Your thoughts of the Q experience coming from a digital M...

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps I am not the only M (M9) owner who would be very interested to hear from those who expanded their quiver to include the Q. How has the camera expanded, or otherwise limited, your shooting experience and repertoire. For me, I would be interested to hear about the AF vs. rangefinder, low light capabilities, and quality of image when cropped to 35mm or 50mm, especially when printed . Recognizing that it gets the attention of the new and shiny object, ultimately, has the Q replaced and/or augmented your use of your M boxes.

Obliged.

David

[Photon42]

for the the Q was kind of an impulse buy - I saw and handled it and was totally taken how fluid it is to operate (however, sold quite some other stuff to make it happen). Good I did not think about it too long - sometimes I just buy things because it feels right.

 

I have used the Q alongside to the M9. It gives me that level of instantness along with perfect focus and f 1.7, I cannot usually achieve with the M9. Sometimes, I hold the camera just right into a group of people and fire. No pre-focussing - the Q handles it right. Using it alone for me is a nice challenge, as the 28 was not my preferred walkabout lens so far. For some reason, the M240 left me cold. I cannot really explain it. The Q gives me some advantages of the M240 (live view, macro, high ISO performance) in a smaller and lighter package.

[lucerne]

Hi David.

your question should elicit interesting responses from owners of M9 and Q.   I doubt my comments will make sense to new members who have skipped the rangefinder stage.   This is about the performance and handling of a classic Leica digital rangefinder versus a new Leica non-rangefinder body,

My initial reaction on opening the box was one of slight disappointment.  The body just doesn't match the feel of my M9-P and isn't as cool.  However, my reason for buying into the Q was that my ability to capture fleeting moments with M9 while travelling with tour groups was resulting in lost opportunities and even the weight (I'm in my late 60s and suffer from back problems), of the M-9 was giving me problems.    I'm still a fan of the rangefinder and I'm very confident with the technology but taking shots from moving vehicles or in dimly lit locations in places like India was a real challenge.  The M9 has never let me down when shooting conditions were appropriate.  On the Q, the EVF is superb as is the rear display.  The shutter speed reaches 1/16000 sec and the possible shooting combinations with aperture, timing and ISO in either Auto or Manual allow great flexibility.  The lens is very sharp.

Why did I make the purchase.  Really it was to be able to select autofocus and use higher ISO.  The Q achieves that effortlessly.    My next decision is whether I can take only the Q on trips.   Are the cropped focal lengths of 35 and 50 going to be good enough?   After experimentation I believe that the cropped lengths  are usable for my requirements.

Low light focusing capabilities are far better than the M9 and the manageable noise at ISO settings up to 6400 is a real advantage.

Others will have different views which I respect.  The forum is becoming busy with new users comparing the Q with other popular Non-rangefinder bodies.  I don't think they are  relevant to your question. 

 

I'm also convinced that the M9 CCD sensor has a unique colour signature that isn't matched on the Q.  That's a disappointment and is the main reason I'll be keeping the M9 as long as possible despite its weak display and limited sensitivity.  In the long run, I may decide to carry both to locations and take one or other out each day

 

finally, I should add that I originally went for the M9 to get away from the increasingly complex and automated Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc  bodies which I've owned.  The move by Leica towards conventional bodies has both an upside and a downside for me, but since the Q gives me some features that I know I need, then I just have to accept it.  

 

Hope that helps.

[Deliberate1]

I'm still a fan of the rangefinder and I'm very confident with the technology but taking shots from moving vehicles or in dimly lit locations in places like India was a real challenge.  The M9 has never let me down when shooting conditions were appropriate.  

Gordon, been there and done that there.

The M9 has strings attached to my heart. It is, in my humble experience, the perfect camera for perfect (or damn close to) conditions. In even light, especially at the bewitching hour, the luscious images from the 50mm Lux can make me weep. But there is other weeping as well. As dusk gives way to darkness, or when dealing with interior settings, my blood pressure tends to track trepidacious bumps up the ISO scale and shutter dial. Then I have to do all sort of mental calculations - how fast (ISO) should I push so as to freeze movement in dynamic situations. Or should I use the 640 ISO technique and try to recover what is lost or not apparent on the preview screen and can only be estimated from the histogram. These are the times when frustration sets in and the tool hinders rather than facilitates and I just want to put the Leica away and pull out my cell phone.These are also the times when thoughts of a Sony a7rii with stratospheric ISO capabilities and in-camera and in-lens internalization come knocking. Springing for a used M9M is certainly an option for higher ISO flexibility. And I would undoubtedly love it for what it does. But the idea of shooting in a place like India in only BW would leave me profoundly unsatisfied.

The concept of a Q greatly appeals to me. Quick, capable, able to offset my own mechanical and cognitive shortcomings, it ticks so many boxes. I can live with one lens. All of us, of a certain age, have in our shooting past. But, for me, it would have to be a 50mm. Never having shot with anything wider than a 35mm, and fearing the lack of subject intimacy that sings to me when I lift the M9/50 lux to my eye, the Q in its current iteration, despite its siren song, may just pass me by with envy.

David

[Geoffrey James]

I share many of Lucerne's reactions. High ISO and closeup capacity are important to me. With M's I tend to work entirely manually. The Q autofocus is very good, as is the focus peaking for critical work. And the price is very fair. Not sure about the colour characteristics -- I have to do more

printing, because there is so much you can do in Post. I also have to figure out how good the b/W files are. The M9 files don't come close to the MOnochrome, which is an amazing camera. I will attach a couple of street shots to see if anyone can tell the difference between the Q and the 9.

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!

[lucerne]

Geoffrey,  Re: above two images.  I would say that image 2 is from the Q.  It seems more clinical in its accurate rendering.  Like a Sony!   The variation in tonality in the first image is more pleasing.

 

Deliberate1 :     Im not sure I understand your reluctance to use wide-angle.  I took my M9 to Uzbekistan/Central Asia in May and in a period of madness I stuck my 21SEM on the body and rarely took it off.  On my return I was faced with some very distorted images but I was surprised at how many could be straightened and recovered.    It was a brilliant choice for Hong Kong.  Of course my best portraits in India were with my 50 Lux and also my 75 f/2.5

 

do you think that the original CCD MM produces nicer results than the new version.?

[Deliberate1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your reluctance to use wide-angle.  I took my M9 to Uzbekistan/Central Asia in May and in a period of madness I stuck my 21SEM on the body and rarely took it off.  

 

Gordon, as I see it, a fixed lens camera as elegant as the Q is still a fixed lens camera. Different than clicking on your 21mm to the M9. Your perspective is inflexible. If you and the camera share the same eye at all times together, splendid. If not...Kind of an expensive science experiment for me.

[Deliberate1]

 I will attach a couple of street shots to see if anyone can tell the difference between the Q and the 9.

 

Geoffrey, I confess to being uniquely unqualified to offer an opinion even when my chances are even. I have never been able to discern the supposed unique character of a sensor by looking at images, particularly when they present two completely different scenes. 

[shootinglulu]

first shot taken with q.

[guido pasquali]

E ma non vale, la prima immagine ha un soggetto bellissimo la seconda mediocre.

 

Guido

[microview]

first shot taken with q.

Not if you look for Camera Info in Photoshop. Actually I preferred the (less interesting) top pic before checkng to see which was which, M or Q.

[Geoffrey James]

Just to end the suspense, the top image was M9, the second Q, so Gordon nailed it. And Guido -- non cerco la bellezza. The Q also does subtle

and muted. Much depends on the light.

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!

[Belle123]

That was my guess as well, the top being the M.  I am reading these replies with interest before jumping to buy a Q just yet.  So far most images are over sharp I have seen out of the Q.  Is there such a thing as over sharp? Ha!  To my eyes, just lacks depth when everything in such extreme focus.  Even when set to a narrow depth of field, just looks flat to me.  I am puzzled by it.  

[jaapv]

As (over)sharpness in the digital world is nothing but edge contrast manipulation I cannot find your observation puzzling.

[Geoffrey James]

I would agree with JAAP. With the M9, there is also the question of lenses. I shoot almost exclusively with 28's and for colour I greatly prefer the 4th version Elmarit to the Summicron, and probably also to the extremely expensive new Summilux, which tend to have over-saturated colour

for my taste. With all the tools in PP, I would rather start with in image that is very sharp than one that is unsharp. I would agree with Billinghambaglady that most digital images, not just the Q, are too sharp, but that is usually a result of default processing. (In my printer setting in there are three default settings for sharpness, apparently because the three engineers had a different idea of what sharp should be.) I don'tg find the Q files 2d or over-sharp. But I don't have time to do serious printing at the moment, which is where the proof of the pudding is. The Q has robust files, and I am convinced you can do a lot with them. The lens is very good -- here is a street shot I took this morning, with a

detail. Did not raise the camera to the eye. I am also finding the colour straight out of the camera surprisingly good.

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!

[Belle123]

As (over)sharpness in the digital world is nothing but edge contrast manipulation I cannot find your observation puzzling.

Well, it's an interesting phenomenon.  I keep looking at images taken with my M240 and the T, mostly with a Summicron 35mm Asph and even the ones I have the sharpest shots, smallest aperture and everything as crisp as possible, I still get a sense of depth.  Not sure why the Q is different in that regard, but it's like everything in focus is in the same plane.  I am probably not describing this well, but just something noticed from nearly all shots I have seen with the Q.  Maybe I am imagining this.  It could be......

[lucerne]

Well, it's an interesting phenomenon.  I keep looking at images taken with my M240 and the T, mostly with a Summicron 35mm Asph and even the ones I have the sharpest shots, smallest aperture and everything as crisp as possible, I still get a sense of depth.  Not sure why the Q is different in that regard, but it's like everything in focus is in the same plane.  I am probably not describing this well, but just something noticed from nearly all shots I have seen with the Q.  Maybe I am imagining this.  It could be......

 

I agree with your observation and in my opinion we have to take account of the greater natural depth of field of a 28mm lens.  It's sharp but it won't give results like a 35 lux or even cron.  It's the downside of wide angle lenses.  

 

I think you will find that only certain scenes with subjects separated from their background by a larger distance will deliver the results you are looking for.

[AndrewDD]

I bought the Q as I often have difficulty focussing my M 240 due to deteriorating eyesight. I kind of hoped that, under the right circumstances, I'd get 95% of the quality for 25% of the effort, and have far fewer missed shots. It was never intended to replace the M. I have to say, I've found it to be disappointing.

 

I hadn't used a lens as wide as 28mm for many years, since I started taking photography seriously, and had underestimated the difference from the 35mm which is my widest M lens. The distortions around the edge, particularly in the corners, on the Q are pretty horrible - you can see that on the samples posted above. I like to fill the image with my subject, and that just doesn't work with the Q.

I know I'll have the natives out with burning pitchforks for saying this, but I shoot my M jpg only. There is simply no need to waste processing time by shooting raw with the M, the jpgs are plenty good enough. The jpgs on the Q however are very poor, particularly shadows. I've had to mostly shoot raw with it, which for me is a time waster.

I've had problems with colour balance - the greycard option is very inaccurate, and there are several other menu options which behave very strangely. I've also found it missed focus surpisingly often, no matter which option I try. I don't rate it's low light performance - sure, it is better than the M, but above ISO 800 it is far to grainy for me.

 

I don't think I will sell the Q (yet), but certainly if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have bought it.

 

I spent all day yesterday shooting and, apart from one short time shooting some close-ups, I used the M exclusively. If I'm in a situation where I have time to focus, the results are in a different league.

[Belle123]

I agree with your observation and in my opinion we have to take account of the greater natural depth of field of a 28mm lens.  It's sharp but it won't give results like a 35 lux or even cron.  It's the downside of wide angle lenses.  

 

I think you will find that only certain scenes with subjects separated from their background by a larger distance will deliver the results you are looking for.

Thanks.  I have a 28 Summicron Asph as well, but rarely use it.  Will take some shots and see if can repeat this attribute on the M.  Like others, wish the Q was 35mm or 50mm lens. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

I bought the Q as I often have difficulty focussing my M 240 due to deteriorating eyesight. I kind of hoped that, under the right circumstances, I'd get 95% of the quality for 25% of the effort, and have far fewer missed shots. It was never intended to replace the M. I have to say, I've found it to be disappointing.

 

I hadn't used a lens as wide as 28mm for many years, since I started taking photography seriously, and had underestimated the difference from the 35mm which is my widest M lens. The distortions around the edge, particularly in the corners, on the Q are pretty horrible - you can see that on the samples posted above. I like to fill the image with my subject, and that just doesn't work with the Q.

I know I'll have the natives out with burning pitchforks for saying this, but I shoot my M jpg only. There is simply no need to waste processing time by shooting raw with the M, the jpgs are plenty good enough. The jpgs on the Q however are very poor, particularly shadows. I've had to mostly shoot raw with it, which for me is a time waster.

I've had problems with colour balance - the greycard option is very inaccurate, and there are several other menu options which behave very strangely. I've also found it missed focus surpisingly often, no matter which option I try. I don't rate it's low light performance - sure, it is better than the M, but above ISO 800 it is far to grainy for me.

 

I don't think I will sell the Q (yet), but certainly if I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have bought it.

 

I spent all day yesterday shooting and, apart from one short time shooting some close-ups, I used the M exclusively. If I'm in a situation where I have time to focus, the results are in a different league.

I wonder where the time wasting of a raw workflow should come from? Whether you open a DNG or a JPG in Lightroom, the workflow is exactly the same.