Jump to content
EdwardM

Leica Q vs Leica M9

Recommended Posts

If you already have a m240 then you should trade the M9 and go with the Q with it...

Edited by onaujee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would to ask. I would like to by my first leica... I have two option. The Q or m-e + sumarit 35 mm f2.4. Which would your choice? I have never used RF before...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radek, this is difficult question, maybe first you should rent a rangefinder and test how you like it and make the decision after.

Edited by eckart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radek, I am facing a similar dilemma. 

I used the Digilux 3 and my current camera is the x-vario. The lens on the Vario is just awesome....sharp as a blade across the zoom range. 

I am renting the M240 with 35mm f2 right now and found the manual focussing reasonably easy on the rangefinder. 

What really took me by surprise was the Q that I tried out for a short while at the Leica store. This is the camera for me, I think.

 

the M is way too heavy for prolonged use , in my opinion. I am sure there are many users for whom this is not an issue. Being a street photographer, I do not see myself carrying the M240 the whole day. The auto focus on the Q was lightening fast compared to my Vario and the manual focus works in a similar way to the M, with the familiar tab at the base of the lens. there is an exceptional Macro feature that I loved too. The price of the camera is almost the same as the price of a new 28mm Leia lens for the M. 

 

I feel if you do not own any Leica lens and are happy to use the 28mm length, then do try out the Q. For those who already own a Leica glass, the decision might be harder. 

 

Mind you , I am a novice and an amateur

These are just my gut instincts! 

Edited by srivastava

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would change, if you like to have  a light weight camera with a AF restricted to 28 mm and 35 mm focal length and it does nit matter, that the 35mm is a crop in fact.  The 50 mm crop has too low resolution in my mind. That could be the case, if you often just use the M 9 with only one lens. Other point is, that you have an additional M 240. If the M 9 is a kind of back up camera for the M 240 on journeys etc. I would keep it. If not the change from the M 9 to the Q makes sense in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'd keep the M9 if the reason for keeping was something it offered over the M240. I personally still prefer the older CCD sensor to the later and accept the corrosion risk.

 

The Q offers a size advantage with a single lens solution, that's a reason to change if you need one

 

Would I change last years 911 for a new Cayman ?  I wouldn't but some would

BTW the only car I deeply regret selling was a 911 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd keep the M9 if the reason for keeping was something it offered over the M240. I personally still prefer the older CCD sensor to the later and accept the corrosion risk.

 

The Q offers a size advantage with a single lens solution, that's a reason to change if you need one

 

Would I change last years 911 for a new Cayman ?  I wouldn't but some would

BTW the only car I deeply regret selling was a 911 !

To be honest, I have switched to M240 through upgrade programm from my M-9P. I was more than happy with M9 - the only problems was the sensor corrosion (would be better to have LCD corrosion

 ).

Then, I travelled with M240 in Geneva and Paris and my conclusion was that I am missing something and i had a serious nostalgia about M9.

I was lucky (not enough though) to find brand new old stock M9-P in Geneva aeroport and immidetily  bought it. But the sensor was tottaly corroded on brand new camera. So, now my new M9-P on its way to Geneva for replacement or refund...

And i have an option:

1. get rufund

2. change the sensor

3. find another new old stock M9-P

4. Buy Q with refund of remained amount of money from M-9P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you love definitely the M9 imaging keep it after sensor swap ; exchange 240 for Q only if is au pair

 

btw, this is NOT what I would do, because haven't M9 and love my M240... and personally, I'd even won't exchange my 8 years old M8 for a Q... not for disdain towards Q, nor for need of my M8 (i almost don't use it anymore), but for sentiment for my first digital camera...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 my conclusion was that I am missing something and i had a serious nostalgia about M9.

 

You have answered your own question. 

 

Get another M9 and then if you feel naked, try a Q as second body

 

BTW I'm with you, no lust for 240 or Q here. But everyone has their own priorities.

 

Color on the High Divide by unoh7, M9 28 Cron

Edited by uhoh7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see some image comparisons between the M9 and the Q. 

 

When I downloaded some Q sample DNG's, I was a bit disappointed that they didn't have the 'M9 look', whatever that is.  Funnily, I was able to get more of an M9 look to them by shifting the tint about 5-8 steps towards green!  That wasn't the totality of the M9 look, but it did seem a bit more 'M9ish'.  It was then that I realized that I have grown accustomed to the M9 look, which includes a bit of greenish tint, and that when I grey-balanced the Q image, it was far closer to the original.  Hence, the Q seems to have more accurate signature and white balance compared with the M9.

 

I'm still not seeing the 'pop' that I'm used to getting from the M9.  I will have to play with the raw files some more, maybe take a Q for a test shoot alongside my M9 and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote this in another forum, and it still applies here.

 

Why is the Q better than my M9?

- it is smaller and lighter. After a few years of carrying the M9 and a few lenses everywhere, every day, I found myself using it less and less as much lighter cameras increased in image quality and overall performance. The Q is even slimmer than a film M (which I love) and a fair bit lighter.

- I love fast wide angle lenses. I'm pretty much a 28 and 50 shooter, although I sometimes prefer even wider, like 25 or 21. 28 is my limit for a good walkaround lens. I'm also love shallow depth of field at any given focal length, and low light shooting with no flash. The lens of the Q is made for this.

- great high ISO performance. The M9 struggles with ISO's higher than 1600, and I'm betting the Q will be perfectly usable up to 6400.

- video. While it won't be anything flash, the Q shoots 1080 60p video, which is enough for general purposes. For dedicated video shooting I have the Panasonic GH3 and GM1.

- image stabilization. Say no more.

- fast AF. Manually focusing the M9 is great when you've got it down, but sometimes it's a hassle, and conspicuously shows you're taking a photo. Autofocus enables sharp captures from any angle, especially when coupled with using the LCD screen.

- silent electronic shutter from 1/2000 to 1/16,000, and very quiet leaf shutter, unlike the KACHOK-fsssszzzzzzht of the M9 that only reaches 1/4000. Shooting in bright Australian sunlight can necessitate higher shutter speeds.

- 10fps burst mode with raw files! I love using high speed burst mode for action shots, even with wide angle lenses. It might even be possible to use this for sweep panoramas, to be stitched later in post.

- crop mode creates pseudo 35 and 50 focal lengths.  The 35mm crop will have depth of field equivalent to f2.2, and the 50mm crop will have DoF like f3.  It's still very reasonable for all but the Nocti-lovers.

The 35mm crop is about 15mp and the 50mm crop is 8mp. That's like having an aps-c sensor and a somewhat smaller sensor in the same body, and I took many satisfying photos with the 8mp Canon 30D. For a lot of purposes, 8mp is enough.

In theory (at least) I could use the Q as a 28, a 35, or a 50, albeit at different crop factors and resolutions. I already use the Ricoh GR in this fashion and find the versatility very enjoyable and useful.

The Q is essentially a blending of my two favourite cameras: the M9 and the GR. It has the body, handling and image quality of the M9 (at minimum) with a 28mm lens that is faster and potentially of better quality than the GR.

Why is my M9 better than the Q?

- I already have one. This cannot be underestimated. The M9 cost me AUD $9300 in 2010, and five years on, it is still chugging and producing wonderful images. The Q costs AUD$5700 street price, which is almost 2/3rds of what I paid for the M9. That's almost $6000 I don't have to spend.

- interchangeable lenses. I have over ten M-mount lenses that range from gorgeously rich 75's to ultrawides. I can select from a wealth of lens characters and take advantage of the whole sensor and resolution. Some of my favourite photos were taken with the M9 and the Zeiss Sonnar 50/1.5, which I can't do with the Q.

- the RF mechanism. The other side of manual focus is that I can make very clear, deliberate choices about what I want in focus, and a split-image RF is a very good way to do this. I have yet to try a Q in earnest, but if Leica's previous AF performance is anything to go by, I might have some trouble getting the pinpoint focus that I enjoy with the M9. Manual focus with the Q is subject to more faffing about, even if it has focus peaking.

- decent file sizes. The M9 files are about 17mb each, whereas the Q's files are 40mb. FORTY! You get about 550 images on a 64GB card, which is bananas. I use a 16GB card on the M9 and get about 700. Then there's the storage space required for the voluminous shooting that such an awesome camera would inspire, plus the possible need for computer upgrades to handle the processing of such large files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Archiver, thank you for your post!

but my main concern is the image quality of Q vs M9...

can't rent Q here in Moscow, the only way to try it is to buy it:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ejabarov - you won't be able to get quite such a shallow depth of field with the Q as you can with the M9 and 35 lux.  Try taking some photos with the 35 Lux set at f2.2.  That's the equivalent aperture that the Q will have with a 35mm crop at f1.7.  But also bear in mind that you can get a lot closer with the Q than with the 35 lux.  It will focus down to 30cm and remain at f1.7; after that, you switch to Macro and aperture will close to f2.8, but you'll focus down to 17cm.

 

As for image quality: I am totally with you on that.  When the Q is in the shops, I will take my M9 and the 28mm Elmarit and see how they compare.  Having seen the sample DNG files I am modestly optimistic but not crazy with excitement.  While I expect dynamic range and resolution to be a lot better than the M9, I am wondering if the Q files will have that same 'bite' and 'pop'.  We shall see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hesitant to go for the Q because can't use my existing M lenses, but it does look like a great camera otherwise.  So far, of the images I have seen with the Q, none of them convince me to purchase just yet.  They are sharp and colorful, but something seems missing or different in the photo quality, perhaps the bokeh, I can't quite put my finger on yet.  I am waiting to see some real comparisons between the M lenses and the lens on this camera.  I love the T because can use the lenses I love so far, for a back up smaller camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...