can be put in an M body.

 

Everything else is a bit more complicated.

 

Lens/body communication: suitable electronic contacts will need to be integrated.

 

Communicating focus to the photographer: there are multiple options. A 'simple' focus confirm LED at the bottom of the OVF, similar to what is found in SLRs - basically a 'match needle' style system. This would also easily work with any adapted lenses (beyond the M system) to confirm focus, though framing would be problematic with non-M lenses. Replace the OVF with EVF, which would kill the traditional RF option and experience, but allow TTL viewing and focusing. The most complex would be a hybrid OVF RF and EVF to retain traditional M functionality and combine it with AF and EVF options.

 

AF M lenses: IMO this is where the biggest divergence from the existing M system would take place since lenses would necessarily increase in size to accommodate the AF drive motor at the least, and likely also auto aperture control, and perhaps OIS too. Retaining the RF cam on AF lenses would be an interesting option in that AF action would drive the RF patch to provide a 'traditional' confirmation of focus through an OVF. Whether it would be practical to accomplish, is another matter.

 

Will this happen? I have no idea. I can appreciate the advantage starting with a clean slate would provide in the form of a new system, and would probably be technically easier for complete system optimization. But part of me wouldn't mind seeing some of the above features in a future M body.

Edited June 18, 2015 by rscheffler