Delrosa81 Posted June 26, 2017 Share #1 Posted June 26, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm in the midst of selling my Q and procuring the SL. Am pretty excited! I was advised by friends that I should keep the Q to compliment the SL and for travelling when you need something light to use rather than lugging the heavy SL. I'm somewhat of an amateur photographer and only do some photography in my free time. Any ideas on this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 26, 2017 Posted June 26, 2017 Hi Delrosa81, Take a look here Goodbye Q, Welcome SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS Posted June 26, 2017 Share #2 Posted June 26, 2017 Sell the Q. The SL will fulfill everything an amateur could possibly wish for Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 26, 2017 Author Share #3 Posted June 26, 2017 Sell the Q. The SL will fulfill everything an amateur could possibly wish for Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Thanks Neil-D-Williams! Thats what I thought too, you just reaffirmed my decision! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinzX Posted June 26, 2017 Share #4 Posted June 26, 2017 Sell the Q and buy for the money a M lens together with the adapter. Could be the very small 28 mm or a 35 mm for example, if you would like to have not always the bigger 24/90 with you. But you have no AF in this case. I prefer to have the SL and the 24/90 with me and have sold my M 240 and the M lenses. In addition to the SL I use a Sony RX 10 III when I do not need the very maximum quality and I know, that the maximum ISO necessary is up to ISO 800. This camera has a range of 24 mm to 600 mm (equ. to full frame). For example I make a 1 day journey, I know weather will be fine and I know, what will be the photo subjects. In this case I decided, not to take the SL and the 24/90 plus the 90/280 with me, but the Sony. This is a good solution for me - maybe for you too. And better than to keep the Q. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted June 26, 2017 Share #5 Posted June 26, 2017 I'm in the midst of selling my Q and procuring the SL. Am pretty excited! I was advised by friends that I should keep the Q to compliment the SL and for travelling when you need something light to use rather than lugging the heavy SL. I'm somewhat of an amateur photographer and only do some photography in my free time. Any ideas on this? Yes... keep the Q for sure, unless you really need to sell it. I have both... but the Q is so portable that I take it with me all the time. I love the Q... and the SL. You will miss the Q a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joonas Posted June 26, 2017 Share #6 Posted June 26, 2017 I have SL with both zooms and I'm considering selling my Q to buy the Summilux-SL 50/1.4. When I got the Q I thought that I'll never sell it, it's such a great camera! It feels wrong that it rarely gets used after I got the SL. Does it make any sense to offer the Q to the local Leica dealer as part of the payment or should I sell it directly? Where is the best place to sell the Q? Thank you in advance for your wise advice! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted June 26, 2017 Share #7 Posted June 26, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have Q + SL, 28, 50, 90-280 focal lengths between them, so cover the ranges nicely. I use them for weddings together quite nicely, and the Q is a great travel/street photography camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 26, 2017 Share #8 Posted June 26, 2017 I love the SL, but I do yearn for something light and more compact. If you enjoy your Q, keep it if you can. The SL is fantastic, but sometimes something smaller is called for ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted June 26, 2017 Share #9 Posted June 26, 2017 I have SL with both zooms and I'm considering selling my Q to buy the Summilux-SL 50/1.4. When I got the Q I thought that I'll never sell it, it's such a great camera! It feels wrong that it rarely gets used after I got the SL. Does it make any sense to offer the Q to the local Leica dealer as part of the payment or should I sell it directly? Where is the best place to sell the Q? Thank you in advance for your wise advice! The Q is going for 3200-3600 or so depending on condition, age, accessories, etc. I bought mine on Fred Miranda. Are you in the USA?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted June 26, 2017 Share #10 Posted June 26, 2017 I love the SL, but I do yearn for something light and more compact. If you enjoy your Q, keep it if you can. The SL is fantastic, but sometimes something smaller is called for ... 100% agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubaga Posted June 26, 2017 Share #11 Posted June 26, 2017 I love the SL, but I do yearn for something light and more compact. If you enjoy your Q, keep it if you can. The SL is fantastic, but sometimes something smaller is called for ... For the same reasons I have both SL and Q. If you are not under pressure to sell Q try keeping it. If you will feel you do not use it you can sell it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share #12 Posted June 27, 2017 Dear all, thanks for your replies. Im using tapatalk and not able to multi quote and reply to everyone's reply accordingly but I will do a mass reply here instead. I would most probably neglect the Q once I get the SL so Im most probably going to sell it. Im actually trading it into the local leica dealer and tomorrow will send the camera into the dealer for them to evaluate the condition of the camera and await their price quote. It will most probably be a lousy value as I most expected but will decide once they give me a quote. At the same time, Im trying to sell it online and awaiting the outcome. I will definitely miss the Q for sure but not wanting to neglect the Q and let it sit around collecting dust and depreciating, my best option would be to sell it. But if the quoted trade in price is ridiculously low, I will then decide to keep the Q. Sounds bad to the Q hahaha but I guess thats just the way life is. Im just concerned about the weight of the SL which Im going to get with the 24-90 lens. I had a hold with the 90-280 lens and boy was it heavy! The 24-90 demo lens wasnt available so I wasnt able to have a feel of the weight. But Im gonna drop into the dealer today and see if the demo lens for the 24-90 is back and available for my testing. Thanks once again ! Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted June 27, 2017 Share #13 Posted June 27, 2017 On this (off)topic, I've been thinking about a compact alternative to the SL. A recent trip to Wanaka with the SL, 24-90 and 90-280 zooms, tripod, laptop, iPad and related bits an pieces as carry on baggage in a Peak Design backpack (the smaller one) brought home to me how quickly weight builds up. As it happened, I didn't really get the time to go out and take many pictures. It occurred to me when I got back that next time I take either the SL and 24-90 zoom (and little else), or I take something smaller and lighter. An M camera and a couple of lenses (28 & 50 Summiluxes would be the obvious choice) makes more sense. I could even expand that to 21-28-50 and still be inside the weight of the SL and zoom. Lenses always cry out to be taken on any trip, even if they just sit in the bag. Then, I thought I only have my Monochrom and M-A (both black and white), so the SL (and adapter) would be logical. Soon I get back to a heavy bag with more stuff than I would use. So, it got me thinking. The SL and 24-90 zoom, with spare battery in my pocket and polarising filter, is enough on its own. You don't need to add any more, and it was perfect for my trip last year to the US (soon to be great again, apparently). But, that is a big unit if photography isn't your purpose. The M, whether Monochrom or M-A, is a great compact choice, with a spare lens and battery, and even some filters. But it's black and white. Adding an M10 would be logical, but extravagant (back to three M cameras ...). The SL is a fantastic colour camera with M lenses. So, that still leaves me wondering about a small, light camera that ideally goes in a pocket and I can take everywhere. Coincidentally, Ming Thein recently blogged about his need for an "Un-Camera" along the same lines. Currently, I have my M-A and 50 Summitar (collapsed) in my bag and it is a perfect size. In Leica-land, there is the Q (full frame with a fantastic lens and sensor), the X-U (all weather) and the TL (with the diminutive 23mm Summicron and the benefit of being able to use M and SL lenses if needed). At this stage, I'm waiting. I'd rather have a compact platform that I could use with my existing lens collection (it's the lenses that count); I sold my T because the blackout problem drove me mad. Otherwise, I thought it was a fantastic camera. I'm hoping Leica does something about this; but in the meantime, if I had a Q, I'd keep it. Cheers John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share #14 Posted June 27, 2017 On this (off)topic, I've been thinking about a compact alternative to the SL. A recent trip to Wanaka with the SL, 24-90 and 90-280 zooms, tripod, laptop, iPad and related bits an pieces as carry on baggage in a Peak Design backpack (the smaller one) brought home to me how quickly weight builds up. As it happened, I didn't really get the time to go out and take many pictures. It occurred to me when I got back that next time I take either the SL and 24-90 zoom (and little else), or I take something smaller and lighter. An M camera and a couple of lenses (28 & 50 Summiluxes would be the obvious choice) makes more sense. I could even expand that to 21-28-50 and still be inside the weight of the SL and zoom. Lenses always cry out to be taken on any trip, even if they just sit in the bag. Then, I thought I only have my Monochrom and M-A (both black and white), so the SL (and adapter) would be logical. Soon I get back to a heavy bag with more stuff than I would use. So, it got me thinking. The SL and 24-90 zoom, with spare battery in my pocket and polarising filter, is enough on its own. You don't need to add any more, and it was perfect for my trip last year to the US (soon to be great again, apparently). But, that is a big unit if photography isn't your purpose. The M, whether Monochrom or M-A, is a great compact choice, with a spare lens and battery, and even some filters. But it's black and white. Adding an M10 would be logical, but extravagant (back to three M cameras ...). The SL is a fantastic colour camera with M lenses. So, that still leaves me wondering about a small, light camera that ideally goes in a pocket and I can take everywhere. Coincidentally, Ming Thein recently blogged about his need for an "Un-Camera" along the same lines. Currently, I have my M-A and 50 Summitar (collapsed) in my bag and it is a perfect size. In Leica-land, there is the Q (full frame with a fantastic lens and sensor), the X-U (all weather) and the TL (with the diminutive 23mm Summicron and the benefit of being able to use M and SL lenses if needed). At this stage, I'm waiting. I'd rather have a compact platform that I could use with my existing lens collection (it's the lenses that count); I sold my T because the blackout problem drove me mad. Otherwise, I thought it was a fantastic camera. I'm hoping Leica does something about this; but in the meantime, if I had a Q, I'd keep it. Cheers John Thanks for sharing your thoughts and I do appreciate it. Im actually wavering in my decision to sell the Q cos its so compact and light and yet so so good! If the local leica quotes a ridiculous trade in price for the Q which Im quite sure will be the case, I will keep the Q and get the SL as an additional camera. Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted June 27, 2017 Share #15 Posted June 27, 2017 The SL zooms are bulky and heavy, I don't tend to carry them for casual snapshooting very often; I carry them when I have specific goals in mind. Swapping them for a pair of R lenses (take your pick of 19 and 50, 50 and 90, 60 and 180, or whatever) drops the weight and size to the equivalent of a Nikon FM + two/three lenses, which I find very carryable. That said, I often also eschew the SL and carry my M-D with two or three lenses. It's not much smaller, but It just works better for me as a more casual shooting camera. 90% of the time when I use it, I could carry just one lens ... at which point, it's simply the equivalent of a Q anyway (although with interchangeable lenses). So I'd say keep the Q for a casual and lightweight camera if you can afford to. All of these solutions work ... unfortunately, in the end, you have to decide what works best for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted June 27, 2017 Share #16 Posted June 27, 2017 +1 to keeping the Q as backup if you can. Plus the close focusing (up to 17cm in macro mode) can be really useful I find. In addition to the Q I also use the SL with one M-lens (sometimes two) as a llighter alternative to the zoom. I also have the T but don't use it much anymore. I am kind of waiting for the new one to decide whether I upgrade or get rid of it altogether. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share #17 Posted June 27, 2017 The SL zooms are bulky and heavy, I don't tend to carry them for casual snapshooting very often; I carry them when I have specific goals in mind. Swapping them for a pair of R lenses (take your pick of 19 and 50, 50 and 90, 60 and 180, or whatever) drops the weight and size to the equivalent of a Nikon FM + two/three lenses, which I find very carryable. That said, I often also eschew the SL and carry my M-D with two or three lenses. It's not much smaller, but It just works better for me as a more casual shooting camera. 90% of the time when I use it, I could carry just one lens ... at which point, it's simply the equivalent of a Q anyway (although with interchangeable lenses). So I'd say keep the Q for a casual and lightweight camera if you can afford to. All of these solutions work ... unfortunately, in the end, you have to decide what works best for you. Thanks for sharing your personal experience. Unfortunately I do not have much budget to keep both but in the worst case scenario, I will keep the Q and get the SL. My love for photography has made me poor lol Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share #18 Posted June 27, 2017 Anyways decided to get the SL and reconsider selling the Q. So for now, I have both the Q and SL. Sent from my VKY-L29 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share #19 Posted June 27, 2017 As luck would have it, someone bought the Q off my hands after getting the SL today. Well good thing for my pockets lol. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delrosa81 Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share #20 Posted June 27, 2017 Ok a photo of my new Toy. The SL Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.