Jump to content
bags27

Q2 47 mps, Dirt & Drip proof & new EVF (FWIW!)

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Q² with 28mm: not interested. Current Q with 24 megapixels is absolute plenty.

Q² with a 50mm f/2 or faster: not really interested. Maybe if the price is really right.

Q² WATE, that would me something! 😲 A 16mm f/4 with crops 18, 21, and 28 mm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: Why did you trade it in the first place?  And why did you decide you were wrong?

Purchase of a sony a7riii and 16-35.  I'm going to make myself even more ridiculous if I told the complete story.  I regretted it when I realised that I truly liked i) the printed results from the Q exposures (A3+ up to A2), ii) the semi macro feature, iii) the super handling of the camera, iv) seize weight and balance and v) the beauty of the camera. To me a nice addition to both M10 and SL and when traveling a good companion to the M10.

Edited by larsv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some hard time even imagining what Q is lacking. It's not a camera that has been made obsolete just yet.

Then again, considering how attractively it was/is priced compared to a 28 summilux or even 28 summicron, if the Q² has a 35/1.4 without the small niggles for around the sell of 35 FLE it could be something...

 

Edited by mike3996

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40+MP, 4K video, weather-sealing

I want all 3. Otherwise, I'm staying with the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 on weather-sealing. For me, that's all it lacks. But the Q is a concept camera that, to keep size and weight reasonable, has to give up some things. I guess weather-sealing is one of them. Similarly, an f/1.7 is kind of a tweener,  between a true f/1.4 Summilux and and a f/2.0 Summicron.

Those who want a longer focal length will be disappointed. The 28 (really 26.5) is probably what they feel can be put in to keep weight/size right. And also, of course, not to make an obvious non-range finder M, which the Q2 will sort of be as it will crop to portrait focal length.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud those who have managed to adapt to a 28mm focal length. However, there others who have avoided the Q because their style of photography is better facilitated by a longer focal length. Perhaps the Q2 will be designed to attract this latter group. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't think that's happening for the simple fact that you could always crop and go longer but you could never go wider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr.Q said:

I don't think that's happening for the simple fact that you could always crop and go longer but you could never go wider.

I agree that a wide angle is more versatile for most people, even though others (like me) would prefer a 50mm only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

😂 28mm is THE focal length of years 2010’s 

almost everybody shoot photos with a smartphone, therefore everyone is adapted to 28mm (the most common focal length in Smartphone) 

and everybody are used to crop 28mm photos for zooming. Digital zoom is still king in phones. 

Presumely Q2 will give us 47MP to play with. 

Just look at the numbers : 35mm lovers, you will get a Summilux 1.7/35mm with 30MP sensor bigger than APS-H (M8) 1.25x 

It is better than the CL street kit with Summicron-TL 2/23mm ! Only 24MP APS-C size sensor 1.5x ! 

 

Even 50mm lovers can quite rejoice : a Summilux 1.7/50mm with 16MP sensor bigger than m4/3 1.79x. 

It is better than Olympus E-M10 III with m.zuiko 25mm f/1.8 with m4/3 2x crop factor

 

Occasional 75mm users, will be able to take portraits with a Summilux 1.7/75mm with 7MP sensor which is the same size as other 1 inch cameras x2.68  (such as RX100)

 

Of course 47MP 28mm go after small medium format 0,8x for landscape photography  

Not bad at all for a kind of a Tri-Summilux-Q + 1 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had spent a lot of time and money on an excellent 28mm fixed lens camera, I  probably also would be extolling its superiority over any other focal length. Perhaps I am just too set in my ways, having been playing around with photography off and on for over sixty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually I prefer 35mm point of view but after using the Q for a while I find it still fun using 28mm and crop it to 35mm. Q already give me plenty of detail even after cropping down to 35mm. What I really want Q2 to have is weather sealing. It's your everyday camera so some rain and dust resistance would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Q is a bargain in Leica world : way cheaper than M 240 + any M 28mm lens. So I would not say there is any extolling. 

Each period of time has a focal length signature: 

40s-70s = 50mm

80s-90s = 35mm

2000+ = 28mm

The world are more and more crowded, you need to get closer and closer to get an uncluttered picture of a subject. 

We seem to linger to 24mm in the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica chose the 28mm focal lenght mostly because of size, so they said. I would have thought a 35mm lens would have been a better choice as it's a great all rounder. Yes you can crop but that's wasting a lot of pixels.

I expect that the Q2 will be a minor evolution of the current camera. More MP's, a couple of styling tweaks, that's about it. If you are imaging a new Q with fast 50mm or zoom lens then just imagine one of the SL lenses on the Q body, and you'll understand why that's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

If you are imaging a new Q with fast 50mm or zoom lens then just imagine one of the SL lenses on the Q body, and you'll understand why that's not going to happen.

I guess that's why I use an M with manual focus and small, fast lenses. 😊

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today I considered the Leica Q2 some,

I have a Leica Q and Hasseblad X1D for personal use (sony a9's for professional)

I often carry them both together, and have a choice between 28mm and 90mm (~74mm FF)

https://danielcook.com/2018/09/19/tallinn-and-helsinki/

 

A Leica Q2 and use of the crop feature could go some way to condense my travel package, and give me more versatility in a single camera for street shooting.

Also can see it having more versatility for live music, to be able to crop in to do portraits

Edited by dancook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 40 Minuten schrieb dancook:

https://danielcook.com/2018/09/19/tallinn-and-helsinki/

A Leica Q2 and use of the crop feature could go some way to condense my travel package, and give me more versatility in a single camera for street shooting.

Also can see it having more versatility for live music, to be able to crop in to do portraits

Thanks for this link. In my opinion it shows what a gifted photographer can do with the Q. The pictures out of the Hasselblad seem less stunning to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, don daniel said:

Thanks for this link. In my opinion it shows what a gifted photographer can do with the Q. The pictures out of the Hasselblad seem less stunning to me. 

Thanks :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, don daniel said:

Thanks for this link. In my opinion it shows what a gifted photographer can do with the Q. The pictures out of the Hasselblad seem less stunning to me. 

I think they are all nice images.  Question:   Al the X1D photos look brighter compared to the Q.  Is this the difference between what people call the Leica look versus other cameras?  The Q pics look more like what I remember film looking like.   I see this across almost any comparison to other cameras. What’s that about?   I’m not presuming one to be better than the other but the difference is noticeable to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCJ said:

I think they are all nice images.  Question:   Al the X1D photos look brighter compared to the Q.  Is this the difference between what people call the Leica look versus other cameras?  The Q pics look more like what I remember film looking like.   I see this across almost any comparison to other cameras. What’s that about?   I’m not presuming one to be better than the other but the difference is noticeable to me. 

 

My answer is more of a feeling than factual reasoning - 

The Leica Q is probably more contrasty, I like to leave shadows deep. Whereas the X1D shine's in the details and tonal rendering. 

But I wouldn't dismiss the idea it could just have been me when processing.

Edited by dancook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 6:50 AM, earleygallery said:

Buying a Leica Q now is like buying your football/rugby teams shirt at the end of the season, when you know you'll feel embarrassed to wear it to matches next season when everyone else is wearing the new shirt!

Do you really want to be that guy?.....

unlike a shirt which will seem dated the Q's exceptional images  will never seem dated

Share this post


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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...