Jump to content

Leica Q Family


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Against the grain of opinion here I did buy an SL. I thought it was ugly till I got it in hand and now I love it. I do wish it was smaller and that that LENS was smaller but the usability and shooting experience is amazing. Also, I'm finding that it may be easer to focus M lenses on an SL than on (sacrilege!) an M. The results with wide M lenses are perfectly acceptable for my purposes.

Congratulations!  It looked fantastic at the Leica store. Perhaps a bit large, but looked like it could deliver terrific images. Hope it meets your expectations. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica Q is my first experience w/the Leica camera system.  Previously I've used Canon equipment.  I purchased the Q as a grab and go walk-around camera.  I have fallen in love with it and with the Leica user experience.  I just pulled the trigger on a M 240 and cron 50mm 2.0 lense.  Will be holding a Canon yard sale shortly!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations! It looked fantastic at the Leica store. Perhaps a bit large, but looked like it could deliver terrific images. Hope it meets your expectations.

Plusses and minuses. Wonderful quality, excellent images, great with M lenses (and the one 'R' lens I still have) but I do wish it was lighter. Make me reluctant to carry it along and if the camera is not with me, it's not doing much in the cabinet...
Link to post
Share on other sites

So true. I carried around Nikon DSLRs for years up and down mountains and got good pictures, but jumped at the chance to also do well in a different way with a much smaller, lighter package. The limitations of fixed lens are more than compensated with the Q  - I get more and better shots than I did before even though they're not always the same type of shots. Now I carry it most everywhere and love using it (a joy to use as so many have said) - not true with the DSLRs.

 This is exactly my experience as well. The Q is very versatile and very fast with this incredible lens.

 

But I also admit, that my other cameras will have their own advantages and for some purposes mandatory. I use the Olympus OMD EM5 with Leica lenses as a back-up camera and for teleshots. My Canon DLSR is for longtime exposures,timer-shots, startrails, stillife and portrait. My X1 still is a fine dearie that can go in my handbag.

 

The Q is a superb camera. It will take a few weeks to get to know ist potential. No other camera is so quick, has such a comfortable handling and can create such IQ in a fixed lens unit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite surprisingly, after handling the new SL today, with the 24-90, I came back with a different point of view.  Yes, with the zoom lens it is on the heavy side; about the same weight as a Nikon D800e and a Nikon 35- 70. Nevertheless, it is so easy to frame and snap with its state-of-the-art viewfinder, and awesome focus point "mouse"; similar to the old IBM Thinkpad mouse.  It is all hugely impressive. Leica glass is Leica glass. The time I spent yielded perfectly focused pictures and Leica's colors, bokeh, and end results were right up there with anything I have shot.

 

Candidly, it has me "day dreaming." What a photographic tool.  Probably fast enough to catch "lightning fast" grandchildren on the run. They can be very fast. Sometimes faster than the Q. Although I am still in the contemplation stage, it makes my Nikon D800E with the 85/1.4 G and 24/1.4G seem like the previous generation that it is. In a very good way, this Leica SL tool IMHO raises the photographic bar. Along with my Q, it just may be the perfect compliment. Time will tell. Good luck!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want any camera larger than a M to carry around (except my 5x7 large format but then it is not a casual affair). I was considering the Sony A7RII but I did not like the handling of it and got the Q instead. I had the Nex7 (and destroyed it by dropping it in a mountain lake). I think for larger scale (macro and tele) APS-C has advantages compared to FF and therefore I am waiting that Sony comes out with the next generation with a state of the art sensor  (and  water or at least weather proofing).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not want any camera larger than a M to carry around (except my 5x7 large format but then it is not a casual affair). I was considering the Sony A7RII but I did not like the handling of it and got the Q instead. I had the Nex7 (and destroyed it by dropping it in a mountain lake). I think for larger scale (macro and tele) APS-C has advantages compared to FF and therefore I am waiting that Sony comes out with the next generation with a state of the art sensor  (and  water or at least weather proofing).

I discovered that NEX had very poor resistance to even light rain.  Following  my trip with that body when it virtually fell apart, I insisted that Sony returned it to new condition and I promptly sold it and bought the M9-P  The NEX?  Never liked it. Too small. Hated the menus. Hated the multiple configurable keys, and hated the IQ. 

That was three years ago and I've been happy with Leica ever since. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I carry this weight and bulk I want a bigger sensor in it. My purchase was a S&70mm. FF solutions are M9, Q, RX1IIr (one of the latter two will have to go), A7IIr.

 

Yup, that's what I just don't understand about the SL. If you are a DSLR shooter like for like it would be the SL. If you are an M or Q shooter surely you'd just go straight to the S and skip the SL given the size of the thing and the concession to weight and lens size. Why have 2 FF cameras when you could easily delve into medium format for not much more?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, that's what I just don't understand about the SL. If you are a DSLR shooter like for like it would be the SL. If you are an M or Q shooter surely you'd just go straight to the S and skip the SL given the size of the thing and the concession to weight and lens size. Why have 2 FF cameras when you could easily delve into medium format for not much more?

 

I have to agree Rapierwitman, at least up to a point anyway.

I've grown to really appreciate the Q, it's now a "keeper" for me despite a shaky start and despite the fact that the recent firmware update was a real disappointment. Let's hope real wishes will be addressed next time, whenever that'll be........

I've tried the SL and  for me I've found it lacking in a few important areas that include the EVF, the size and the cost considering it's competition.

I would love to be able to justify an S 007 to upgrade my DSLR needs from the present and still excellent Nikon D700, ( I would not go from a DSLR to the SL, I consider an EVF being no match for an OVF in any form ), but again the cost of a useful S 007 kit puts the brakes on me going that route for now. At around +$13K less Nikon's really excellent D810 is a formidable alternative to the choice of going with an S. Much less expensive, a wide choice of superb Nikon and other manufacture's lenses, and superb imaging whichever way you cut it.

I love Leica as much as any of us on these forums, been using them professionally for over four decades, sure I'd love to have a S 007 kit but being able to justify the expense against performance and usefulness is another ball of wax..........

Sorry, drifted a little off Q subject here!

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites

At around +$13K less Nikon's really excellent D810 is a formidable alternative to the choice of going with an S. Much less expensive, a wide choice of superb Nikon and other manufacture's lenses, and superb imaging whichever way you cut it.

I love Leica as much as any of us on these forums, been using them professionally for over four decades, sure I'd love to have a S 007 kit but being able to justify the expense against performance and usefulness is another ball of wax..........

Sorry, drifted a little off Q subject here!

 

You're right about the expense. I think should I ever feel the need to get back into DSLR size territory I'll be saving my pennies for an S 007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SL is ugly. If I can have a beauty, why bother. It is also heavy. Just tried one downtown the other day. I wait for a QM. I love the Q. And Ms, if they do not put on too much fat.

Edited by Photon42
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...