Does the Q Portend the Death of the M?

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well the Q covers 28/35/50 

 

but not at full frame.

 

I was originally interested in the Q as I really like the 28mm FL but it's only a fraction of a stop faster than my 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH.

 

I wouldn't part with my M-rangefinder cameras, but a Q that accepted M-lenses would have my interest as another camera body - there are times when a high-quality EVF is useful.

[sblitz]

Think of it not as a death but evolving into something else. Q is a portent of the M to come. When and what and how stay tuned. But Leica produces these things as live tests to see what works and how. The notion the M just keeps going with an improved sensor every few years is not going to be the centerpiece of their platform. MQ is coming sometime just what that means in practice we will have to wait.

[jaques]

a camera with only one lens- and 75mm? Hmm, that's not going ot be that popular a model. How about the NoctiQ for $12,000. or the ApoQ for $14,000?

[zlatkob]

My guess is that the next iteration of the M will still have the optical rangefinder, but the optional add-on EVF will be of much higher quality, like that of the Q.  I can see both M and Q derivatives co-existing for a long time — two systems, both successful.  But it all depends on the market, of course.

[CheshireCat]

I was originally interested in the Q as I really like the 28mm FL but it's only a fraction of a stop faster than my 2.0/28 Summicron ASPH.

 

It should be half a stop, a decent fraction  . In any case, stops are not what makes a better lens nowadays.

I'd be more concerned about the fact the lens seems to be a 25mm with considerable distortion/vignetting corrected in software, and the fact the lens will go into the bin together with the camera, as Obsolescence swings its scythe.

[viramati]

I'm afraid in my case the answer is yes. My M and 28 summicron have gone and I now have the Q along with the Sony A7s and A7II (will probably trade the A7II for the A7rII), various Sony/Zeiss, Leica and CV lenses. I started more than a year ago getting into he Sony system and in the end the M hardly got any use.

[edwardkaraa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm afraid in my case the answer is yes. My M and 28 summicron have gone and I now have the Q along with the Sony A7s and A7II (will probably trade the A7II for the A7rII), various Sony/Zeiss, Leica and CV lenses. I started more than a year ago getting into he Sony system and in the end the M hardly got any use.

Interesting decision. Would you mind to share your reasoning that lead you to sell the M in favor of Q and Sony?

[viramati]

Interesting decision. Would you mind to share your reasoning that lead you to sell the M in favor of Q and Sony?

Well that could take sometime. I suppose what started it off was all the problems I was having with my summilux 50 asph (it is now with leica again for the fifth time with the same problem) and focussing wide open and accurately with slightly ageing eyes and discovering the Sony A7 and the superb Sony/Zeiss FE55. Then came along the Sony A7s which though only 12mp is the most amazing camera which works well with a lot of Leica lenses and has beautiful files. In the end the Sony's are just much more versatile with fantastic DR and high iso capabilities etc etc. the soon to be released A7rII also looks to be a real marvel. Of course they don't have the analogue controls of the Leica M and this is the main thing that I miss with the Sony's and the reason why I have bought the Q. The M ended up just sitting in my safe, apart from when I used it for some street work with the 28 summicron, and through it's sale I have bought the Q with money left over. I will of course miss the M but mostly for reasons that are not so much to do with the final image but with the process of making it. 

[edwardkaraa]

Well that could take sometime. I suppose what started it off was all the problems I was having with my summilux 50 asph (it is now with leica again for the fifth time with the same problem) and focussing wide open and accurately with slightly ageing eyes and discovering the Sony A7 and the superb Sony/Zeiss FE55. Then came along the Sony A7s which though only 12mp is the most amazing camera which works well with a lot of Leica lenses and has beautiful files. In the end the Sony's are just much more versatile with fantastic DR and high iso capabilities etc etc. the soon to be released A7rII also looks to be a real marvel. Of course they don't have the analogue controls of the Leica M and this is the main thing that I miss with the Sony's and the reason why I have bought the Q. The M ended up just sitting in my safe, apart from when I used it for some street work with the 28 summicron, and through it's sale I have bought the Q with money left over. I will of course miss the M but mostly for reasons that are not so much to do with the final image but with the process of making it.

Thank you for sharing. That sounds a bit like my experience but I hated the Sony and in less than 3 months time, I was back with Leica

[viramati]

Thank you for sharing. That sounds a bit like my experience but I hated the Sony and in less than 3 months time, I was back with Leica

I can get the 'hating Sony' bit but I suppose in the end with a lot of possibilities to customise the camera I have learn't too live with them

[algrove]

I have a couple of Ms, well, just sold one of them and have the Q on order. Considering the idea that Leica will eventually release 50mm and 75mm models of the Q in the future, does that portend the death of the M? It seems to me that the only material difference between a few Qs and an M with a few lenses would be the optical viewfinder. Why spend so much on a thick M with a .68 viewfinder when you can spend less on a couple of Qs with close to the same IQ?

To answer your question IMHO, no. You are asking for opinions here.

[jakontil]

i came from a digital era, the past few years been using canon since 5D MKII all the way to 1 Dx before making a switch to Sony a7r and a7s for the last couple of years, just recenlt pulled the trigger and jumped on the rangefinder bandwagon.

 

was impressed by the Q from what it was advertised and could be a good replacement to my ageing RX1r, but in the end, the M that actually stole my heart in photography.  never seen any photo taken like it does. 

 

i still keep my a7R and its bunch of lenses, but sold away my a7s, in trade for a 50 lux and 35 lux.

was waiting for the day i regret what i did, but as a matter of facts, on my late trip, i have never taken more photos than before with the M

[algrove]

Sadly I agree with the 1st assertion.  I strongly disagree with the second, I think the EVF is an accessory that can be helpful when carrying multiple ultra wide lenses, or wanting to do extreme closeups.  My rangefinders have never gotten knocked out of alignment, and EVF's can fizzle out like any electronic device.  I find focus peaking less precise than merely judging sharpness visually.  When I had a bunch of R lenses I used them on Canon bodies and found it much more convenient than the M240.  I still prefer using my Nikkors on the 5D far better than the M240.  As long as Leica makes a rangefinder body I'm in.  When they stop, I'm out.  I see no reason other than the rangefinder to pay what Leica asks. 

The Q EVF is excellent and if Leica does not adopt it in the next M's EVF they are missing a big opportunity.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I think the Q will go a long way to keeping the M alive. Leica seem committed to the M but they need another line that will give them diversity and security. The Q system also allows some sharing of components which means higher volumes and lower purchasing costs for leica. The T system hasn't captured the imagination like the Q has (I fully expect to see a T camera that looks like an M rather than an Audi eventually). At the same time the M seems to have a decent waiting list with each upgrade.

 

If it were me I'd be looking to integrate the really great AF from the Q into an interchangeable system that also takes M lenses. This is a camera that would sit along side the M. Not replace it.

 

Gordon

[AlanJW]

The Q EVF is excellent and if Leica does not adopt it in the next M's EVF they are missing a big opportunity.

I fully expect that we will see a better Q-like EVF for the next iteration of the M.   But I suspect it will continue to be external and not built-in as Leica has said they are not abandoning the Optical Rangefinder.   Whether that is a promise that will be kept forever remains to be seen.

[Mornnb]

It may be technically possible to include an internal EVF with a switchable option. For Fuji has been able to do this.

[dante]

Predictions.

 

1. No 50 or 75 Q. It will be a zoom or nothing. They won't make anything as provincial as a long normal or short portrait lens on a fixed camera.

 

2. There will be a Q with an M mount (or adaptable to one) that in addition to native AF lenses will use phase-detect focus assist to simulate RF focusing with M lenses, thereby bypassing the RF linkage (which gets knocked out) and the RF/VF (which is $$$).

 

Dante

[horosu]

I held the Q for exactly 30 seconds in my hands before I decided that this camera is not for me: the viewfinder is simply crap- so much worse than the optical one in the M240, the feeling of manual precision focusing is gone, and so is the impression of personally creating a handicrafted photo. It is the difference between a mechanical watch and a quartz/electronic one-they both show time, but one of them does it in a manner that suits me more.

 

And I didn't say anything about the fact it's got a fixed lens

[jaapv]

Interesting - this flies in the face of all reliable reviews. I must look at one to decide for myself... Not that I have any interest in buying one - it happens to have my least liked focal length.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanJW]

I held the Q for exactly 30 seconds in my hands before I decided that this camera is not for me: the viewfinder is simply crap- so much worse than the optical one in the M240, the feeling of manual precision focusing is gone, and so is the impression of personally creating a handicrafted photo. It is the difference between a mechanical watch and a quartz/electronic one-they both show time, but one of them does it in a manner that suits me more.

 

And I didn't say anything about the fact it's got a fixed lens

Well then the Q is not for you.  I consider this a flame post. By your own admission you handled a Q for 30 seconds.  How can anyone take seriously impressions based on 30 seconds?  Did you expect an M camera for less than 1/2 the price? In any event,  I don't agree with your rapidly-reached conclusions.   The viewfinder to be sure is not an optical one, but it is not "simply crap". It is a very good EVF, the best I have used.  The focusing is not rangefinder focusing even in manual but it is quite accurate, despite your "feelings".  Last,  I don't know how a camera provides an "impression of personally creating a handcrafted photo".  That's all in one's head.   I have gotten some very good images from my Q and enjoyed it immensely.  I still prefer my M-P (240) over almost anything else, but that does not mean everything else is a piece of crap and that one needs a Leica M to do any serious work.