Ai_Print Posted July 12, 2015 Share #81 Posted July 12, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for your confidence in Leica's ability to produce a truly competitive camera. You should change your name to "High-barjohn", lol! Based on your disappointment in the current incarnation of the M, you must be a breathtakingly good photographer. I took both the Q and the M240 for a spin at a big East coast photo gathering and while I thought the Q was a great new platform, it was the M240 that spoke to me. 6,000 frames and some nice big checks later, I find I was not off in my assessment of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Hi Ai_Print, Take a look here Thoughts on DigiLLoyd's Review of the Q . I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
barjohn Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share #82 Posted July 13, 2015 I have never claimed to be a "breathtakingly good photographer"; however, I am a breathtakingly good engineer and I know the difference between great engineering and so-so, especially as it comes to computers and software. Sorry, while the M's optics are excellent, its electronics are second rate. I think Leica can and should do better, especially at that price point. However, P.T. Barnum said it well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 13, 2015 Share #83 Posted July 13, 2015 Okay, so now I'm begging. Please, don't buy the Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pappde Posted July 13, 2015 Share #84 Posted July 13, 2015 Okay, so now I'm begging. Please, don't buy the Q. +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfleet Posted July 15, 2015 Share #85 Posted July 15, 2015 It would appear that it wasn't the camera, but just the operator.... http://diglloyd.com "Update 14 July: upon returning home, I discovered that AF is working, but with a confusing twist that precluded my from having it work while out in the field. Details further below.... Back home, I could not get the camera to autofocus with any conventional setting (spot focus, face detect, etc). But then I noticed that touch focus works. And then that the rear button performs AF. But not the shutter release. Finally I realized that toggling through the info settings (center button on 4 way dial) has 2 of 3 display modes disable AF with the shutter release. One of those modes has the level display. Since I shoot almost exclusivley with the screen with the level function enabled, and this is one of the three AF-disabled views, the camera would never autofocus! I never considered the idea that the info display on the rear LCD would also mysteriously control autofocus. Apparently this is as-designed and can be classified as RTFM (which I did, but somehow if this is described, I missed it). There is a setting Zoom/Lock-Button which I had set to AFL. But it is not AF-lock, it is AF disable—forever, even after camera power offs or the battery removed (unlike the self timer which unsets itself at every shot!). Adding to the confusion, this center button toggles the rear LCD 3 ways, while simultaneously locking or unlocking the chosen function. This coupling of display info to a locking function is a bizarre design choice that baffles me. What does locking focus or exposure have to do with toggling the rear display info?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted July 15, 2015 Share #86 Posted July 15, 2015 It would appear that it wasn't the camera, but just the operator.... http://diglloyd.com "Update 14 July: upon returning home, I discovered that AF is working, but with a confusing twist that precluded my from having it work while out in the field. Details further below.... Back home, I could not get the camera to autofocus with any conventional setting (spot focus, face detect, etc). But then I noticed that touch focus works. And then that the rear button performs AF. But not the shutter release. Finally I realized that toggling through the info settings (center button on 4 way dial) has 2 of 3 display modes disable AF with the shutter release. One of those modes has the level display. Since I shoot almost exclusivley with the screen with the level function enabled, and this is one of the three AF-disabled views, the camera would never autofocus! I never considered the idea that the info display on the rear LCD would also mysteriously control autofocus. Apparently this is as-designed and can be classified as RTFM (which I did, but somehow if this is described, I missed it). There is a setting Zoom/Lock-Button which I had set to AFL. But it is not AF-lock, it is AF disable—forever, even after camera power offs or the battery removed (unlike the self timer which unsets itself at every shot!). Adding to the confusion, this center button toggles the rear LCD 3 ways, while simultaneously locking or unlocking the chosen function. This coupling of display info to a locking function is a bizarre design choice that baffles me. What does locking focus or exposure have to do with toggling the rear display info?" Called user error. Quite embarrassing after the noise he made about the "faulty" Q (I`m a subscriber to his site). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted July 15, 2015 Share #87 Posted July 15, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Called user error. Quite embarrassing after the noise he made about the "faulty" Q (I`m a subscriber to his site). That's a good investment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 15, 2015 Share #88 Posted July 15, 2015 The files are 43Mb ....... I somehow doubt they are short on resolution ..... That is because the files are not compressed. Which is a nice indication of firmware quality (actually lack thereof). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 15, 2015 Share #89 Posted July 15, 2015 Case in point --- Vermont forest taken yesterday afternoon Your image is web resolution. Doesn't really tell us much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 15, 2015 Share #90 Posted July 15, 2015 errr...... the shots are two years apart ....... Wow, I didn't know the Q was able to make such long exposures ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surelythisnameisfree Posted July 15, 2015 Share #91 Posted July 15, 2015 This is pretty funny. When I read his original article my first thought was "I bet he's doing something wrong" but then I dismissed that as unlikely given that he earns a living reviewing cameras. I do generally have some sympathy for reviewers and it always impresses me how they manage to navigate their way around all these different operating systems, but to call a camera a "piece of sh**" only for it to turn out to be user error loses that sympathy pretty rapidly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 15, 2015 Share #92 Posted July 15, 2015 It has happened to him before.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted July 15, 2015 Share #93 Posted July 15, 2015 I have never claimed to be a "breathtakingly good photographer"; however, I am a breathtakingly good engineer and I know the difference between great engineering and so-so, especially as it comes to computers and software. Sorry, while the M's optics are excellent, its electronics are second rate. I think Leica can and should do better, especially at that price point. However, P.T. Barnum said it well... Attention Leica! There is a breathtakingly good engineer on this forum. Please act accordingly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted July 15, 2015 Share #94 Posted July 15, 2015 Attention Leica! There is a breathtakingly good engineer on this forum. Please act accordingly. how scary is that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwarren Posted July 15, 2015 Share #95 Posted July 15, 2015 This is pretty funny. When I read his original article my first thought was "I bet he's doing something wrong" but then I dismissed that as unlikely given that he earns a living reviewing cameras. I do generally have some sympathy for reviewers and it always impresses me how they manage to navigate their way around all these different operating systems, but to call a camera a "piece of sh**" only for it to turn out to be user error loses that sympathy pretty rapidly. Somebody owes Leica an apology, although I doubt we will see that. My first post here: I bought an X Vario when it was released (100% happy with it) and recently got a Q from Glazer's in Seattle. Very happy with both the buying experience and the Q! No clicking screen, and my auto-focus functions as designed, just like Diglloyd's Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted July 15, 2015 Share #96 Posted July 15, 2015 Strangely, my wife now has two of the most sexiest AF Leicas, the Q and X-Vario I am stuck with the old technology, I shoot the ancient S2-P and M9. I will have to buy her something and bribe her into letting me use her Q on my next Black Sea trip. She said that Jono's review made up her mind and my complaints that it's too wide were quietly ignored. Good girl, she knows what she wants. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sturmi Posted July 16, 2015 Share #97 Posted July 16, 2015 And now back go the topic: DigiLloyds ongoing review of the Q !! Has anyone noticed that Lloyd now actually likes the Q ? http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/LEICA/LeicaM9/LeicaQ-examples-MtDana.html (subscription required) He found out that it was his own fault why the AF did not work, and he made great images of his first climb with his daughter... Just another case of talking before thinking. Since he has to fill so many lines every day, he just keeps on writing before he even starts using the camera !! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecaton Posted July 16, 2015 Share #98 Posted July 16, 2015 And now back go the topic: DigiLloyds ongoing review of the Q !! Has anyone noticed that Lloyd now actually likes the Q ? http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/LEICA/LeicaM9/LeicaQ-examples-MtDana.html (subscription required) He found out that it was his own fault why the AF did not work, and he made great images of his first climb with his daughter... Just another case of talking before thinking. Since he has to fill so many lines every day, he just keeps on writing before he even starts using the camera !! Yeah, but he lost his credibility as far as the Q is concerned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted July 17, 2015 Share #99 Posted July 17, 2015 Yeah, but he lost his credibility as far as the Q is concerned. Not just on the Q Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted July 18, 2015 Share #100 Posted July 18, 2015 He found out that it was his own fault why the AF did not work No, he didn't. He said the AF did work, but not if he toggled the display mode. He also contacted Leica, and they acknowledged the camera was not working as expected. The funny part is Leica asking him to return his camera to study the problem, as if firmware bugs could "infest" a single Q camera But you might keep bashing Lloyd because he did not spray the camera with the anti-bug product Leica recommends Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.