Leica Q?

[Lonestarmomm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Please advise on Leica Q or CL? I’ve included a Flickr link w/ Leica T / Summilux f1.4 personal gems. https://flic.kr/p/rdrgCh

 

 

Can Q get delish bokeh? Is there a permanent Diopter setting?

 

https://flic.kr/p/p6k3tr

 

Thx

Melanie

[stuny]

Welcome to the forum.

 

The Q can deliver lovely bokeh, and users can change the diopter setting.

 

The main advantage of the Q over the CL is a larger sensor, allowing better low light performance and resolution.

 

The main advantage of the CL is the ability to interchange lenses.

[earleygallery]

Two very different cameras. What's wrong with your T?

[tgdinamo]

When I was thinking about this few months back when I was going through same decision, I found it very helpful to look through some images on this site in the dedicated Q image thread (and Q macro images as well), and then did the same for CL images.

I was less interested in pixel peeping type of comparison, but instead trying to get the idea/feel for how people who use the cameras "think" (what type of stuff they shoot with them) - that was one of the main reasons I decided to get the Q (and also I looked at a lot of reviews on the web - in my opinion the Q reviews were generally more convincing then the CL reviews).

[heatlarx]

It all depends on your shooting style..try out both..

But if you can live with one camera..one lens..one focal length (remember Q not only a fixed lens but a fixed focal length)..Then Q would be the answer..

Q is a fantastic camera..

[HighlandK]

It all depends on your shooting style..try out both..

But if you can live with one camera..one lens..one focal length (remember Q not only a fixed lens but a fixed focal length)..Then Q would be the answer..

Q is a fantastic camera..

Agreed and remember that with the larger sensor the fixed 28mm lens produces results that are very croppable so in that sense it is not a “fixed” FL.

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agreed and remember that with the larger sensor the fixed 28mm lens produces results that are very croppable so in that sense it is not a “fixed” FL.

 

Dont agree with this. The results from the Q and CL will be so similar that you'd barley tell the difference. I would expect the Q to be no more than half a stop better in any particular attribute. The CL has a sensor nearly 3 years newer...

 

Lastly, the one thing I didnt like about the Q was that the FL really is wider than the 28mm advertised, its more like 25/26mm. So the bear that in mind.

 

The Q lens though, its stellar. If I were you I would chose the CL - but that is because it intrigues me and I have already owned a Q.

[Mr.Q]

Dont agree with this. The results from the Q and CL will be so similar that you'd barley tell the difference. I would expect the Q to be no more than half a stop better in any particular attribute. The CL has a sensor nearly 3 years newer...

 

Lastly, the one thing I didnt like about the Q was that the FL really is wider than the 28mm advertised, its more like 25/26mm. So the bear that in mind.

 

The Q lens though, its stellar. If I were you I would chose the CL - but that is because it intrigues me and I have already owned a Q.

I don't agree with your take either. No TL or M lens on the CL will be able to reproduce what one can achieve with the Q with it's 28mm Summilux lens. You would need a 18mm F1.2 lens for a similar FOV/DOF on a APS-C crop sensor, which is of course non-existant.

[JTLeica]

I don't agree with your take either. No TL or M lens on the CL will be able to reproduce what one can achieve with the Q with it's 28mm Summilux lens. You would need a 18mm F1.2 lens for a similar FOV/DOF on a APS-C crop sensor, which is of course non-existant.

 

Try to look at what I was responding to? The comment 'croppable' and nothing to do with depth of field. Which I agree is unique to the Q's F1.7 FF lens. We are talking about IQ and Resolution. Take two shots at F8 with both cameras and neither is more or less croppable. Neither will have noticeably better or worse IQ etc...

[Mr.Q]

Try to look at what I was responding to? The comment 'croppable' and nothing to do with depth of field. Which I agree is unique to the Q's F1.7 FF lens. We are talking about IQ and Resolution. Take two shots at F8 with both cameras and neither is more or less croppable. Neither will have noticeably better or worse IQ etc...

Perhaps I misinterpretted your post, but I was disagreeing to this:

 

The results from the Q and CL will be so similar that you'd barley tell the difference.

Much of the magic of the Q is at F1.7. There's not much sense in discussing the IQ difference at F8. Any modern lens performs admirably at that aperture.

[JTLeica]

Perhaps I misinterpretted your post, but I was disagreeing to this:

 

 

Much of the magic of the Q is at F1.7. There's not much sense in discussing the IQ difference at F8. Any modern lens performs admirably at that aperture.

 

Yes fair enough wide open you cannot replicate the Q is any smaller format. But... Not all photography, in fact not much photography is done wide open.

[Mr.Q]

Yes fair enough wide open you cannot replicate the Q is any smaller format. But... Not all photography, in fact not much photography is done wide open.

I shoot 80% of my shots wide-open with my Q, and I shoot 99% of my shots wide open with my 50/0.95 Noctilux. That's why I pay a fortune for these lenses. Otherwise I do as you suggest and pull out my small-sensor'd cameras with their zooms.

[OR120]

Yes fair enough wide open you cannot replicate the Q is any smaller format. But... Not all photography, in fact not much photography is done wide open.

I'm with Mr. Q on this one. Most of the photos I've shot for news and personal (with Leica, Nikon, Canon) were wide open. When I started with Leica many years ago -- I quickly moved to the Summilux lenses. I think it all goes back to one's subject/style. Most of mine is wide-open.

[bags27]

I shoot what my desire for bokeh vs depth of field dictates. Generally, I don't like to stop down beyond f8, but do, if I need the depth of field and have been very happy with photos at f11. To my mind, I think sharpness is overrated. Additional sharpness can be baked in during post-processing, and digital photography is already so sharp and sometimes I like more of a feathered, film look. 

 

but each to his own.

[JeremyG]

I decided to treat myself to a Leica after many years of photography with first Nikon then a few years ago changing to MFT and Olympus (which I still have). I looked at both the CL and the Q but chose the latter for several reasons including the simplicity of a fixed lens thus needing my feet to zoom and the convenience of the manual controls, it takes me back to Nikon FM2 days, wonderful. I've now had the camera for a couple of weeks and it is simply a joy to use but is it worth £3,700?, in terms of metal and glass I wouldn't know but add in the pleasure of using it then absolutely!

[bags27]

I decided to treat myself to a Leica after many years of photography with first Nikon then a few years ago changing to MFT and Olympus (which I still have). I looked at both the CL and the Q but chose the latter for several reasons including the simplicity of a fixed lens thus needing my feet to zoom and the convenience of the manual controls, it takes me back to Nikon FM2 days, wonderful. I've now had the camera for a couple of weeks and it is simply a joy to use but is it worth £3,700?, in terms of metal and glass I wouldn't know but add in the pleasure of using it then absolutely!

Welcome! Is it "worth" X amount? maybe not objectively, but Leica isn't only about pixels or even sharpness (sorry!). It's an inexplicable emotional thing as well.

 

Meanwhile, I'm doing the reverse. Using the Q has encouraged me to dust off my Nikon FE and shoot film again as well! Really enjoying that, too.

[prk60091]

I decided to treat myself to a Leica after many years of photography with first Nikon then a few years ago changing to MFT and Olympus (which I still have). I looked at both the CL and the Q but chose the latter for several reasons including the simplicity of a fixed lens thus needing my feet to zoom and the convenience of the manual controls, it takes me back to Nikon FM2 days, wonderful. I've now had the camera for a couple of weeks and it is simply a joy to use but is it worth £3,700?, in terms of metal and glass I wouldn't know but add in the pleasure of using it then absolutely!

considering the price of the 1.4 summilux is more than the Q  i say it is worth it-- in terms solely of metal and glass

when you add the joy of use and IQ -- it is worth way more

[Louis Champan]

_{I just purchased a new Leica Q and have a question regarding post processing the images, is there any tricks when using ACR and or specific camera profiles?}

_Thanks

[HighlandK]

_{I just purchased a new Leica Q and have a question regarding post processing the images, is there any tricks when using ACR and or specific camera profiles?}

_Thanks

 

Nothing of note comes to mind other than under lens corrections the profile is built-in to the DNG out of the camera and not applied as an ACR profile. When you have taken a few 'standard' shots - i.e. not unusual lighting conditions  it is handy to build your own preset as a starting point but then again some prefer to start from scratch each time. Finally go easy on the sharpening. Initially I found I was adding too much sharpening based on what I needed for my Nikon.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[hexx]

Going through the same thoughts, but from different angle. I have M240 with Nokton 50/1.5 and Summicron ASPH 28/2. Going through my photographs taken in the last 2 years it seems that 99% are taken with Summicron and it is pretty much glued on the camera. The only times when I mount something else is usually Nikkor 60/2.8 Macro for photos stuff I need to sell.

 

With that in mind and no news about having EVF equipped camera the size of M I started to look at Q - it’s the size, EVF and with added bonus of AF. The M would need to go though as I can’t justify keeping both (only enthusiast here, not a pro) but would keep my lenses just in case a new camera comes out that would fit my requirements outlined above.

 

A bit worried to be fair, there’s nothing like M but I would prefer EVF for framing, AF isn’t needed. I found SL too large when I tried it a couple of years ago - shame as the EVF was brilliant.