Q2 to be announced in May?

[LeicaMyQ]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On ‎11‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 1:38 PM, trstahly said:

I’ll say the same thing I’ve said over and over 95% of the people who make the comments about not needing more have ever used more MP

 

kind us silly to comment on something you know nothing about.

 

The images from my 24Mp Q excel those from my Sony A7RII.  More saturated color. Much sharper because of the superior glass. It is not about the Megapixels.

I have an enlargement of a full moon over the bay in Malta taken from a cruise ship with my Samsung S8 Phone that hangs in my office. Everyone who see it thinks it must be from the latest high-Mp Digital Camera. I will be glad to send you the image file.

You are drinking the Mp Kool-Aid. (and helping all the manufacturers sell pricey cameras).No thanks.

[microview]

On 5 November 2018 at 9:00 PM, ynp said:

 

 

Probably in five years the Leica  Q4 will have four lenses : the 28mm., the same Summilux as a Main lens, and three  supplementary lenses in a cluster to help make computation of the 35,50, 90 field of view with the full resolution and no cropping 😇

 

 

 

 

🙏

I think Leica already has cameras that do that, they're known as 'M' series. 

[bags27]

2 hours ago, microview said:

I think Leica already has cameras that do that, they're known as 'M' series. 

Right, but the M lacks an EVF for aging eyes, built-in macro, and the option of manual or auto focus. Plus, with any lens on it, it's >2x as expensive.

Leica is at a cross-roads. Partly because of the L consortium, it needs to have an SL which roughly competes with the larger Panasonic. The Panasonic has 47 MPS and will sell for under $4k. So, a lot of folks will gravitate to it, unless the SL2 has at least a similar sensor. The smaller Panasonic (24 MPS) and FF will compete with the more expensive CL, and Panasonic can rapidly produce newer models with more stuffed inside them. At the least, Leica lovers may turn to that camera as a backup for their SL.

The Q2 will likely have the same sensor as the SL2. That means it will produce decently printable photos in the 28-85ish mm equivalent range--which is what most people now use the M and its lenses for at considerably greater cost, without the EVF or auto focus option, or macro capability. And, the more computational photography advances, the better those cropped photos will be. Pretty soon, the 28 mm lens will be all you need short of a medium telephoto. (Look at what Huawei can already do at the cell phone level.)

Personally, the Q with 24 MPS is all I need and exceeds my own capabilities. When sensors reached 24 MPS, we all thought things would stabilize for a bit. Instead, it's become just a launching pad for reimaging everything. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by bags27

[dkmoore]

On 11/20/2018 at 7:56 AM, bags27 said:

Right, but the M lacks an EVF for aging eyes, built-in macro, and the option of manual or auto focus. Plus, with any lens on it, it's >2x as expensive.

Leica is at a cross-roads. Partly because of the L consortium, it needs to have an SL which roughly competes with the larger Panasonic. The Panasonic has 47 MPS and will sell for under $4k. So, a lot of folks will gravitate to it, unless the SL2 has at least a similar sensor. The smaller Panasonic (24 MPS) and FF will compete with the more expensive CL, and Panasonic can rapidly produce newer models with more stuffed inside them. At the least, Leica lovers may turn to that camera as a backup for their SL.

The Q2 will likely have the same sensor as the SL2. That means it will produce decently printable photos in the 28-85ish mm equivalent range--which is what most people now use the M and its lenses for at considerably greater cost, without the EVF or auto focus option, or macro capability. And, the more computational photography advances, the better those cropped photos will be. Pretty soon, the 28 mm lens will be all you need short of a medium telephoto. (Look at what Huawei can already do at the cell phone level.)

Personally, the Q with 24 MPS is all I need and exceeds my own capabilities. When sensors reached 24 MPS, we all thought things would stabilize for a bit. Instead, it's become just a launching pad for reimaging everything. 

Decently printable photos? You can get that from 4mpx sensors. 

The M has an EVF, which just happens to attach and is good. 

There is zero substantiation regarding Q2 and SL2 sharing a sensor. 

What crossroads? They have already vered left , driven .95 miles, and collected $200. 

I think your reading toooooo many X10 different camera forums. 

[bags27]

12 hours ago, dkmoore said:

Decently printable photos? You can get that from 4mpx sensors. 

The M has an EVF, which just happens to attach and is good. 

There is zero substantiation regarding Q2 and SL2 sharing a sensor. 

What crossroads? They have already vered left , driven .95 miles, and collected $200. 

I think your reading toooooo many X10 different camera forums. 

wow, someone didn't get enough Thanksgiving cheer 😀

sure 4 mps produces decent photos. But Leica has 3 frames on its Q EVF, the largest is for 50 mm producing around 9 MPS pictures. That's what most people think and that's what they'll buy.

EVF on an M? Sure, I see lots of people walking around with those (not!)

Q2 and sL2 with same sensor? they share the same now, so it's a reasonable supposition going forward

 

Edited November 23, 2018 by bags27

[dkmoore]

Wasn’t meant to be a negative response but rather a question of the facts presented. 

In my view a lot of what was said is conjecture rather than fact. Even in your response you claim M shooters don’t use the EVF, which is silly. Maybe street shooters don’t typically use the EVF and I am not entirely sure that is even accurate. (I rarely use the EVF BTW). 

Anyway, I digress. Happy thanksgiving!

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, bags27 said:

wow, someone didn't get enough Thanksgiving cheer 😀

sure 4 mps produces decent photos. But Leica has 3 frames on its Q EVF, the largest is for 50 mm producing around 9 MPS pictures. That's what most people think and that's what they'll buy.

EVF on an M? Sure, I see lots of people walking around with those (not!)

Q2 and sL2 with same sensor? they share the same now, so it's a reasonable supposition going forward

 

I don't think this is even remotely correct.  The Q sensor is optimised for one lens - the 28 Summilux 1.7.  The SL sensor, while roughly the same dimensions (there has been discussion of this before - the sensor on the SL is apparently slightly larger than the traditional 135mm format)) and same MP count, has micro lenses to correct the edges for M lenses.  As I understand it, Leica has never confirmed the origins of these sensors and, even though they all have the same MP count, the M(240) based cameras, M10 based cameras the Q and the SL have different sensors potentially from different sources.

I can't imagine the Q2 (with a fixed lens) and the SL2 (designed for use with SL, M and R lenses) will have the same sensor.  Maybe the same size and maybe from the same manufacturer, maybe not.

Edited November 24, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[bags27]

I concede your point about the sensor not being exactly the same, because they do do different things. But both have 24 MPS and both have the Maestro II processor.

My point is that the Q has been built to have the same size sensor as the SL and M10, and we are informed (admittedly by Leica Rumors) that Q2 will be announced next year with a new larger sensor. And common sense tells us that there needs to be an SL2 whose size sensor is at least ballpark to the Panasonic S1R, which is announced as 47 MPS. Sure, Leica might go out and buy an entirely different and smaller (~35 MPS?) sensor for the Q2, but my main point remains: the larger the Q2 sensor, the better the pictures it can produce beyond 50 mm equivalent focal length, and that begins to resemble a range that a lot of folks seek in the M series. 

Edited November 24, 2018 by bags27

[sblitz]

if its a larger sensor does that mean the Q2 is a MF camera?

[IkarusJohn]

Larger or more MP?

Common sense is an unruly horse, particularly on this forum.  I’m yet to be convinced by the proposition the more MP the better the image at any focal length.  There are advantages in sensor design, and processors for all uses, functions and lenses.  Leica has found 24MP sensors (from Sony?) which work with its APS-C cameras, and different 24MP sensors for its full frame cameras - that may be coincidence, or intentional.  I tend to the view that each camera has different drivers for its purposes, and MP is only a part of the puzzle.

I’d be disappointed (and surprised) if Lecia made its design decisions based primarily on MP..  It just happens to be a measurable factor that purchasers can latch onto for comparison - some manufacturers (Sony in particular, but also Canon and Nikon) have used it as a marketing point.

[sblitz]

6 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Larger or more MP?

Common sense is an unruly horse, particularly on this forum.  I’m yet to be convinced by the proposition the more MP the better the image at any focal length.  There are advantages in sensor design, and processors for all uses, functions and lenses.  Leica has found 24MP sensors (from Sony?) which work with its APS-C cameras, and different 24MP sensors for its full frame cameras - that may be coincidence, or intentional.  I tend to the view that each camera has different drivers for its purposes, and MP is only a part of the puzzle.

I’d be disappointed (and surprised) if Lecia made its design decisions based primarily on MP..  It just happens to be a measurable factor that purchasers can latch onto for comparison - some manufacturers (Sony in particular, but also Canon and Nikon) have used it as a marketing point.

Agree ..... word I received a while back was the 24MP for FF was the optimal point given lenses, sensors, and the interaction of it all. For them to go to more MP in a FF for a Q would seem to me the backdoor way to continue to make the Q with a 28mm lens but have the ability to blow up in PP to any size and still have an extremely good capture. Such as maybe a 50mm crop with a 75mp sensor is a 24MP picture. I am not worried about whether I have the math exactly right, just trying to understand the direction Leica is going with the Q -- more MP in the sensor rather than a series of Qs with lenses of difference focal lengths. Personally, I always found the quality of the pictures I cropped, regardless how small, to be fantastic. There is something to be said for tuning the sensor to one specific fixed mount lens. 

[bags27]

1 minute ago, sblitz said:

Agree ..... word I received a while back was the 24MP for FF was the optimal point given lenses, sensors, and the interaction of it all. For them to go to more MP in a FF for a Q would seem to me the backdoor way to continue to make the Q with a 28mm lens but have the ability to blow up in PP to any size and still have an extremely good capture. Such as maybe a 50mm crop with a 75mp sensor is a 24MP picture. I am not worried about whether I have the math exactly right, just trying to understand the direction Leica is going with the Q -- more MP in the sensor rather than a series of Qs with lenses of difference focal lengths. Personally, I always found the quality of the pictures I cropped, regardless how small, to be fantastic. There is something to be said for tuning the sensor to one specific fixed mount lens. 

What I was trying to say only you said it better!

I began the confusion when I was trying to point out that a Q with a sensor with more MPS (sorry for my short hand of "larger sensor": I never meant that literally) would create a camera that would become an attractive alternative to a far more expensive range finder with its limited ability to conveniently go very wide or very far in focal lengths.

[IkarusJohn]

I think a Q with a fixed fast 28mm lens and more MP could be very useful - not least because cropping could be an easy way to provide flexibility.  A fixed lens might also get around some of the technical difficulties with image stabilisation.

I’ve often wondered if Leica could add optical zoom to the Q, rather than digital, a bit like the twin lens approach on the iPhone X.  If like the W-A-T-E, Leica included the ability to swtch the focal length of the lens to 50mm or 75mm, you could still crop in post but you would have the option of a better starting point.

[bags27]

34 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

I think a Q with a fixed fast 28mm lens and more MP could be very useful - not least because cropping could be an easy way to provide flexibility.  A fixed lens might also get around some of the technical difficulties with image stabilisation.

I’ve often wondered if Leica could add optical zoom to the Q, rather than digital, a bit like the twin lens approach on the iPhone X.  If like the W-A-T-E, Leica included the ability to swtch the focal length of the lens to 50mm or 75mm, you could still crop in post but you would have the option of a better starting point.

And, of course, Leica is involved in the Huawei phone project....

[LexS]

Much fatigue after reading this whole thread. After the FW3 the Q is perfect: no need for afterwork with a photo app. High quality and very good lowlight results with the typical Leica bokeh. I rather not have the video button, that is all. The full frame sensor size delivers so much more  "depth" compared to the small size sensors. And the price of the camera  even is not higher than a Summilux lens alone. All I need is a better eye for composition, which is camera independent.