Jump to content

Q vs Summicron ASPH on M240


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wish the price of an M plus Summilux 28 came down to the level of a Q, making this comparison a fair one...

 

Yes, I think this is the point! You can either pay the price and for the experience to use the M plus Summilux...

 

or for "only" one-third the Euro/$, you can have a Q that includes a quasi-Summilux (Qlux for short?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think this is the point! You can either pay the price and for the experience to use the M plus Summilux...

 

or for "only" one-third the Euro/$, you can have a Q that includes a quasi-Summilux (Qlux for short?)

 

I don't disagree, but just to remind you that the OP was talking about the Summicron, not the Summilux, and whilst the price difference is still very large, the comparison is interesting in different ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did the comparison yesterday - although it is not an ideal comparison. One thing for a start is that the metering and exposure on the Q and the M is very different. According to the meter read out the correct exposure on the Q is almost 2 stops lower than the equivalent correct exposure on the M, when both at 200iso and the same aperture. Anyway, I shall post the results on my blog in a few days....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree, but just to remind you that the OP was talking about the Summicron, not the Summilux, and whilst the price difference is still very large, the comparison is interesting in different ways.

 

True, and my main answers were in regards to the Summicron, which is still superior to the Qlux.

 

Jaap threw in the Summilux-M, and I wanted to acknowledge hia point that either way the Q is a far smaller price than M + 28 /2 or /1.4.

 

I will be in Wetzlar tomorrow and hope to be impressed  :) .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick -- I look forward to seeing the results. My guess is the M will outperform to some extent, whether the difference is meaningful enough to offset the difference in the experience of using these cameras is another question and perhaps the more critical issue. The M (and I had an M9 for 5 years, 30,000+ shots) is a film camera with a digital back. It really has very little of what the electronic world now brings to cameras, beginning with autofocus. The Q is a digital camera at its core with enough manual controls to satisfy the film user used to manually controlling the output. I prefer my M film camera to be just that and the Q to be my digital camera. IF I were shooting professionally and needed the digital files for work, the M maybe or perhaps some other digital cameras out there that better combine the film and digital experience for the shooter -- even the S? But I am not shooting for a magazine or events (perhaps I would be the film wedding photographer!), I am shooting for pleasure and the Q is a pleasure to use with files incredibly malleable. In the end, however, I still prefer the look of film -- on screen and printed. 

 

Best

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting topic.  I have thought 'new m lens' vs Q camera since they are almost equivalent.  If the Q gets you shooting more and having fun, I vote for the Q.  I recently got the T and shooting more with it than my M now, even though I know the M is superior.  It's just more fun.  The M has become heavy for me, as much as I love it.  Maybe I need to work out with weights and start to use my M again more often once the newness is over on the T.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have just posted part 3 of my Review of the Q on my blog with the comparisons between Q 28 lux and M with 28 cron ASPH, and my conclusions - and also a link to the flickr gallery where you can see the comparisons at high res.

 

It's here: http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/leica-q-photo-review-part-3-street.html

 

Thanks

 

Nick

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!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just posted part 3 of my Review of the Q on my blog with the comparisons between Q 28 lux and M with 28 cron ASPH, and my conclusions - and also a link to the flickr gallery where you can see the comparisons at high res.

 

It's here: http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/leica-q-photo-review-part-3-street.html

 

 

 

 

Thanks Nick, a nice informal yet informative review.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just posted part 3 of my Review of the Q on my blog with the comparisons between Q 28 lux and M with 28 cron ASPH, and my conclusions - and also a link to the flickr gallery where you can see the comparisons at high res.

 

It's here: http://rangefinderchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/leica-q-photo-review-part-3-street.html

 

Thanks

 

Nick

First thanks for taking time to compare these two. I also use M+28cron extensively and I was interested in the comparison. I downloaded your flickr images and in photoshop arranged cropped specific part of the pic side by side for easy comparison. That way it was easier than scrolling left and right to compare the technical quality of a specific part of the picture. My conclusions are:

- There are more differences due to focus point selection in scenes with foreground/background. We don't shoot brick walls. Case in point, see the pic of tall grass in the foreground and pagoda in the background shot around f/8. The Q is focus closer, making the foreground grass slightly sharper and background pagoda slightly less sharp (compared to M+28cron). https://flic.kr/p/uJpxuz

- When they seem to be focused on the same area, both are very close but if I have to nitpick then M+28cron is slightly sharper. But it is within the realm of adjusting sharpness slider in PP and is subject dependent.

- Close focus, auto focus, there is no contest.

 

Therefore my takeaway (for myself) from this is that debating sharpness in real world pic is meaningless between the two. We spend too much time pixel peeping (I just spent 20min) in modern cameras when they have surpassed the pixel level quality needs of majority long ago. Discussion on haptics (similar to M but still different) and technology (Close F/AF/MF, weight, shutter, grain) will be more useful.

 

PS: In my last business trip to DesMoines, Iowa, I carried my *lowly* Nex-6 with kit lens just for experiment since I was not expecting great photo opportunity (Ususally I carry M+28cron+90marcoElmar).  It turned out that some areas of the town are very beautiful and I was stuck with my Nex-6 !! I shot anyway and now have beautiful pics to look at. I can't post it here since it is not Leica but you can see one pic in my flickr page. Could I get similar pic from my Leica combo? At pixel peeping level, absolutely yes. In some other cases, absolutely no, since with Nex-6 I could shoot some pics at 21mm equivalent, a FL that I don't carry in my Leica combo. At the end, I learnt a valuable lesson. Most cameras are pretty good now a days (however cheap) and each have heir own strengths and weaknesses. We just have to use them for their strengths. :)

Edited by jmahto
  • Like 2
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.

×
×
  • Create New...