Thoughts on DigiLLoyd's Review of the Q

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Did he use a prototype or a final camera?

 

[CheshireCat]

Did he use a prototype or a final camera?

 

Final camera, we must assume. He always warns the readers when testing prototypes.

 

Anyways, it shouldn't be difficult to replicate the issue he is reporting. Anyone with a Q ?

Edited July 20, 2015 by CheshireCat

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[digitalfx]

Called user error. Quite embarrassing after the noise he made about the "faulty" Q (I`m a subscriber to his site).

 

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

 

 

Im not quite sure I understand his issue, but I have had the Level turned on since I bought the camera in early June and I have zero issues with AF with either the shutter or touch screen. It also works fine in all display modes when toggling.

 

The level does disappear, as do all the on screen graphics when you touch the shutter - this is by design, but there is no problems with AF working.

Edited July 20, 2015 by digitalfx

[barjohn]

He does say the images it produces are stunning and in looking at his images I would have to agree, especially since his site lets you see up to 200% image size.  The only AF issue I have encountered is that if you select a touch point AF, for example when paired with an iPad, touching the shutter button to set AF no longer works, even if you are no longer connected to the iPad.  The camera stays in touch AF and pressing the shutter button half-way does not engage AF.  This is not the way several other cameras with touch screens implement AF and touch focus.  They typically allow for both.  However, I can understand Leica's concern that one could accidentally touch a focus area on the screen when not meaning to resulting in a missed shot on the camera.

[IkarusJohn]

It doesn't matter how good the images are, John.  You're a stunningly good engineer, and you will regret buying it. You know you will. Say after me "S O N Y"

[barjohn]

I'll never say never...but so far, despite some minor niggles, I am very pleased with this camera.  It is by far the best that Leica has done in a while.  Granted, they had some help from Panasonic but that doesn't bother me in the least.  They should have done that a long time ago.  This camera is very quick and that has been my major complaint with Leica for quite a while.  I don't like slow computers and I don't like slow cameras.  The only reason for either to be slow in this day and age is if a company uses slower and less expensive processors and memory.  At Leica's prices, only the best should do.  If you want less for your money, that is fine with me, it is your money.  

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

More I am using it the more I am enjoying it. Still haven't done the link to the iPhone. One last test for me is printing which I also haven't had the opportunity to do yet. Lots of shots look good on the screen only to be somewhat less so in print. And I just mean an 8x10 type of print nothing the size of a billboard

[IkarusJohn]

Granted, they had some help from Panasonic ....

 

Whatever gave you that idea?

[barjohn]

Whatever gave you that idea?

Perhaps you need to read more so you will know what has been stated by several people with more direct knowledge.  I'm guessing you are just trying to goad me because you have nothing to contribute.

[IkarusJohn]

Perhaps you need to read more so you will know what has been stated by several people with more direct knowledge.  I'm guessing you are just trying to goad me because you have nothing to contribute.

 

Not at all. Apparently this is a Leica camera through and through - nothing to do with Panasonic. 

[ricky1981]

Not at all. Apparently this is a Leica camera through and through - nothing to do with Panasonic. 

 

You're wrong there, the battery is a rebranded Panasonic for starters.

 

The AF tech and some other elements have Panasonic all over them, this isn't a bad thing as they've brought some great tech to the party but this isn't a pure Leica (if that type of thing bothers you, personally I can't wait to get my Q).

[IkarusJohn]

Sure, component ray from all over the place - that doesn't make it a Panasonic.

 

I don't have one; not getting one.

[ricky1981]

Hahaha you're clearly one of those people who finds it impossible to admit they're wrong so instead you deliberately misinterpret what I said. I didn't say it "was a Panasonic", you said it was "nothing to do with Panasonic" and I said that was wrong. A simple "oh I didn't realise that" would have done the trick rather than trying to act all superior after trying to belittle someone else.

[CheshireCat]

I think the Panasonic Q is a nice product, but I prefer Leica cameras.

[jaapv]

Whatever gave you that idea?

Well, it was formulated a bit nastily, but Leica and Panasonic do share technology. It is a two-way street.

[jaapv]

 

 

The AF tech and some other elements have Panasonic all over them,

Maybe- but  I think we are seeing some S technology finding its way downwards here as well.

[ricky1981]

Not really -  I think we are seeing some S technology finding its way downwards here.

 

From this review, it states the AF was done by Panasonic - http://www.reddotforum.com/content/2015/06/leica-q-typ-116-review-a-full-frame-mini-m/

 

It was written by a chap who owns a Leica store so I'd imagine (but can't be 100% sure) it's accurate.

[IkarusJohn]

Hahaha you're clearly one of those people who finds it impossible to admit they're wrong so instead you deliberately misinterpret what I said. I didn't say it "was a Panasonic", you said it was "nothing to do with Panasonic" and I said that was wrong. A simple "oh I didn't realise that" would have done the trick rather than trying to act all superior after trying to belittle someone else.

 

Not at all - I'm frequently wrong, and not at all shy about saying so. I had misread John's comment as suggesting the Q is another Panaleica. Nothing more. 

 

Baiting John?  Absolutely, after enduring his complaints about another Leica camera (I think it was the T), long after he'd got rid of it. Nasty?  Why?  It was an honest comment. Superior?  Well, to be honest, I don't really have much to be superior about. 

 

So, yes clearly I was wrong - the Leica has Panasonic parts. My point? That doesn't make it a Panasonic. 

 

Do do I care?  Not really. 

[peterb]

I dunno...I went down to the Leica store in DC with a blank SD card, fired off a bunch of shots with the Q creating a set of DNG files.

 

When I returned home, fired up my mac and loaded the images in Light Room viewing them in a good graphics monitor, my jaw dropped at the initial detail.

 

Then dropped even further when I tweaked some of the shots every so slightly.

 

I'm getting one to be the less ISO and fluidity compromised stable mate for my DP2 Merrill.

 

P

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Rick]

If, Barjohn thinks this is a good camera it must be fantastic.  He has been one of the most critical antagonists of Leica on this forum.  I almost believe he buys Leica cameras just to bash them.  This is the first time he has been impressed by a modern Leica camera.  John, what's up?  Is it really that good?  If, you ignore a few of the first design problems we might see on any new product, especially a completely new product, is it really as good as you are saying?