Q or Q type FF body with interchangeable AF lenses?

[TheGodParticle/Hari]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

With the rumor sites going abuzz and the rumors actually sounding plausible, what do you guys think?

 

I'd love to have a IL version of the Q, hoping the rumor sites are wrong that the body might be styled like the good ol Leicaflex

 

AF sounds like a welcome break, my "eye floater" issue gets worse with longer duration of manual focusing, not to mention how annoying it is to have floating things inside your eye when you're trying to nail focus at f0.95 / f1 / f1.2

 

I'll still use the M as the primary tool, this will be a perfect backup camera

 

I hope it will take R lenses, as rumored and I also hope they come out with native macros and zooms

[johnloumiles]

I don't see Leica going the retro route of Nikon with the Df just because all their cameras sans the S and T are influenced by the M. I think this new camera will probably resemble the Q if not recycle the body outright ala the X 113 - XVario. I also think this new camera will build the mount around M lenses as the first line for adaptation just like the T which means R lenses are possible but will require bulky/stacking adapters. Going with R lenses means bigger body and eschewing M lenses all together and being realistic, that will never happen. I'm sure they learned a lot from the T and this next camera if it exists will probably have some kick a** native lenses.

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it has interchangeable lenses it's not a Q.

[mjh]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it has interchangeable lenses it's not a Q.

And it wouldn’t look like a Q either. Olympus took a cue from last century’s OM-1 and OM-2 and is now quite successful with the OM-D models. Fuji was inspired by their Fujica SLRs and designed the X-T1 and now X-T10 that sell much better than previous models. Assuming that Leica was taking note, what models would they base the design of a new system camera on? (A retro look only affects the front and top of the body; it necessarily fails to provide any suggestion for designing the back. Thus a new model could remind you of one camera when viewed from one side and resemble a different camera when viewed from the other.)

Edited August 28, 2015 by mjh

[johnloumiles]

For all the history Leica has I don't ever see them making a camera with fake pentaprism. I think they embrace a modern sensibility when designing cameras. The Q, T, M60: all examples of Leicas current vision.

[mjh]

For all the history Leica has I don't ever see them making a camera with fake pentaprism.

Nothing fake about it. Once you start moving the viewfinder from the left to the center, i.e. above the mount and sensor, there must be a hump. Not a prism hump as there is no prism, but an EVF hump.

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agreed. 

[johnloumiles]

I understand what you're saying. I'm just referring to past cameras and the fact the hump had to be there because of the pentaprism but today's it's purely an asthetic choice. Technically if Olympus wanted to have the VF flush with the camera they could do that by making the entire camera a bit taller. Instead they wanted to harken back to the original OM and give it the distinctive hump. Leica has some of that history as well but those were Minolta designs and as far as the R8/9 we are definitely getting into DSLR territory. Anythings possible, I'm just going off recent history.

 

Nothing fake about it. Once you start moving the viewfinder from the left to the center, i.e. above the mount and sensor, there must be a hump. Not a prism hump as there is no prism, but an EVF hump.

Edited August 28, 2015 by johnloumiles

[mjh]

Technically if Olympus wanted to have the VF flush with the camera they could do that by making the entire camera a bit taller.

But making the camera taller for no good reason, be it from a technical or a design perspective – how would that be good design? The outer shells of the OM-D, X-T, or Alpha 7 models snugly fit the components inside – form follows function. While this does hark back to SLR designs of many decades ago, it isn’t a mere look – where there used to be a dome to provide the space for a pentaprism, now there is a dome to provide the space for an EVF. The similarity extends to function; it isn’t a matter of reviving an obsolete form.

Edited August 28, 2015 by mjh

[barjohn]

The main reason to have the VF in the center was the simplicity (relative) when you had a mirror assembly.  Moving the VF to a side would require additional optical elements to send the image to the side.  With an EVF, the side location allows the VF to be closer to the body and only minimal additional height required because there is someplace to put your nose and the electronics (unless you are such an avid photographer that you would cut yours off to use the more compact camera).  So why put the EVF in the center where the electronics are most crowded and you have to add additional bulk and a hump unless you are seeking a retro look?  If Leica has decided they want the camera to look like an older SLR and different than an M, then that would be the only reason that would make sense.

Edited August 28, 2015 by barjohn

[johnloumiles]

Well if we are talking about good design then both the Sony and Olympus are ugly as all heck in my opinion. I can flip it back and ask why shorten the body if you're just going to add a big hump to the camera? Do you think M & Q are really the lesser designed cameras in this regard? Even though I don't like the look I'm still glad there are options and that we don't have cookie cutter cameras across the board, I just don't think Leica should follow suit.

 

But making the camera taller for no good reason, be it from a technical or a design perspective – how would that be good design? The outer shells of the OM-D, X-T, or Alpha 7 models snugly fit the components inside – form follows function. While this does hark back to SLR designs of many decades ago, it isn’t a mere look – where there used to be a dome to provide the space for a pentaprism, now there is a dome to provide the space for an EVF. The similarity extends to function; it isn’t a matter of reviving an obsolete form.

Edited August 28, 2015 by johnloumiles

[IkarusJohn]

But making the camera taller for no good reason, be it from a technical or a design perspective – how would that be good design? The outer shells of the OM-D, X-T, or Alpha 7 models snugly fit the components inside – form follows function. While this does hark back to SLR designs of many decades ago, it isn’t a mere look – where there used to be a dome to provide the space for a pentaprism, now there is a dome to provide the space for an EVF. The similarity extends to function; it isn’t a matter of reviving an obsolete form.

 

What you seem to be suggesting is an R9 form factor, but mirrorless ...

[earleygallery]

Hello Michael,

 

I take it from your comments that we are likely to see a faux SLR design.

 

I know you have to put a positive spin on it, but seriously now, there's no reason at all for a new EVIL digital camera to be designed to look like an SLR is there? The viewfinder can be on the end like with an M rangefinder camera. It's only in the middle on an SLR because of the light path. 

 

Leica could go for a new design - most camera designs are still based on film cameras. A new camera could be designed in a much more ergonomic way. It could be rather like a movie camera with a pistol grip, and a barrell design - some have tried such styles. 

 

The OMD and A7 are not 'form follows function' designs. They're pastiche's on the SLR. What's the new Leica going to be?

Edited August 29, 2015 by earleygallery

[earleygallery]

for example..http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/nova-dslr-camera-concept-27-11-2009/

[robert blu]

I know, at least I think or I'm afraid  some (many?) Leica aficionados  could be horrified but this idea, which just came to my mind reading this thread again a few minutes ago. Is it possible the  new camera could have a body similar (but larger) to the one of the T? With EVF on the side and the touchscreen interface? Or the R9 with a touchscreen interface on the back? Too innovative?

robert

[jaapv]

Hello Michael,

 

I take it from your comments that we are likely to see a faux SLR design.

 

I know you have to put a positive spin on it, but seriously now, there's no reason at all for a new EVIL digital camera to be designed to look like an SLR is there? The viewfinder can be on the end like with an M rangefinder camera. It's only in the middle on an SLR because of the light path. 

 

Leica could go for a new design - most camera designs are still based on film cameras. A new camera could be designed in a much more ergonomic way. It could be rather like a movie camera with a pistol grip, and a barrell design - some have tried such styles. 

 

The OMD and A7 are not 'form follows function' designs. They're pastiche's on the SLR. What's the new Leica going to be?

Let's hope they go the Q route...

[earleygallery]

Let's hope they go the Q route...

 

Sounds like it's going to be a faux SLR design. The Q style would be better IMHO. 

Edited August 29, 2015 by earleygallery

[mjh]

Leica could go for a new design - most camera designs are still based on film cameras. A new camera could be designed in a much more ergonomic way. It could be rather like a movie camera with a pistol grip, and a barrell design - some have tried such styles.

Yeah, I remember – the Yashica Samurai (1988) for example. Those designs didn’t turn out to be all that popular. For some reason the vast majority of photographers doesn’t want their still cameras to look like consumer-grade video cameras.

[Peyton Hoge]

ZZZZZZZZZZ

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[barjohn]

A Q style design with the T's lens mount so it could use the T lenses in crop mode, the M lenses with adapter in manual and new FF AF lenses would be phenomenal; however, it would have a serious impact on M sales leaving the M for the die hard mechanical RF group.  At some point, there wouldn't be enough demand to continue the M should that happen.  Given the company's past desire to hold onto its older and loyal customer base the other option is to style it such that it doesn't appeal as much to the M customer.  The other strategy would be to have this lower cost M/Q camera (no mechanical RF) and let it erode M sales and gradually phase into a new era of fully electronic cameras.  I guess it depends on the marketing folks and bean counters at Leica.  A $4k-$5K ILC body styled like the Q would probably sell like hot cakes.