Question about purchase of a M or Q

[dave_hoppus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey guys,

 

I have honestly a problem - at least it's probably a GAS:
 

Current situation: Canon 5D MKi, 12mp, ISO up to 1600 with 35mm f2, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8.

Money: approx 3k Euro

Focus on: Musicians (concerts and portraits), a bit of architecture and landscape.

 

I tested the M240 +Summicron 28 and a Q over a weekend. On both weekends I shooted portraits, both went very well.

There a some pro/contra:

 

Q - pro: great sharpness of lens and sensor, high ISO, wifi, autofocus

Q - contra: fixed lens (don't know if 28mm is the right one), no visuable character - it is very "clean"

 

For the M I would personally more go with a M9 with a Voigtlander 21/28/35mm:

M - pro: interchangeble lens, visuable character in combination with right lens

M - mid: more learning to work with rangefinder, lower ISO (up to 2500; 5D MKi has less power)

M - contra: probably old sensor, old camera/technic

 

Both is possible for approx 3k Euro, what would you choose?

 

Best,

dave

[Mute-on]

Leica is about the lenses. If you are going to fill a kit with Voigtlander, as good as they may be, you are missing a large part of the equation.

 

Get a Q and keep the Canon for portraits and longer lenses.

 

Get an M later when you have better funds.

 

Mostly, just enjoy your experience!

 

Cheers

 

J

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

A bit dogmatic, I would say. Leica is about a concept.

Voigtländer offers a partly unique line of lenses, which fit in well, at an affordable price, There is nothing wrong with the  'M9 / Voigtländer set the OP proposed, I would be happy to use it.

I would be more concerned about the shift in focal length. Wideangle photography does have a learning curve.

 

Personally I would recommend starting with a M9 and a Zeiss Biogon C 35/2.8 and expanding the lens palette as needed.

[ianman]

I've shot quite a few concerts with my M9... but mostly with the Summilux 75 or Summicron 90. Personally I don't go for wider shots at concerts, but of course any focal length will do if you are comfortable with it.

 

The "low" ISO is not that much of an issue as there is usually a hell of a lot of light at concerts (I'm talking rock concerts here).

 

In the fast and furious digital world we live in where everyone "needs" the latest and greatest, yes the M9 CCD is a grandad. But as with all grandads, the CCD has character.

[carbon_dragon]

Hey guys,

 

I have honestly a problem - at least it's probably a GAS:

 

Current situation: Canon 5D MKi, 12mp, ISO up to 1600 with 35mm f2, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8.

Money: approx 3k Euro

Focus on: Musicians (concerts and portraits), a bit of architecture and landscape.

 

I tested the M240 +Summicron 28 and a Q over a weekend. On both weekends I shooted portraits, both went very well.

There a some pro/contra:

 

Q - pro: great sharpness of lens and sensor, high ISO, wifi, autofocus

Q - contra: fixed lens (don't know if 28mm is the right one), no visuable character - it is very "clean"

 

For the M I would personally more go with a M9 with a Voigtlander 21/28/35mm:

M - pro: interchangeble lens, visuable character in combination with right lens

M - mid: more learning to work with rangefinder, lower ISO (up to 2500; 5D MKi has less power)

M - contra: probably old sensor, old camera/technic

 

Both is possible for approx 3k Euro, what would you choose?

 

Best,

dave

 

Well, The 5d is a great camera, but heavy for me. It is probably a good camera for concerts because of it's SLR ability to use long lenses. 

 

I switched to the M9 myself because it was lighter and with landscapes I didn't really need the speed and tended to use 35s and 50s, with the occasional dip into 24 or 90. Not sure what you mean by character, but one advantage of Leica M is that there are a LOT of lenses available, with wide variances on what they produce as a picture. As an example I used a Jupiter 8 screwmount lens on my M8 the other day and it actually looked good, though the look was a bit different to my Leica 50 summicron. But the M's are going to have a hard time with long lenses. I actually have the 135/2.8 with goggles but it's a beast and I seldom use it and that is really the limit of what you can get if you want to get closer shots at concerts.

 

I love my M9 and it has been trouble free. But there is some risk of a common sensor problem, or so I'm told. Try to get a warranty of some kind if you buy. Often reputable used dealers offer 6 months and even occasionally a year. The M9 doesn't have live view and can't work with Leica's EVFs so you'll be using the rangefinder for everything. 

 

The Q looks to be a great camera, but as you say, you're stuck with a really good lens, but only that lens. Probably be lighter than an M and lens though. Bear in mind too that Leica lenses of relatively recent vintage are often $1500-2000 or more. Latest are more than that, the new 50 is about 6K! Older lenses are more affordable and there are Zeiss and Voigtlander (and old russian screwmount ones). Note that I have had mixed results with Voigtlander. I bought 2 and one was great and one was pretty bad. I would buy from a reputable dealer that you can return to or concentrate on their better known Voigtlander lenses. I've been considering the 50/1.5 Voigtlander myself.

 

Well good luck and let us know what you do.

[ramarren]

The DSLR is a thing of my past. No matter how I cut it, the bodies are too bulky to want to carry nowadays. I ride a bicycle most of the time now and am always looking for a smaller camera which makes the same image quality. I also prefer interchangeable lens cameras, which puts the Q off the table completely.

 

So I'd go with an M, but not the M9. The M9 I was always ambivalent about: not responsive enough and the JPEG rendering in-camera was not appealing to me. I swapped it for the M-P typ 240 when the M9 showed up with the sensor problems and was much happier, but I swapped that for the M-D typ 262 and have been delighted ever since.

 

If I were buying today, and wanted a single camera to do occasional macro/tabletop/long lens work as well, I'd buy an M typ 240 or the latest M10 for the Live View feature so I could use my R system macro setup (which I currently use with a CL).

 

In fact, with that thought in mind, if I wanted just one camera to eliminate the DSLR and do everything with, I'd pick a CL over the Q or the M. The CL body is M size but 200g lighter, the T/TL lenses are outstanding and give you all the features (AF, all exposure modes, etc), and the Leica adapters for M and R lenses give you complete access to all the M and R lenses should you so desire it. The smaller format is not a concern: just jump down one focal length and open up one stop compared to the FF bodies and you'll only rarely if ever run into any limitations based on format.

 

I love my M very much, but in practical terms the CL is really the most versatile, best performing light, small camera around. The photos I'm making with it while on my Big Trip (six weeks long, spanning the UK and across the USA) are simply fantastic to my eye. My kit—CL camera body new, half case by Jason Cui, a few Wasabi spare batteries, a couple of 128G cards, R lens adapter, and 28mm/50mm R lenses—would cost about $3700 total at the prices I paid. I'm quite sold on it!

 

...

Current situation: Canon 5D MKi, 12mp, ISO up to 1600 with 35mm f2, 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8.

Money: approx 3k Euro

Focus on: Musicians (concerts and portraits), a bit of architecture and landscape.

 

I tested the M240 +Summicron 28 and a Q over a weekend. On both weekends I shooted portraits, both went very well.

There a some pro/contra:

 

Q - pro: great sharpness of lens and sensor, high ISO, wifi, autofocus

Q - contra: fixed lens (don't know if 28mm is the right one), no visuable character - it is very "clean"

 

For the M I would personally more go with a M9 with a Voigtlander 21/28/35mm:

M - pro: interchangeble lens, visuable character in combination with right lens

M - mid: more learning to work with rangefinder, lower ISO (up to 2500; 5D MKi has less power)

M - contra: probably old sensor, old camera/technic

... 

 

[Guest Nowhereman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

dave_hoppus - For what you want I would go with the M9: with it you can get beautiful colors in low light: if interested see the most recent night shots (all M9) on my Instagram feed. They were shot at ISO 640 and, whenever necessary,"pushed" a bit in Lightroom — but for most of them little or no pushing was necessary.

_______________

Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

Nowhereman Instagram

Edited September 29, 2018 by Nowhereman

[rickatwoodme]

Having owned a Q and a M240, for me, the Q is really similar to a DSLR shooting experience, while an M is a much more thoughtful rangefinder experience. The M really slows me down which I prefer (brings me back to how I shoot with film) and the images I get are usually significantly better.

The real question is moving to a manual everything rangefinder or not; that's really your conundrum.

Look for a 240 vs M9 however; prices are close enough now, and the 240 is (I think anyway) much preferable. As suggested, a CL would be a wise entry point too, as its more flexible and smaller than the Q and can take M lenses when your budget allows. The packaged kit now sells for right on your budget, body and lens.

[wattsy]

Why not stick with what you have? You said yourself "it's probably a GAS". Not much that you can't do with what you already have.

[dave_hoppus]

Still figuring out what is the best for my work. Looked plenty times on old photos of both cams. 

It changed a bit that the Q offers all the best parts, but still doesn't know if 28mm is the right length.

On my last project I have shooted around 550 pictures. 165 with 24mm, 280 with 35mm, 135 with 50mm. Well, 28mm is in between, otherwise I can crop to 35mm and lose some megapixels. 

The pictures from the first shooting of the M240 it offered enough power for ISO 2.500 and 4.000 ... it gets a bit noisy, but totally fine. Personally would choose the M262. More focused on photography. Want to get more in touch to create pictures and not to shot something like a tourist. 

I would probably prefer something more to 24mm. 7Artisans should do there something or Voigtländer

So, one year gone - still thinking. And selling my Canon stuff. 

[Richard Link]

I realize this is an old thread but just my 2 cents anyway.

When you are trying to decide between an Q and an M you really won't get that far trying to differentiate based on performance. Both cameras take wonderful pictures. What differs greatly between the two is the user experience. I have owned both a Q and an M240 in the past. The Q was fast, easy, automated and took very nice images. It felt much more like a snappy version of a lot of other fixed lens cameras out there (the Rx1, the Fuji 100F, etc).  I enjoyed the Q a lot but always had that little voice in the back of my head saying "why did you spend $4500 on this camera when you could get the same experience for 1/2 or 1/3 the price elsewhere?"  The M240, to my mind, was a totally different experience. Slower, more deliberate, more satisfying. I didn't grow up on a manual film rangefinder but wanted to improve my photography skills. The M forced me to expand my skills and improve (hopefully).  Sometimes I found the focus frustrating but in general the experience of shooting it was more satisfying than the Q. If you are mostly looking for performance then maybe there are better cameras out there than the Q (larger, interchangeable lenses, cooler features) for the same or less money (sony, panasonic, fuji). If you are looking for a rather unique and satisfying user experience that is not really available anywhere else than the M probably is the ticket. Even though my m240 kit cost twice as much as my Q, I never felt like "I paid too much." You are just paying what you have to pay to get this unique experience in 2019. 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Richard Link