old Qs

[weeowee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So out of curiosity, I’ve seen beat up or very well loved M cameras. The Q has been around for awhile now, those I’ve seen so far still looks brand new. Are Q owners just really great at taking care of the camera or something? I mean for a camera aimed as a travel companion, it seems to hold up really well. 

 

[wda]

Welcome to the forum, Weeowee. Thank you for your unusual opening question.

In relative terms, the Q is a young camera compared to the M-line. There have been reports of a few Q's biting the dust through accidents. (Dropped on hard floors or rocks etc) But most users take reasonable care of their cameras, despite them serving as 'tools'. Considerate handling rewards the owner with long periods of trouble-free photography.

If you want a 'beat-up' copy of any camera, beware of the risks involved in ownership. Mis-used or abused cameras conceal unknown or hidden faults which spell further cost and trouble. My advice is to avoid such specimens, even if the price looks tempting.

[Advertisement]

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

[carbon_dragon]

I kind  of see the Q as the next generation of X (especially the 113). It certainly seems to resemble those cameras, except that it's a full frame camera. You could probably look at X cameras to see how they have held up as far as looks. Plus my M8 and M9 (M9 having a sensor replacement at Leica) both look pretty good for their age. Not perfect but they have held up well.

[weeowee]

Thanks for the welcome!

I had an m240 before and now have a Q. Despite the different materials of the body both of them see pretty durable and hardy for me when it comes to staying “nice” looking. 

I don’t want a beat up camera but I was interested to know how sensitive or hardy the body of the Q is from those who have probably used it more/longer than I have. Purely out of curiosity:). It’s great that leica cameras in general seem to be holding up well. 

(I guess in my head I was comparing it to other brands I’ve used that seem to dent or flake easily.)

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by weeowee

[hcklr]

My Q was getting some REALLY nice signs of use (which I loved) on the top and especially on the lens hood - however I now shoot the Q-P and mine still looks absolutely brand new. In the marketing it talked about a durable matte finish on the Q-P - and that certainly seems to be the case. I use my Q-P exactly how I used my Q (I don't baby my cameras at all, I get them out in the world and use them as tools) and my Q-P is showing absolutely ZERO signs of use so far. 

[wda]

But it is still rather young.😗

[stuny]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Q is tough, but since I carry it everywhere (In my hand, in my briefcase, in my backpack) without any protection you can see that it's well used, but it is without any dents.  Basically it's akin to "brassing," but the Q is not made of brass.  the most obvious wear is on the lens cap, mostly due to its falling off.  Mine is one year old.

[keoniahlo]

How much abuse does a camera really need to withstand in order for someone to make good photographs? I simply can't figure it out--other than folks that are true "run and gun" pros, or the ones who really don't give a hoot and throw all their gear into a single bag with no dividers just to make a point that "they don't baby their cameras", a modern camera almost has to be purposely beat against a wall to make it look as bad as some of the cams I see posted online. I think that somewhere along the line, the word "wear" was replaced to "patina" and then somehow psychologically linked to mean "great photographer". Now people with too much money and/or time on their hands beat their cameras and/or purposely impose "patina" wear and claim it as "battle scars". Hey, a camera making it in and out of WWII should look like it went through the war--but not a 1 year old Leica used to shoot street photography LOL! But hey, to each his own, right?

[tgdinamo]

7 hours ago, keoniahlo said:

How much abuse does a camera really need to withstand in order for someone to make good photographs? I simply can't figure it out--other than folks that are true "run and gun" pros, or the ones who really don't give a hoot and throw all their gear into a single bag with no dividers just to make a point that "they don't baby their cameras", a modern camera almost has to be purposely beat against a wall to make it look as bad as some of the cams I see posted online. I think that somewhere along the line, the word "wear" was replaced to "patina" and then somehow psychologically linked to mean "great photographer". Now people with too much money and/or time on their hands beat their cameras and/or purposely impose "patina" wear and claim it as "battle scars". Hey, a camera making it in and out of WWII should look like it went through the war--but not a 1 year old Leica used to shoot street photography LOL! But hey, to each his own, right?

Many people also pay good money for brand new ripped jeans so maybe we should not be surpised.

[earleygallery]

Maybe the OP has seen a Lenny Kravitz M and thinks it's an old beaten up camera!!

I've not seen any digital M's that look as beat up as some of the older film M's that are about, maybe that's to do with age, and possibly the digital M's just aren't as able to withstand careless use as the film M's.

[Leica Guy]

This thread does make me wonder if the newer digital based cameras are as durable and reliable as film based M’s. I have no data. Perhaps some of the folks who’ve used film M’s in the decades past can give us a clue. My sense is with all the electronics, displays, lens AF motors (In the Q), Image stabilization,....  in modern cameras, that they are not able to take abuse. Certainly film cameras could experience shutter, winder and metering problems. I previously used Canon film cameras for 40+ years. I always thought them pretty robust. Thoughts welcome. 

[tgdinamo]

16 minutes ago, Infiniumguy said:

This thread does make me wonder if the newer digital based cameras are as durable and reliable as film based M’s. I have no data. Perhaps some of the folks who’ve used film M’s in the decades past can give us a clue. My sense is with all the electronics, displays, lens AF motors (In the Q), Image stabilization,....  in modern cameras, that they are not able to take abuse.

I agree that electronics are the key difference. Even if we are very careful and don't abouse anything, in normal use of any electronics some heat is generated so eventually some components will be impacted. Especially in the never ending race for faster processing, faster but quieter AF motors, etc - more complicated circuits are needed to keep ramping up performance and functionality requirements which translates to more processing power and heat that has to be managed. All also also means more complex firmware has to be developed to support those circuits, so things can go wrong there as well (it's more difficult to test all the different scenarios that can go wrong ...).

[keoniahlo]

I will say that I have a $100 digital Seiko watch that I wore in high school in the 80s that still works perfectly, but my 10-year old $2,500 mechanical Omega Seamaster has stopped working some years ago and needs an imminent $700 repair. 😮

[MLochmansPhoto]

7 hours ago, Infiniumguy said:

This thread does make me wonder if the newer digital based cameras are as durable and reliable as film based M’s. I have no data. Perhaps some of the folks who’ve used film M’s in the decades past can give us a clue. My sense is with all the electronics, displays, lens AF motors (In the Q), Image stabilization,....  in modern cameras, that they are not able to take abuse. Certainly film cameras could experience shutter, winder and metering problems. I previously used Canon film cameras for 40+ years. I always thought them pretty robust. Thoughts welcome. 

I can go along way in the same thinking as you but....The old saying " they don't make products like they used to do 20-30 years ago" comes to mind.

Washing machines, televisions , cars and cameras.....all seem to have a much shorter lifespan these days, Right? We have all heard our parents (or ourselves ) say it.

Fact is....living in a consumer orientated era as we do today, the shorter life span of all those goodies out there is inevitable. And only....AT A PRICE some manufacturers still can (and want) to produce wonderful things that seem to be engineered to last a lifetime. (subjective) We as Leica users happen to be the lucky ones who can afford/justify that pleasure. Personally I think it's worth considering an other POV on the subject. Most mechanical and electronic parts are made to last at least  plus 100K actuations? If not used under the most extreme conditions....how many of us would reach that number before potential camera trouble would hinder us. Or better still....How many of us would already have upgraded their camera for the next model, well before the 100K point was reached? Thus.......making the question/comparison  between durability of digital M's vs Film M's much less relevant as it seems at first sight.

Just my 2 cnts, obviously

Edited December 23, 2018 by MLochmansPhoto

[weeowee]

I was just really curious of the Q’s built, paint etc and how durable it is. No intention on making my Q look beat up or not taking care of it.  That’s all. 

 

[Le Chef]

On 12/23/2018 at 1:49 PM, keoniahlo said:

I will say that I have a $100 digital Seiko watch that I wore in high school in the 80s that still works perfectly, but my 10-year old $2,500 mechanical Omega Seamaster has stopped working some years ago and needs an imminent $700 repair. 😮

It probably just needs a service if it’s not had one in 10 years! You’re typically looking at a service every 5 years to keep your watch in good health. $700 is pretty reasonable. Try a watch with complications and you would be looking at 3 times that amount.

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, weeowee said:

I was just really curious of the Q’s built, paint etc and how durable it is. No intention on making my Q look beat up or not taking care of it.  That’s all. 

 

None of my cameras that I've purchase new, Leica or any others, show much in way of wear to the finish. I don't baby them, but I do treat them like precision mechanical-optical-electronic instruments when I handle them. They get a lot of use. Mostly, they just look a little dirty if I examine them closely, with some resident dust in the nooks and crannies of the exterior and some finger/skin oil from where I handle them. 

I've never quite figured out how to make any camera get that pretty "patina of use" that I see in photos on line. 

[keoniahlo]

7 hours ago, weeowee said:

I was just really curious of the Q’s built, paint etc and how durable it is. No intention on making my Q look beat up or not taking care of it.  That’s all. 

 

Sorry, didn’t intend to come across the wrong way. And not directed to you, sorry if it seemed that way. It was just my recent observation in general. Happy Holidays! 

[weeowee]

1 hour ago, keoniahlo said:

Sorry, didn’t intend to come across the wrong way. And not directed to you, sorry if it seemed that way. It was just my recent observation in general. Happy Holidays! 

Happy holidays 🙂! 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[keoniahlo]

7 hours ago, ramarren said:

None of my cameras that I've purchase new, Leica or any others, show much in way of wear to the finish. I don't baby them, but I do treat them like precision mechanical-optical-electronic instruments when I handle them. They get a lot of use. Mostly, they just look a little dirty if I examine them closely, with some resident dust in the nooks and crannies of the exterior and some finger/skin oil from where I handle them. 

I've never quite figured out how to make any camera get that pretty "patina of use" that I see in photos on line.