28mm Summicron for M9 or Leica Q-P

[DanMitchell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there, thoroughly enjoy reading this forum, thank you...

I wonder if I could ask a small piece of advice. I'm an M9-P owner since it was launched and traveled at length with my trusty 50mm lux. Loved everything about the camera, though indeed, the low ISO limit can be a challenge indoors, and the manual focus when chasing the kids around is trying. Delightful when you nail it though!

I'm wanting to get into 28mm for landscape work essentially, and tossing up between a new 28mm Cron, or the Q-P. Both seem to be in the same ballpark price wise. Does anyone have experience with the M lens on an M9 Vs the Q? I see advantages of the Q for the kids and quick bits, but I also still love the experience you get shooting with an M, and the files certainly still delight me.

Thanks in advance.

[Advertisement]

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

[pixelman]

Dan,

I used to use an M9 with 50 lux and 28 cron as my main vacation set up.  I added a Q and have updated to an MP-240 (still using the M9 too!)  to the mix.  I have traveled with these combos and will give you a comment on each:

1) M, 50 lux & 28 cron (this was my go to travel rig for many years.  Sometimes I would throw another lens in the bag (like a small tele or a super wide) and I used to take a film M body along (I'm doing this much less).

2) M, 50 lux & Q.  I did a couple of trips with this combo and found it to be a lot of fun.  You get the best of both worlds and you don't worry as much about changing lenses/dust.  This is a pretty easy combo to get a comfortable bag for too.

3) M 50 lux, 35 FLE and Q.  This combo works really well and sometimes I've added a 15 or 21 or a small tele.  

4) Just the Q.  Absolutely worth a try and it is light and simple, but it is a different experience.  I tend do a lot more macro shooting when this is all that's in the bag. I'd suggest going to 3 batteries if the Q is your all day camera.

A few other thoughts that might help you:

* I was really surprised how much fun option combo 4 (just a Q) was on a family trip, but if I'm going on a trip where I want to shoot a lot, it is a little light in the flexibility.

* The Q is wonderful camera that is great for family and travel pictures.  When I go with combo 3, I will often let my wife or my kids shoot with the Q

* I consistently get output from the Q that beats my MP-240 and the 28 'cron.  The M9 & 28 'cron lost out to the Q as soon as you need  ISO over 1250.  Now that I'm shooting the MP-240 there isn't much difference in low light capability between the MP-240 and Q.  In critical landscape shots stopped down, I think the M and the 28 'cron might edge out the Q,  I've played with a 28 lux and that is an impressive beast, but I can't justify the cost or weight.

* I don't own, but am considering getting a 28mm f2.8 elmarit ASPH to be a companion for the M.  I've used a few of these and they are super light weight and excellent image quality if you don't need the extra stop.

Hope that helps,

Joe 

 

[low325]

I have this same setup, M9 with 50 lux and APO and I have a Q.  The Q is in essence is a remarkable travel camera.  It’s the camera i travel with when i go on vacation with my family. It’s great to handoff to folks and just let them take the picture you want them to take.  (Funny to see their reactions too!!).  TBH, even though photography is a great hobby for me, I too, don’t like looking through someone else’s VF to take their photo - no thanks! You better show me that live view!  

There are times i take my Q and M9 and that’s when i know i will just want to take images for myself.  But the Q makes its so you can be document the event more efficiently and be a little more worry-free.  It’s colors are somewhat M10-ish but the images still encompass a Leica with a ‘lux.

Too, the 28 cron is imo is so good on an M body though.  I almost walked out with one at the store, even knowing that I already owned a 28mm in my Q.  One has to come to gripes with their photography...  when the light dims I’m not shooting long, I’d rather and almost know that I want to capture a scene or subject that’s close to me and hence, the Q is the clear winner in this case.

[DanMitchell]

Thank you for the comprehensive replies, it's a big help to hear people with real life experience of the cameras and lenses. I'll wonder down to the Leica store and have fondle!

[Ko.Fe.]

Why do you need f2 lens for landscapes? I had 28 2.8 III on my M-E. I didn't find anything wrong with it, just enormous size. Current 28 2.8 is much smaller.

[DanMitchell]

I thought I'd let you know how I ended up and conclude the original post. I bought the Q-P, and within a week of intense shooting, I soon relaised I much preferred the OVF to the EVF. I also preferred the weight, size and handling of the M over the Q. While the image quality was superb on the Q, of course, the M9 is pretty damn good too at low ISO, which is where I mostly work. I'm amazed how the M9 holds up after so many years. After some negotiation with the Leica Store in Sydney, they let me return the camera and put the $s towards a lens for my M. Of course I was all set to get the 28 Cron until I noticed they just had a Lux turn up. I pushed the boat out a little and decided upon the 28 Lux. My gosh, seriously that is some lens. Yes, there's some weight to it (though it compliments the M well), yes it blocks the viewfinder a touch, but all in all I'm loving the combination of the 28 lux and 50 lux with the M body. Of course, a week later the Q2 was announced, but having been through the Q test, I know the rangefinder experience is my preferred way of shooting. No doubt the M11 will be on myshopping list for the future, but for now CCD lives!

[low325]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Good choice. CCD is damn amazing!

[Jeff S]

The VF in the M10 is much nicer than in the M9... bigger opening, higher magnification and better eye relief.  Just sayin’.  

Oh, and the M10 is quieter, more robust build with better weather sealing, with frame lines optimized for 2m (vs 1m in the M9).  The files are terrific, too, even if CMOS (that can also provide LV/EVF if needed).  

Jeff

Edited March 15, 2019 by Jeff S

[lucy63]

18 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The VF in the M10 is much nicer than in the M9... bigger opening, higher magnification and better eye relief.  Just sayin’.  

Oh, and the M10 is quieter, more robust build with better weather sealing, with frame lines optimized for 2m (vs 1m in the M9).  The files are terrific, too, even if CMOS (that can also provide LV/EVF if needed).  

Jeff

..and after all that it doesn't have the beautiful rendering of the M9..

 

 

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, lucy63 said:

..and after all that it doesn't have the beautiful rendering of the M9..

 

 

It does with my shooting methods and subject matter, my profiles and preferred edits, my custom prints and print display.  There are myriad variables in the process, including the lens. I’ve owned film Ms, CCD based and CMOS based Ms.  The most critical element in final rendering is me.  And I get to decide what constitutes beauty.

Jeff

Edited March 15, 2019 by Jeff S

[low325]

I have an M9 and acquired a M10-D. (Had gAs)

The eye relief seems miniscule. In fact I don’t even notice it and I do wear glasses. 

The M10 is better in almost every way. Color output goes to the M9 imo. Shoot raw and the M10 is a more flexible file obviously.  Both files are nothing to brag about comparing to other files from more capable cameras. The M9 file, with less headroom crumbles sooner but in a different, more filmic way.  It just gives off a different mood. 

One would think out with the old and in with the new. No way...old is gold.  

[lucy63]

19 hours ago, Jeff S said:

It does with my shooting methods and subject matter, my profiles and preferred edits, my custom prints and print display.  There are myriad variables in the process, including the lens. I’ve owned film Ms, CCD based and CMOS based Ms.  The most critical element in final rendering is me.  And I get to decide what constitutes beauty.

Jeff

fair enough

[silverchrome]

Something I really dislike about using a 28mm on the M9 is that the frame lines are right at the edge of the viewfinder.  

If you wear glasses, you might not even be able to see them./. Without glasses, you have to bury your eye into the viewfinder to see the whole frame.  

Make sure this isn't a problem before deciding. 

[Archiver]

So you bought a Q, returned it for a refund, then bought a 28mm Summilux?? Now that's what I call trading up! Nothing against the Q, but the 28mm Summilux can be used on any M body past, present or future. Definitely a good investment for your work.

[ianman]

On 3/2/2019 at 10:25 PM, Ko.Fe. said:

Why do you need f2 lens for landscapes? I had 28 2.8 III on my M-E. I didn't find anything wrong with it, just enormous size. Current 28 2.8 is much smaller.

Agreed. Even the 5.6 Summaron is plenty for landscapes. It's a great combo with the M9. That and a 90mm Tele-Elmarit in my pocket is perfect for a lightweight all-day walk.

[Geoffrey James]

Wildly unfashionable,  but I prefer the Version 4 Elmarit 28 on the M9 to a Cron.   I can actually tell the difference on the screen after I have taken a shot.  The CCD sensor by Kodak seems to be based on a Kodachrome aesthetic,  which is a bit too saturated for my taste.  The Cron on a Monochrom is brilliant (as is the Elmarit 28).  The Q is an extraordinary camera.  I am using mine to do a book of pictures made from moving trains.  It is astonishing what it can do with the lens wide open in low light.  There is also a lot to be said for the Iphone 7 olus, but that's another story.  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Edgar1920]

Hey folks

A bit more than one year agonI was asking myself the same question prior to travelling a weekend to Iceland.

My M-E was still  I pristine condition, the 28mm Cron ASPH not. Finally I told myself to resist to the principles of consumption and decided to take my M-E, the 50Lux-ASPH and the Cron mentioned above. I am a rangefinder shooter and did not regret my choice at all. The M-E (or M9) is still an excellent camera. Of course M10 is superior in technical specs but as I’m also a film shooter my mind stops mostly at ISO 800 as my M-E’s usable range.

I decided to rock down my gear before purchasing a current model (even if the M10-D is really appealing).

Just an impression of the mentioned combo here:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Unless printing a real wall-paper it is totally satisfying in my opinion.

And I still had the opportunity to change to my 50 Lux...

I can totally follow Dan’s choice. EVFs are not yet a real substitute of a RF for real M-men 😉

 

Best regards

Frank