Jump to content

Meet the Designers Behind the Leica Q (Typ 116)


Recommended Posts

Perception is a funny thing.  About the only thing I didn't like about the Q was that it was bordering on too small and light weight for me.  It reminded me of my Sony A7r which felt too small and fiddley in my hands and was too light.  I'm sure a lot of my fuzzy shots were because being so light and small it was hard to hold steady or maybe, it was just the shutter vibration problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the size was just about ideal... I would have loved it if it was less tall and a touch wider... But I agree about the weight... I would have preferred it to be a little heavier... A brass top plate would have done it... :)

 

Hmmmm. Reading that back, it doesn't seem that I thought it was 'just about ideal'... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we can now put the debate to rest, the Panasonic Leica models are the same as the Panasonics, no differences in coatings, or firmware, or secret internal components.  

 

Could the Leica employees mentioned have been a little too candid?…...

Link to post
Share on other sites

At least we can now put the debate to rest, the Panasonic Leica models are the same as the Panasonics, no differences in coatings, or firmware, or secret internal components.  

 

Could the Leica employees mentioned have been a little too candid?…...

 

I thought everyone knew that.  Cosmetics, 2 year warrantee, and a copy of LR were the reasons you would pay more for the Leica version.  And, maybe cache if you are into that sort of thing.  Oh, resale is probably better?

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, from briefly handling the camera in the store, overall I really liked it, as I've mentioned before.

 

Just to clarify; My impression just struck me that after handling the Q, maybe I don't want the M to be too small, just thinner.  And, not light weight, just trim some weight and I'd be fine.  Too light weight and it may not feel balanced with the dense M lenses.  Again, the light weight Sony A7r never felt quite right (for me) with the Leica lenses on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought everyone knew that.  Cosmetics, 2 year warrantee, and a copy of LR were the reasons you would pay more for the Leica version.  And, maybe cache if you are into that sort of thing.  Oh, resale is probably better?

 

You thought wrong. Many seem to think (thought!) that the Leica versions were made with different internals, better lenses, higher quality electricals and special Leica gnome magic. Leica technicians measuring all the parts in the Panasonic factory and picking the best parts to assemble their cameras with (as if Panasonic would ever allow that!). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You thought wrong. Many seem to think (thought!) that the Leica versions were made with different internals, better lenses, higher quality electricals and special Leica gnome magic. Leica technicians measuring all the parts in the Panasonic factory and picking the best parts to assemble their cameras with (as if Panasonic would ever allow that!). 

 

Nah, that is just silly.  It became clear early on that there wasn't any difference.  Leica added a couple hundred bucks to the price of the Leica version for the extended warrantee, copy of LR and the red dot.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm wondering is, if Panasonic made the sensor, can we expect a Panasonic Q in the near future?

To quote from a statement by Peter Kruschewski quoted in the article: “… we can say that the Q's sensor has been exclusively developed for us by our industrial partner, so it won't be found in any other manufacturers' products.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought everyone knew that.  Cosmetics, 2 year warrantee, and a copy of LR were the reasons you would pay more for the Leica version.  And, maybe cache if you are into that sort of thing.  Oh, resale is probably better?

not everyone  :rolleyes: .  however i have seen and used the leica and panasonic versions of the dlux4--  the software was definitely different on the dlux 4 and is also different on the leica c (type 112) compared to the panasonic version... t

 

he rendered images were different (there  are brick walls to examine over at dpreview which either prove the leica jpg software is better or the panasonic shooters were not as good as the leica photographers.  )  --- I DO  NOT WANT TO RESTART THE PANALEICA WAR just noting my observations... could be like the expensive wine is tastier than the inexpensive no name.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

What I'm wondering is, if Panasonic made the sensor, can we expect a Panasonic Q in the near future?

 

TowerJazz Panasonic Semiconductor Co. Ltd. (TPSCo) is a joint venture 49% owned by Panasonic who contributed three of its Japanese fabs to the new entity a while ago

 

http://www.towerjazz.com/jv.html

 

TowerJazz is headquartered in Israel and TPSCo is based in japan.

 

http://www.towerjazz.com/contact-towerjazz.html

 

It's known that TowerJazz has previously supplied sensors to CMOSIS and, obviously, TPSCo now does the same for Panasonic.  Given that Leica said that the Q's sensor is not a CMOSIS or Sony, it seems at least likely that TPSCo might be the source (that doesn't necessarily mean that a Panasonic version of the Q is likely though).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The part that got me was that apparently Leica suggests turning OIS to improve/"get the most" out of the lens... How does turning off OIS affect image quality? And does this also apply to say....d-lux 109 and the likes?

 

OIS works for static subjects at slow shutter speeds but not for moving subjects.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/image-stabilization-when-use-it-and-when-turn-it

 

dunk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...