ctle Posted February 26, 2017 Share #1 Posted February 26, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 26, 2017 Posted February 26, 2017 Hi ctle, Take a look here LEICA M10 Camera VS. LEICA Q Camera - A Comparative Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
microview Posted March 1, 2017 Share #2 Posted March 1, 2017 Very curious, in that he says the M240 is now a better buy than the M10, while image quality is better than that of the Q because of its later sensor, but no-one else will admit this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leica Guy Posted March 1, 2017 Share #3 Posted March 1, 2017 I will just enjoy using my Q. The biggest problem I have with IQ is right behind the EVF. 13 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted March 2, 2017 Share #4 Posted March 2, 2017 This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't even own a M10 or Leica Q. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
armbur Posted March 2, 2017 Share #5 Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He doesn't even own a M10 or Leica Q. This! His video "reviews" are terrible. Edited March 2, 2017 by armbur 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
diddus Posted March 2, 2017 Share #6 Posted March 2, 2017 This! His video "reviews" are terrible. the production quality of his videos are pretty good .... the content sadly is just awful. I remember watching his review on the 35mm Summilux in which he faults it for being 35mm because he prefers 50mm ... I mean come on. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mctuomey Posted March 3, 2017 Share #7 Posted March 3, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) One can compare any two things, but I don't see why one would compare the M and Q. For me, they solve different shooting requirements and present very differently to the user, meaning the obvious AF/EVF versus MF/OVF, fixed lens versus interchangeable lens capability, and cost. Image quality? Not an issue in either case for most users, I would think. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 4, 2017 Share #8 Posted March 4, 2017 Not super impressed with the review. It had some inaccuracies: 1) "Fixed Lens Camera" is not the same as fixed focal length--the X-Vario, for example, has a permanently fixed lens, but it is a zoom 2) I don't think Leica has ever suggested that the Summilux lenses are more "top of the line" than the Summicrons--just that they are faster. I certainly wouldn't consider my 50mm Summicron-M APO to be a second-tier lens to the Summilux-M 50mm. 3) He said the sensor for the M10 is made by CMOSIS. I haven't seen any evidence yet of who manufactures the sensor for the M10. 4) He said that if you look online at sample images from the Leica 'Q' and form the Leica M10, the M10 images appear to have higher quality. I certainly can't find any evidence of that. Leica Rumors says they are almost the same at high ISO. Sean Reid says the SL (almost the same sensor as the 'Q') have very similar high ISO performance. I haven't seen DR numbers yet for the M10, but I just don't see any evidence at this point that image quality would be noticeably different. 5) Suggests that Leica avoids showing certain image quality comparisons to keep sales of one camera from canibalizing sales of another. That's just plane silly. I don't know of any camera manufacturer that does side-by-side comparisons of image quality of ANY different models. It's not some conspiracy on the part of Leica management to keep you from learning about the poor image quality of one camera model vs. another (or the relative lack of difference between models, if you think the conspiracy runs the other way). 6) States that the Sony RX1RII has a huge advantage over the 'Q' because of it's having a 35mm lens. That's just silly. There is nothing intrinsically "better" about a 35mm lens. Some photographers prefer the angle of coverage of a 35, others a 28. Certainly, the 35 has been more popular over the years for SLR owners, but if you want to start including cell phones in what is now "popular" the 28mm angle of view actually dominates. It's just a difference--not an advantage either way. 7) Suggesting that the continuous shooting mode for the Leica M10 is buried in the menu because of the embarrassment of comparing it to the 10 FPS of the Leica 'Q' is just plane silly. Neither camera is intended for or good at action shots. And I certainly don't think Leica is embarrassed by the 5 fps on the M10. They shifted the continuous drive function into the menus to give a cleaner external design--there aren't all that many situations where one would want 10 fps in a manual focus camera! 8) Likewise, it is silly to suggest that removing video functionality from the M10 was a "downgrade". Again, any given photographer may or may not like the choice, but the reasoning was quite clear; Leica M cameras simply aren't used for capturing video. Neither is the 'Q', for that matter. It was a superfluous feature that cluttered up the design. Leica has long had a minimalist ethos--if they don't think people are going to use a feature, they'd rather remove it in order to make the camera more "pure". You may disagree with the decision, but it's certainly not a "downgrade" as the reviewer implies. 9) States that most Leica 'M' lenses have a close focus of 0.5m. Not correct. Most are either 0.7m or 1m. I'm not aware of any that get to 0.5m without a macro adapter. 10) Suggests that the M10 is not an improved camera on the M(240) because it's still a 24 megapixel camera and because they have actually removed the video function. Well, the sensor may still be 24 megapixels, but it is significantly upgraded over the M(240). He seems not to realize that the sensor in the M10 is different from that in the M(240). Coming from a general electronics website or the like, even a general photography website, these mistakes would all be understandable if not quite acceptable. There are lots of people out there who don't agree with Leica's design philosophy. But coming from a Leica Review website? Shows a bit more ignorance than I would expect. Of course I did just sit and watch the whole thing... Shame on me, I suppose. - Jared 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitalux4 Posted March 5, 2017 Share #9 Posted March 5, 2017 Just sour grapes. He didn't even have Q let alone M10. How can he compare. Its like asking other reviewers to review the camera by giving them bunch of processed JPEGs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badluck Posted March 5, 2017 Share #10 Posted March 5, 2017 terrible review full of bs 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted March 5, 2017 Share #11 Posted March 5, 2017 The video was a waste of 20 minutes of my life which I'll never get back. Commenting on the review & reviewers obvious short comings would also waste more valuable time. Simple solution is to just ignore any past or future verbal and visual diarrhoea this individual excretes. Problem solved . 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 6, 2017 Share #12 Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) Yup, realized as I was writing down my critique of the review that I was just throwing one waste of time after another. Shame on me. My only justification is that I was making a vane attempt to help those new to Leica cameras avoid bad sources of information. - Jared Edited March 6, 2017 by Jared 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted March 12, 2017 Share #13 Posted March 12, 2017 Worth skipping through as it is 20 minutes of stating the obvious... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 12, 2017 Share #14 Posted March 12, 2017 Vanity fair Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickftl Posted March 18, 2017 Share #15 Posted March 18, 2017 why would anyone spend time watching this? Isn't it sort of like comparing apples to donuts? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeadair Posted March 20, 2017 Share #16 Posted March 20, 2017 Yes, exactly. His next review will be a comparison of the Leica SL and the Mercedes SL. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
i-Leica Posted May 30, 2017 Share #17 Posted May 30, 2017 Yes, exactly. His next review will be a comparison of the Leica SL and the Mercedes SL. I know the verdict: Leica SL has no! rear camera, Mercedes wins 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted November 14, 2018 Share #18 Posted November 14, 2018 (edited) Sorry I'm reviving this, but I'd really like to know how people compare these two cameras. Ok, I feel this topic is interesting, even if you don't like the particular comparison video. Let's assume you already own an M10 and some decent lenses, say a 35/2 ASPH -- not Leica's best or most expensive, but a VERY good lens (or the 28 ASPH). Do you still want a Q and if so, why? What do you get with the Q that you don't already have? Those of you who may have both, I'd like to hear the reasons you pick up the Q instead of the M10 when you go shoot something. Thanks. Edited November 14, 2018 by carbon_dragon Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay968 Posted November 15, 2018 Share #19 Posted November 15, 2018 (edited) Haven't seen the review here but I would like to add something since the discussion did come up concerning image quality between the M10, Q and RX1rII... I have owned all 3. My honest opinion is that the M10 and Sony are about tied in image quality. The Sony has the better resolution but Leica color is in my opinion much better than Sony's, so overall, I would say it's pretty much a wash between those cameras when it comes to image quality. As far as the Q is concerned, while its IQ is very good, I always had an issue with the amount of moire I would get from that camera. Depending on subject matter, it can sometimes be pretty nasty. I see this with the M10 as well, but not nearly as often. I rarely if ever saw moire with the Sony. Edited November 15, 2018 by jay968 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bags27 Posted November 15, 2018 Share #20 Posted November 15, 2018 I've had some moire with my Q, but not so much, so I guess it depends on subject/shooting style. Why should you get the Q if you already have the M10? Well, you get a terrific EVF which might come in handy, and, again if you want, very quick autofocus, which is great for street shooting. I don't have--with my aging eyes, won't have--an M (though the M10 is maybe the finest piece of manufactured equipment I've ever held). But the Q is wonderful as a single travel camera. If you lust for the Q--which is an easy thing to do--you might want to wait 18 months until the Q2, which will have the (I'm assuming) Maestro III 48ish MPS sensor. That camera will print lovely images from 28 to 75/90mm equivalent and be a fantastic travel camera for the rangefinder owner who is used to pretty much that field of vision. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.