Leica Q vs Leica M9

[EdwardM]

Guys, I need your advice. 

I do have an opportunity to swap brand new M9-P for Leica Q with price match. 

Do you think that the quality of the image of new Q is worth it? I have M240 also.

do you think that Q is faaaaar better than M-9?

thank you

[jaapv]

It is a swap I would consider.

[digitalfx]

If you are ok with a fixed 28mm lens, the Q is an amazing camera.

If you need more than a 28mm then no.

[EdwardM]

That's main dilemma. I like 28 for its wide angle for landscapes and street photo. At the same time I don't remember when I was shooting with 28 (summicron in my case) at open hole (2.0). Most of the time it's 2.8 and higher. 

For portraits 28 seems to be too wide but 1.7 works good for bokeh. 

And finally, I still in love with CCD sensor despite its corrosion issues. 

To own 240, M-9 and Q is not an option as its out of my budget now. 

I am happy with my 28 Summicron on M-9 and 240 and decided to pass new Summilux 28 due the reasons I've stated above (you just don't need 1.4 for landscapes). 

What I like in new Q is autofocus. Its works perfect based on my short trial at Leica store. 

[digitalfx]

Confused...you already have an M240 and M9??

If thats the case the trade seems like a no brainer...unless you don't often shoot with 28mm.

 

The Q is a 28mm camera period...if that doesn't work for you then the answer is clear.

[bernie.lcf]

The Q gives you:

28mm at fullframe with 24 MP and a sensor more or less similar to the M240 

35mm at 1.3x crop with 15 MP - beating an M8.2 for resolution and the X series for crop factor

50mm at 1.8x crop with 8MP which limits your output to tiny bit larger than A4 at 300ppi. Megapixel aside, the 1.8x crop is not so bad when compared to Nikon DX at 1.6x crop

 

In use, the Q makes no noise and is as quick as it gets. There is no delay, the EVF is class leading (at almost twice the resolution compared to the next runner up), the AF is up there with the speed kings

[digitalfx]

The Q gives you:

28mm at fullframe with 24 MP and a sensor more or less similar to the M240 

35mm at 1.3x crop with 15 MP - beating an M8.2 for resolution and the X series for crop factor

50mm at 1.8x crop with 8MP which limits your output to tiny bit larger than A4 at 300ppi. Megapixel aside, the 1.8x crop is not so bad when compared to Nikon DX at 1.6x crop

 

In use, the Q makes no noise and is as quick as it gets. There is no delay, the EVF is class leading (at almost twice the resolution compared to the next runner up), the AF is up there with the speed kings

 

well not exactly. It gives you a 28mm lens only with the ability to crop in camera. Why would you want to crop in camera?

Please don't confuse croping with using a 35mm or 50mm lens. Its not the same. Its a crop period.

Edited June 16, 2015 by digitalfx

[eckart]

That's main dilemma. I like 28 for its wide angle for landscapes and street photo. At the same time I don't remember when I was shooting with 28 (summicron in my case) at open hole (2.0). Most of the time it's 2.8 and higher. 

For portraits 28 seems to be too wide but 1.7 works good for bokeh. 

And finally, I still in love with CCD sensor despite its corrosion issues. 

To own 240, M-9 and Q is not an option as its out of my budget now. 

I am happy with my 28 Summicron on M-9 and 240 and decided to pass new Summilux 28 due the reasons I've stated above (you just don't need 1.4 for landscapes). 

What I like in new Q is autofocus. Its works perfect based on my short trial at Leica store. 

 

As a serious forent told me the Q is really good up to ISO 6400, it's AF is very fast and exact, but you can do everything you want manual....and the picture quality is better than the M9

And, last not least, you do have still your M with your lenses.

I don't really understand your dilemma.

You do have the 240 and you can swap your M9 into a Q you really like?

Well, do it.

Edited June 16, 2015 by eckart

[AndyGarton]

well not exactly. It gives you a 28mm lens only with the ability to crop in camera. Why would you want to crop in camera?

Please don't confuse croping with using a 35mm or 50mm lens. Its not the same. Its a crop period.

 

I hate to prolong this debate, but while it's not the same for sure - for some it can be perfectly acceptable. Indeed, if you want to maximise DOF and perceived depth (e.g. for street work), a 28 cropped to 35 and 50 can actually be better than a "real" lens at those focal distances. Assuming you're ok with the resolution drop of course.

 

The point really is what works for one photographer may not work for another. I don't see that reflected in some of the black-and-white "it must be this way!" arguments here.

[digitalfx]

I hate to prolong this debate, but while it's not the same for sure - for some it can be perfectly acceptable. Indeed, if you want to maximise DOF and perceived depth (e.g. for street work), a 28 cropped to 35 and 50 can actually be better than a "real" lens at those focal distances. Assuming you're ok with the resolution drop of course.

 

The point really is what works for one photographer may not work for another. I don't see that reflected in some of the black-and-white "it must be this way!" arguments here.

 

My point is I don't need this function in the camera as I can and do crop in post. But its not the same nor is it better than using a different lens no matter how you spin it.

[EdwardM]

In terms of image quality, what Q does which M-9 does not?

Colors, sharpness, shadows, b&w balance, crispness etc

[AndyGarton]

 

My point is I don't need this function in the camera as I can and do crop in post.

 

Sure, makes sense. It's a personal thing again - sometimes I like to "think" in 35mm (or 50) when actually making the picture. I use raw plus jpeg so I don't lose anything either way - the "digital zoom" frame lines give me that ability though, so (for me!) I'm glad the option is there.

Edited June 16, 2015 by AndyGarton

[AndyGarton]

In terms of image quality, what Q does which M-9 does not?

Colors, sharpness, shadows, b&w balance, crispness etc

 

I'd say just resolution really (i.e. 24mp vs 18). With the right (expensive!) 28mm lens, the M-9 probably wins in all other image quality measurements.

[bernie.lcf]

My point is I don't need this function in the camera as I can and do crop in post. But its not the same nor is it better than using a different lens no matter how you spin it.

 

Of course not and nobody has ever said.

 

However, a Q with cropped 35 is certainly equal or better than a 28 lens on the M8 or the X series cameras for that matter. The automatic crop provides the comfort of actually seeing the boundaries of the crop in the viewfinder. Otherwise you'd have to imagine and then crop in Lightroom - a matter of taste and routine, really. 

 

I misinterpreted the OP.

A Q can never replace three lenses 28,35, 50 on a fullframe camera (M9 or M240). It can replace a 28 on fullframe plus having an X around as a second camera because (and this was my original point, although perhaps not exactly on topic) the Q allows you to go X (or M8 + 28) with the flick of a switch.

[sls]

I now have a Q, replacing an M9.

 

The M9 I used mainly with 35mm, sometimes 21mm, rarely with a 75mm.

 

Therefore, was a very easy decision.

 

The Q is absolutely brilliant. One reason was the viewfinder, but as the Q street review elsewhere says, the touch screen is so good I'n not sure I'll be using it.

 

The AF is lightning fast. As a result, the 'touch and shoot' function is scary, there is just NO lag at all.   

Edited June 17, 2015 by sls

[uhoh7]

Q is nice camera, but no comparison to a 28 cron on M9 with it's mere 1% native distortion.

 

Q's native distortion:

http://m6.i.pbase.com/o9/37/578237/1/160404136.tFLB6d0T.wleica_q_typ_116_18.jpg

 

Obviously this huge distortion is well corrected, and the Q has alot going for it, small and good ISO and color from it's CMOSIS sensor.

 

But if you like great glass and how it works, M9 and 28 Cron still today represents the best 28mm platform in the world today. M240 images with the lens I rate less compelling at base ISO.

[jaapv]

Umm... The sensor is not CMOSIS - It hails from another maker.

[EdwardM]

Right! And it seems to me that its the same sensor which they use in Typ109, but full frame.

Typ109 also has 1.7 Summilux, right?

[jdlaing]

Umm... The sensor is not CMOSIS - It hails from another maker.

Hello guest!
Please register or sign in to view the hidden content.

[jdlaing]

Right! And it seems to me that its the same sensor which they use in Typ109, but full frame.

Typ109 also has 1.7 Summilux, right?

The sensor in the 109 is a four thirds sensor.