Leica MP240/35mm owner. Add a Q, OR 50mm summicron + rx1r2

[Joshua Lowe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is blasphemy but what about a Ricoh GR?

[bigben]

thanks for the suggestions. 

 

I actually also have a fuji xe2, which after the recent firmware update (yes they are still updating this), is excellent again with the few fujinon lenses I have. This is similar to the Ricoh GR in the sense of small package / aps sensor. Its portable if you throw in a pancake like the 27mm fujinon (which is fantastic after the update in april), but faster fujinon lenses becomes bulkier (not heavy).  

 

Ive been playing around with the rx1r2 AND currently borrowing the awesome 50mm lux from a friend. The rx1r2 does offer raw files which are super malleable when pp, and gives a different feel altogether to the Leica and Fuji colors. You can tweak it to your liking. 

 

This of course has brought another dilemma, the first gen rx1 or rx1r is much cheaper now (US$1700 ish) and aside from the focusing speed (cant be much slower than how I focus an M), and smaller megapixel count, is tempting.   

[rsolomon]

i have an M240 35/2 & 75/2.  i enjoy the 75/2....

 

My advice is not to think about your second lens but what you will want in the full system. In other words what will your 3rd and 4th lenses be this will aid you in deciding what the second lens should be. 

 

For me a 2 lens kit of 35 & 75 crons is very flexible and easy to handle. if i get a 3rd and 4th i'll go 21 or 24  &  135 ..... for me these lenses are on the edges of my usage, 90 % of my shots will always be covered with 35 & 75.  i have a vlux for a long shooter

[jaapv]

I think when the Q arrived, Mr Overgaard wrote about using the M for a more 'considered' approach to taking a camera out to create photographs. Hence for once I cannot agree with Jaap about one or other camera (Q/M) being superfluous as their usage experiences are so different, and if you can't face taking the weighty M240 out for the day then the Q nicely takes over (not to mention its features cited above by JLindstrom).

But  I strongly disagree about the "considered approach" The M has always been a fast reportage camera and as such the Q adds little but a bit of weight loss and AF which I dislike, at the price of the loss of versatility. Learning how to use the rangefinder quickly is cheaper than buying a Q in my book. And those few hundred grams? I'll have a sandwich less - tomorrow.

[Martin Fagerås]

I too have a M with a 35 (and 15+50), and a Q.

 

Long story short.

 

1 camera: daylight = M+35 lux - nighttime = Q

2 cameras = Q + M+50 lux.

 

28+50 is nice on two bodies, 35 is my fav on one body.

 

The M require a different mindset, the Q is an efficient point and shoot with some M DNA that make results with the Leica 3D pop look.

 

Also, one can debate, but the weight difference is absolutely noticeable. The Q is light

[CYBORA]

I too have a M with a 35 (and 15+50), and a Q.

 

Long story short.

 

1 camera: daylight = M+35 lux - nighttime = Q

2 cameras = Q + M+50 lux.

 

28+50 is nice on two bodies, 35 is my fav on one body.

 

The M require a different mindset, the Q is an efficient point and shoot with some M DNA that make results with the Leica 3D pop look.

 

Also, one can debate, but the weight difference is absolutely noticeable. The Q is light

 

Almost the same story for me as I use Q for night and M + 35 FLE for the day or well lighted streets at night. 

 

I wish the next M will have Q / SL sensor with that great 3D pop up , colors and look  

[Ecaton]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Add a 24mm and 75mm and use the M's versatility. If you want light and small, the Q won't cut it and a pocket camera would make more sense. 

[jaapv]

Almost the same story for me as I use Q for night and M + 35 FLE for the day or well lighted streets at night. 

 

I wish the next M will have Q / SL sensor with that great 3D pop up , colors and look  

It may be just me, but I fail to see much difference between the Q sensor, the SL sensor (which is different) and the M sensor. I guess it comes down to postprocessing skills.

[bigben]

Hi all, OP here. quick update 

 

So spent time with RX1r2, 50mm lux, Leica Q, since the first post. Previously only played with them in a shop, but had a chance to shoot with each in sets of about 50 photos, and pp - so at least got a feel... 

 

Here's my 2 cents.

 

1) Leica Q is awesome. Point and shoot M. Pics as good as the M (if not too good - Its almost too easy to get that shot without effort because of the AF). Weight is not light, not significantly lighter than the M that would make me want to carry it out instead of an M. I would get this over the sony (if I didnt already have an M - but I do, and thats the issue). However I am so glad I got the M before the Q came out - because the shooting experience/approach is different - you learn to become a "better". Difference between driving a manual and an auto gearbox perhaps? Also manual focus allows me to be spot on with the subject I choose. AF ..well is AF. [yes you can go manual with the Q blah blah but I didnt]

 

2) sony - more toy like, slower blah blah than the Q. But its light and it complements what I need - main objective: lighter than the M and shoots great photos that are slightly "different". Im not a pro so I dont need speed. Lovely pics.

 

3) with 50mm lux - loved it.  Loved the focal length, pics similar feel to 35 lux in pp.

 

So what did I end up with?...I picked up the brand new Zeiss 50mm f2 planar on a whim (well not really read a few reviews it was as good as a cron f2 non apo)...bolder colors (similar to sony), after pulling down some of the bolder reds/yellows in pp ....pics are awesome. great price as well.

 

Now I just "need" a 75 or 90...

[CYBORA]

It may be just me, but I fail to see much difference between the Q sensor, the SL sensor (which is different) and the M sensor. I guess it comes down to postprocessing skills.

 

   I wasn't aware of the fact that Q and SL sensors are different. I was just assuming that SL sensor is just the Q sensor that is optimised for SL lenses ( the only difference )  and other parts are same.  Thank you for pointing it out 

 

Now I wish to have SOOC JPEG ( color and B&W ) quality of Q for the next M    Q has good JPEG quality to share instantly, making life easy.

[colonel]

Hi all, OP here. quick update 

 

 

So what did I end up with?...I picked up the brand new Zeiss 50mm f2 planar on a whim (well not really read a few reviews it was as good as a cron f2 non apo)...bolder colors (similar to sony), after pulling down some of the bolder reds/yellows in pp ....pics are awesome. great price as well.

 

Now I just "need" a 75 or 90...

 

Great choice

 

75mm: Value Convention: Summarit f2.5, unconventional: Voigtlander 75mm f1.8

90mm: all good

[jlindstrom]

Hi all, OP here. quick update 

 

Now I just "need" a 75 or 90...

 

 

Since you have a 50mm now, I'd probably swing for a 90mm. And to keep things at reasonable cost & weight, I'd search for a late model Elmarit-m 90/2.8 with the slide out hood. It's a fantastic lens! It's one of Mandlers finest & being a bit more classic in the way it draws so not overly contrasty.

[bigben]

Yes 90mm would be interesting... Also i opted and went for the Q. So much lighter.

 

Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk

[carlosgavina]

Q + 50 Summicron