Jump to content

Leica Q?


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been shooting with a Q for a little over a year or so. I purchased a CL recently. Here are some thoughts...

 

CL

Main advantage is the ability to change lenses

Q

Main advantage is that it is full frame.

 

Yes there IS a difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C. To say there isn't is kidding oneself. It's not only about depth-of-field and noise. Full frame images show more of an apparent depth to the image. Medium format images take that a step further. I have a feeling that most people nowadays don't see this in images so it is not important to them, but it exists and can be a deciding factor to someone who is aware of it and knows what to look for.

So on this basis alone it would appear that what I am saying is that in order to get the best image quality, go with the Q. Well, yes and no. There are problems with the Q. First, it is more likely to produce moire than the CL. I have seen a lot of it in my Q images. I have also seen ugly artifacts in subject matter containing very small details. I cannot take a photograph of my stucco house without seeing very fine ugly red artifacts mixed in with the stucco color. This does not happen with the CL. It does also happen, but to a lesser extent, when I use my M10. Again, the CL does not show any of this.

Second, its much heralded viewfinder really isn't all it's cracked up to be. The CL viewfinder is miles ahead of the Q and is actually the first electronic viewfinder that I am happy with.

Third, not having the ability to change lenses can be a pain. Using the camera in cropped 35mm mode works but it only produces a 16mp image which is just not comparable to the 24mp image from the CL.

So, while with good subject matter that does not produce moire or artifacts in the Q, it can be stellar (IF you can live with the single lens). On the other hand, its drawbacks can be very limiting.

As far as the CL goes, well I am happy so far BUT out of camera images just do not look quite as good as they do from my Q or my M10. They are kind've dull looking and seem to need a bit more post processing to achieve really good results (others may disagree). But when worked on, they are very good indeed, and very close to the Q. Colors are gorgeous too.

 

At any rate, I purchased the CL as a possible replacement for the Q but am finding the Q hard to give up. Aside from image quality it is a joy to use especially considering its shutter speed dial and f-stop ring on the lens. It's macro capabilities are worth considering as well.

 

If I had neither and was looking to purchase one of them, it would most likely be the CL. It is just so much more versatile with its interchangeable lenses. My suggestion would be to rent both and spend about a week with them. They are both great cameras and really only you can decide which is best for you.

Edited by jay968
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both cameras do produce lovely outputs. I think the difference in depth you are referring to between APSC and full frame is probably more down to the lens rather than the sensor. Stick an M lens on a CL, shoot in good to ok light at the same equivalent distance, post process the same way and print them out to 16 x 24 and I wouldn't be able to tell which photo was take with which camera. 

 

APSC has come quite a long way.

 

Couldn't agree with the fiddly unmarked interchangeable controls on the CL though. Hoping the next generation goes back to the X1 philosophy in both styling and operation. 

 

I have been shooting with a Q for a little over a year or so. I purchased a CL recently. Here are some thoughts...

 

CL

Main advantage is the ability to change lenses

Q

Main advantage is that it is full frame.

 

Yes there IS a difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C. To say there isn't is kidding oneself. It's not only about depth-of-field and noise. Full frame images show more of an apparent depth to the image. Medium format images take that a step further. I have a feeling that most people nowadays don't see this in images so it is not important to them, but it exists and can be a deciding factor to someone who is aware of it and knows what to look for.

So on this basis alone it would appear that what I am saying is that in order to get the best image quality, go with the Q. Well, yes and no. There are problems with the Q. First, it is more likely to produce moire than the CL. I have seen a lot of it in my Q images. I have also seen ugly artifacts in subject matter containing very small details. I cannot take a photograph of my stucco house without seeing very fine ugly red artifacts mixed in with the stucco color. This does not happen with the CL. It does also happen, but to a lesser extent, when I use my M10. Again, the CL does not show any of this.

Second, its much heralded viewfinder really isn't all it's cracked up to be. The CL viewfinder is miles ahead of the Q and is actually the first electronic viewfinder that I am happy with.

Third, not having the ability to change lenses can be a pain. Using the camera in cropped 35mm mode works but it only produces a 16mp image which is just not comparable to the 24mp image from the CL.

So, while with good subject matter that does not produce moire or artifacts in the Q, it can be stellar (IF you can live with the single lens). On the other hand, its drawbacks can be very limiting.

As far as the CL goes, well I am happy so far BUT out of camera images just do not look quite as good as they do from my Q or my M10. They are kind've dull looking and seem to need a bit more post processing to achieve really good results (others may disagree). But when worked on, they are very good indeed, and very close to the Q. Colors are gorgeous too.

 

At any rate, I purchased the CL as a possible replacement for the Q but am finding the Q hard to give up. Aside from image quality it is a joy to use especially considering its shutter speed dial and f-stop ring on the lens. It's macro capabilities are worth considering as well.

 

If I had neither and was looking to purchase one of them, it would most likely be the CL. It is just so much more versatile with its interchangeable lenses. My suggestion would be to rent both and spend about a week with them. They are both great cameras and really only you can decide which is best for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not tried the CL, but the Q is full frame so when using it in low light conditions, inside churches, museums and for night street photography its resolution can't be beaten by an APS-C Camera. I have taken shots where 

 

So if size and price is not an issue I will go for the Q because for low light missions it can't be beaten. The pictures below were taken under low light conditions and as you can see the Q's full frame sensor never disappoints. 

 

28141364507_c96583bbf9.jpg

 

42291209064_4822261c74.jpg

 

42108014405_dc4fa89465.jpg

 

41199451230_7cacff3735.jpg

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not tried the CL, but the Q is full frame so when using it in low light conditions, inside churches, museums and for night street photography its resolution can't be beaten by an APS-C Camera. I have taken shots where 

 

So if size and price is not an issue I will go for the Q because for low light missions it can't be beaten. The pictures below were taken under low light conditions and as you can see the Q's full frame sensor never disappoints. 

Wonderful low light shot..that's why I love Q  :)

Edited by heatlarx
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had told Barbara that my VLux 114 was wonderfully versatile, but too bad it isn't better in low light situations.  That wasn't a hint, and the Q was not on my radar, but she surprised me with the Q last December.  It is now my carry just about everywhere camera.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I swapped my Q for a CL because I needed the interchangeable lens and the extra length given by a cropped sensor for a trip to Africa. While I have come to enjoy the CL and have settled in with its IQ, the Q is a hands down better camera. I didn't want to carry two digital cameras at home, as I am more committed to film, and the FF Q alternative was the SL but that is a beast to carry around all day -- and it would not have given me the cropped extra length (M10 is a no go because I do use video for my grandchildren). If a Q 50 comes out, I very well might swap the CL for that new Q .... FF is better, and I can crop the Q to nothing and still have a wonderful workable shot.  OR maybe there is an SL2 which is a lighter somewhat friendly design ... Leica will eventually get my money again :-(

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I swapped my Q for a CL because I needed the interchangeable lens and the extra length given by a cropped sensor for a trip to Africa. While I have come to enjoy the CL and have settled in with its IQ, the Q is a hands down better camera. I didn't want to carry two digital cameras at home, as I am more committed to film, and the FF Q alternative was the SL but that is a beast to carry around all day -- and it would not have given me the cropped extra length (M10 is a no go because I do use video for my grandchildren). If a Q 50 comes out, I very well might swap the CL for that new Q .... FF is better, and I can crop the Q to nothing and still have a wonderful workable shot.  OR maybe there is an SL2 which is a lighter somewhat friendly design ... Leica will eventually get my money again :-(

Perhaps a Leica Q and a Leica C-Lux for the next safari?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For verily did I wander in the Leica digital vineyards, (all expcept the S)

and lo did see that the Q might be Leica's best digital offering.

Better image than the CM, more 'cropable' than the CM, and more portable than the digital Ms and the SL601.

Don't get me wrong all have their own specific virtues but the Q is a little gem.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

For verily did I wander in the Leica digital vineyards, (all expcept the S)

and lo did see that the Q might be Leica's best digital offering.

Better image than the CM, more 'cropable' than the CM, and more portable than the digital Ms and the SL601.

Don't get me wrong all have their own specific virtues but the Q is a little gem.

I agree. but do you mean the old CM or the current CL? which is, BTW, terrific also, even if 1/2 sensor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. but do you mean the old CM or the current CL? which is, BTW, terrific also, even if 1/2 sensor.

You are quite right , I need a sign saying don't 'drink and post', but the wine was good, Leica's new habit of using old names

on new models i.e SL always confuses me, but that doesn't take much. I meant the new CL. The CL is terrific, I like it

but finding it hard to fall in love with. Whereas the Q really do love. My default digital grab choice was between M or Q, and Q often won,

now M or Q or CL and CL seems to be winning, and one reason for that, is though I prefer the results on the Q, the CL is the perfect

back up camera, -- small, highish ISO, can use any Leica lens -- for when I am shooting film on SLs or Ms.

( Oh -if such a thing were possible- for a Q with an M bayonet) The CL is wonderfully flexible, and doubtless will grow on me.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q has been a very successful product for Leica, while the CL has been a little slow out of the gate. This is probably why they are offering a promotion where they throw in a $395 M-L adapter. I own a Q as well as an SL.

If you feel limited by only one lens, then the CL definitely has an edge, but with that said, the Q is the most "M" like camera that I've ever owned. A real German Summilux lens, real focusing, (not focus by wire), fantastic build

and built-in macro. The 18mm kit lens is not even close to the performance/quality of the 28mm F/1.7 Summilux on the Q, but being a 'pancake lens' its size is a big plus.

 

The 23mm F2 Summicron is way better and the 35mm F/1.4 is outstanding. At this time, all TL lenses are made in Japan, except for the 35mm and the 60mm macro. I would imagine that most of the TL lenses are in the same league as the Sony/Zeiss lenses and even the Fujinon X Series lenses, which are stellar performers as a whole. I've used all of these systems and I'm 100% Leica at this time

 

If you already have an SL and don't have a Q, then get a CL, but they are two different tools for two different use cases. I will probably pick up a CL in the future as a nice, compact travel kit, but my grab-and-go first choice for street photography and some travel photography is my Q.

 

-Brad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great analysis, that is helpful to me, too. But the Q is focus-by-wire, I think, which is the miracle of it, that it doesn't feel like it. 

 

As to the CL, even the Leica salesman told me not to make it my next Leica, since its IQ doesn't compare to the Q. But, of course, that does, as you say, depend on the lens. Everything I hear about the 35 and the 60 is terrific, and if you're not printing extremely large posters, I would think that the CL more than does the job. There are folks on our CL threads who are posting breathtaking photos, not SL level, but really impressive. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you are correct as the Q doesn't have a mechanically coupled viewfinder like an M, but it 'feels' close to an M lens in that respect.

 

Best thing to do is go to a Leica dealer with an SD card and try out the CL. You'll probably love it. I liked the viewfinder, interface and for a small camera, 

it felt incredibly dense and solid. It's a Leica for sure. Build quality is good, the Q is a bit better and the SL is a solid block of Aluminum.

 

It's the folks who have an SL and/or a Q that give it mixed reviews, according to my Leica dealer.

 

Judge it for what it is - and you'll probably be impressed. It's a great camera!

 

-Brad

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than judging them using a computer's monitor, how about judging after making 24X30 inch prints. There you will see a difference. Don't make or have any use for prints that big? Well yeah, an M10 or an SL is probably overkill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...