Jump to content

Leica Q - Another perspective


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a Leica T owner I was anxious to see the image quality of the Q in comparison with the T. 

So my dealer handed me a Q, set both cameras at DNG, f 4 and 200 ISO, Leica T with  SEM and made a couple of images

in the shopping street of my hometown.

Compared both cameras in ACR Photoshop at 100%, looked at the people and the facades of the shops and concluded that all

was in the same league regarding sharpness, contrast, color etc. despite 24MB versus 43MB.

The Leica Q is a fantastic camera but more as a second always in the pocket, but not for me.

The Leica T confirms what a fantastic camera it is and to much underappreciated.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Q is the camera that would keep a newcomer like me happy. I have been looking for a while to get a Leica and:

 

The M is a bit complicated for someone like me, it's cost is high and the lack of autofocus makes me hesitate. The X-Vario is nice and it offers the zoom option however the fact that it is slow limits its capabilities (in my opinion anyway). Whereas the Q is the perfect happy medium (fast, small, sharp, AF when I just want to use it as a point and shoot and inherits the god looks of a Leica).

 

The only thing that has held me back from buying it is the rumor that a new camera is coming out (apparently) in Autumn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That will be an M....

 

Could be but..........see "Thread Leica Q issue LCD rear screen flexing and clicks....." Post 54 at the end.

 

Sorry Jaap

 

See thread:   "Q rear screen fragile" Post 54.   New full frame camera in Autumn and its not a M.

Edited by rijve044
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Leica has a winner here - and with justification, as the Q is by all accounts a wonderful camera.

I guess my knee-jerk reaction was the same as everybody's elses: Get that Credit Card out (except, I guess, for the usual suspects on the Net ;))

 

But on consideration: What would I use the camera for? What would it add? I have an M240 and no focusing problems. I freely admit that its EVF is not the most modern one around, but it suffices me.

I have a MM1, which I will never sell and I have an X2 for those days that I really do not want to carry a camera, but feel I should.

 

There is very little that  this newest and brightest member of the Leica family would add to my photographic experience. So ruefully I put my Credit Card back in my wallet. Am I getting old and jaded? Probably... :(

 

Careful Jaap, they'll be calling you a troll next! 

 

The Q is a very interesting camera for Leica and as a Leica fan, I'm interested by it, but not in it. I've no use for it - well no use that one of my other current cameras can't do perfectly well instead. And …. I still hate EVF's although I've not seen the Q EVF yet. 

 

As I mentioned in another thread, I do think Leica are testing the water so to speak and the huge acceptance of the Q by current M users must tell them something about how they need to develop their flagship FF system camera. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Q allows for a little faster shooting from different point of view when using the display with AF and face detection.

I also believe the M viewfinder works great with 35 and 50mm , but the viewfinder is too thight for 28mm. And the VF2 is not so great.

I see the Q as a great camera for shooting from different perspectives, with fast pace. It also allows to play with a relativly fast f-stop and a relativly minimum focusing distance. And the exposure metering of the Q is better than that of the M.

I wouldnt see any advantage for shooting stills/landscape and that kind of things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think the Q allows for a little faster shooting from different point of view when using the display with AF and face detection.

I also believe the M viewfinder works great with 35 and 50mm , but the viewfinder is too thight for 28mm. And the VF2 is not so great.

I see the Q as a great camera for shooting from different perspectives, with fast pace. It also allows to play with a relativly fast f-stop and a relativly minimum focusing distance. And the exposure metering of the Q is better than that of the M.

I wouldnt see any advantage for shooting stills/landscape and that kind of things.

I quite agree. For instance the macro function. Great to get close to a flower, but for serious macro work it is simply unsuitable. To get a decent perspective in Macro one needs at least 100 mm, preferably 200 or even more.

This is probably the ultimate reportage camera, a street shooter's dream, but whatever else, I am not a street photographer. :( .

An interesting use of the Q: wideangle short distance photos will make a scale model look lifesize

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaap,

 

I generally share your views.  The Q is an attractive little beasty that becomes more difficult to pass over after holding and testing.  It has some similarities, as Pop points out, to my beloved Digilux 2's although its high ISO performance eclipses the D2's many times over and the EVF enables manual focussing where previous ones haven't really (and let's not even compare it with the D2's vintage EVF).  In many ways it surpasses the D2 but in the end it's just not a D2.

 

The Q compares favourably with the M in a number of areas and surpasses it in others and, being largely a 50 mm focal length shooter now, I wouldn't have a problem using the 50 mm frame line and jpeg crop.  But what eventually prevents me from replacing my M with a Q is the M's ability to shoot with lenses that have character.  If one likes the current aspherical, clinically corrected, super-sharp look of Karbe-designed lenses (and there's no reason why one shouldn't) then all is fine and good.  Personally I now prefer lenses with a little 'soul' or character (detractors will read 'aberrations' and that's fine) like the Mandler lenses or the Hexanons or some of the CV's or the Sonnars that offer a slightly different interpretation of a view and unfortunately the Q isn't able to offer this so my credit card can stop sweating for the moment.  But I am weak and the call of the Q is strong so just for the moment.

 

Pete.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are an experienced user who chooses other than a 28mm lens then why comment?

You are not of the target market.

Pico, I would respectfully suggest that as Leica users we are all potentially the target market.  Comments provide an alternative viewpoint that might enlighten others and enrich the resource offered by this forum. :)

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pico, I would respectfully suggest that as Leica users we are all potentially the target market.  Comments provide an alternative viewpoint that might enlighten others and enrich the resource offered by this forum. :)

 

Pete.

 

Bah humbug!

 

(Did I do that right?)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jamal. If u didn't have the X the Q would do just fine.  My Q replaced my M 9 because I have the MA and prefer film But there are many times a true digital like the Q is best. Like handing the camera to a waiter.  As long as u enjoy the X no reason to add a Q. Those are the swappable cameras in your stable

Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance the macro function. Great to get close to a flower, but for serious macro work it is simply unsuitable.

Clearly the Q isn't going to do serious macro work with its 28mm...but shots like this are simple with the Q, not so with the M

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!

Edited by digitalfx
Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s the best fusion of Leica DNA with modern electronics and user interface, by country miles. That`s what it can add to your "photographic experience". Enough for me to buy it and since it`s in my home the M9 has not left the closet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the same boat. As much as I loved the images I saw coming out of the Q I couldn't justify spending that kind of money on a secondary camera, especially since it was about the same size as the M so there was no pocketable factor. That didn't stop me from entering a LFI contest where the grand prize was a Q that's for sure. After looking at all the photos and reviews of the Q and being realistic about my chances of winning any contest I got really itchy for a 28mm lens (I love those kind of photos that are framed like a scene from a Wes Anderson film) and bid/won an almost new Elmarit ASPH. Such an amazing little lens but I only got to shoot with it once before finding out to my dumbfounded amazement that I had in fact won the contest. I didn't even think twice about which 28 I was going to keep. The Elmarit is in the buy/sell section of you're interested;)

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed up just to say well done John, from checking out your work I think you've earned that Q, some fantastic photos in your collection. I'm not actually sure your winning photo is amongst the best you've taken but some of the others are stunning. Enjoy the Q, I'm still saving for mine but not sure I will even come close to doing it justice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have the M240 or M9, then I don't see a need/benefit in getting a Q, unless it comes into the backup category somehow. I don't find the M plus one lens in a small bag too big or heavy to take with me everywhere.

But the Q is good if:

- you have the MM and want occasional colour.

- you can't or don't want to pay for a full M system.

- 28 is all you ever want in a FL.

- you are photographing fast moving close up objects i.e. toddlers

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Leica T owner I was anxious to see the image quality of the Q in comparison with the T. 

So my dealer handed me a Q, set both cameras at DNG, f 4 and 200 ISO, Leica T with  SEM and made a couple of images

in the shopping street of my hometown.

Compared both cameras in ACR Photoshop at 100%, looked at the people and the facades of the shops and concluded that all

was in the same league regarding sharpness, contrast, color etc. despite 24MB versus 43MB.

The Leica Q is a fantastic camera but more as a second always in the pocket, but not for me.

The Leica T confirms what a fantastic camera it is and to much underappreciated.

I am also trying to figut out how those cameras compare in regards of IQ. I am surprised you find the color comparable, since I find the Q color clearly more saturated and the T color more neutral both in JPG and in LR. (At the moment I even prefer the T color because I find the Q color a little overdone).

Besides IQ I find the following differences between the T and the Q (besides the fact we can use different lenses on the T):

#Q slightly faster AF (T-AF is still not bad when using the prime or the midrangezoom)

#I do like the Q aperture wheel, I do like the Q distance/DOF scale, and the switch from AF to MF in the Q. Maybe the biggest advantages for me when comparing the Q with the T.

#I also find it nice to have 28mm FOV with higher resolution and 35mmFOV with still the same resolution I get from the T with the 23mm prime. Also 28mm FOV with a relatively shallow DOF allows for interesting "effects"

#I also like the possibility to move the AF point around quickly for the Q

#I like a built in viewfinder of the Q, on the other side the T viewfinder is optically better/larger

#I really like how fast I can change settings when using the T. The Q has an endless long menue. That's not so great; I am much faster with the T where I can customize and have quick aceess to the functions which are important to me

#The Q handles nice, I find the T with the 23mm or the standard zoom to sit even better in my hand

 

Difficult to say which one I prefer, the T is clearly more flexible since its a system, and the IQ difference is not what one might expect when hearing FF vs DX. The T IQ leaves nothing to be desire IMO.

Edited by tom0511
  • Like 1
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...