Why Not an interchangible Leica Qx?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Imagin  a Leica Qx with the interchangible lens ? Is it really hard?

[Overpowered by Funk]

My guess is the the Q line strategy does not allow for interchangeable lenses. It seems Leica is going after their slice of the pie that was created by the introduction of the FujiFilm X100, only Leica is blowing that camera out of the water, IMHO.

[m9photo]

38 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Imagin  a Leica Qx with the interchangible lens ? Is it really hard?

It's there and It's called SL/CL.

[wda]

56 minutes ago, m9photo said:

It's there and It's called SL/CL.

....  and TL and M.

[Fotoklaus]

vor einer Stunde schrieb m9photo:

It's there and It's called SL/CL.

Which who would buy, if there was a Q with interchangeable lenses... ?

[adan]

The Q/Q2 is what it is because the lens is fixed to the camera. And thus has a leaf shutter (instead of focal plane). And has a lens that grossly distorts without digital corrections - it would be a fisheye on any other body.

All of which is how it achieves its size.

Change any of that and the Q balloons in size to an M (or bigger).

[jankap]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, adan said:

Change any of that and the Q balloons in size to an M (or bigger).

Please compare the sizes of the Leica Q2 and the Sony A7. Where the A7 even has a thick filter

I know, I know, the filter is inside.

[jaapv]

Leica has a balanced product palette. Such a camera would be a shrunk SL.

[jankap]

Why not a shrunk M (MwithEVF)? OK, the M10 already has a small depth!

And too, heat must be dissipated (Sigma fp?). I remember, we needed a CD-reader to improve the documentation of the systems (paperless). But our systems had to be Sahara-proof. Our development came with a simple CD-reader with a (relatively loud) fan!!! 

We live in a world, where extremes are important. Lenses with f/1.0 in pocket format, etc. The rangefinder is 100 years old, but it seems for some 100 years young.

[m9photo]

5 hours ago, Fotoklaus said:

Which who would buy, if there was a Q with interchangeable lenses... ?

It's all about marketing strategy and profit, Leica would be stupid enough not to diversified their product. If one don't like the idea of changing lenses then Q is the camera and if one don't like a fixed lens camera then the rests are the options.  It's as simple as 1 2 3.

Edited July 14, 2019 by m9photo

[Einst_Stein]

9 hours ago, jankap said:

Why not a shrunk M (MwithEVF)? OK, the M10 already has a small depth!

And too, heat must be dissipated (Sigma fp?). I remember, we needed a CD-reader to improve the documentation of the systems (paperless). But our systems had to be Sahara-proof. Our development came with a simple CD-reader with a (relatively loud) fan!!! 

We live in a world, where extremes are important. Lenses with f/1.0 in pocket format, etc. The rangefinder is 100 years old, but it seems for some 100 years young.

It would be a CL with full frame sensor, or a M with EVF.  It would remain in a RF style, not the SLR style shunk SL. But Leica said a FF would make the lens much larger, and SL there is.

But then, how does Leica managed to make the Q lens so small? why making it interchangable requires it to be SL-large?

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

But then, how does Leica managed to make the Q lens so small? why making it interchangable requires it to be SL-large?

Adan explained this well in his post above.

The Q is small (and also lighter & cheaper) because it relies heavily on software distortion correction. The software corrects distortion by warping the image with a reverse distortion. This also crops the file size down from full frame.

Optical correction of lenses = larger, expensive, heavier lenses.

If the Q was able to use interchangeable lenses then each lens would also need its own leaf shutter.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Guest

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, hemlock said:

Adan explained this well in his post above.

The Q is small (and also lighter & cheaper) because it relies heavily on software distortion correction. The software corrects distortion by warping the image with a reverse distortion. This also crops the file size down from full frame.

Optical correction of lenses = larger, expensive, heavier lenses.

If the Q was able to use interchangeable lenses then each lens would also need its own leaf shutter.

Ok, then make it interchangable with software correction. 

Leaf shutter? No, make it global shutter.

any objection?

[jankap]

The Summarits are not very large. Or take the Super Elmar 21mm. An electronic shutter has disadvantages, but also advantages. One could live with it.

The mentioning of the Q by forum members has only to do with its dimensions. They are not interested in leaf shutter technics.

The problem is, if Leica marketing sees room for a low profile line.

[Jared]

I think it’s much more likely we will see a Q-Vario than an interchangeable lens Q.  Then the only challenge would be the necessarily slow lens (in order to keep the size similar to the existing Q).  Perhaps a 35mm to 70mm f/3.5-4?  I imagine that would find a fair number of buyers, would not erode existing sales, and would still fit in well with the approach for the Q.

What I’m not sure about, though, is how committed Leica is to the idea of a digital zoom.  As megapixel counts continue to climb (and as Leica continues to adopt them, as they must) a digital zoom becomes more and more viable.  The current Q could legitimately be thought of as having a 15 mp 28mm to 50mm f/1.7-3 lens.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Jared

[Leica Guy]

I would not want to give up the in-lens leaf shutter. It is so good at high speed syncing with flashes plus its very quiet as well as long term reliable. 

[LexS]

On 7/14/2019 at 8:19 AM, Fotoklaus said:

Which who would buy, if there was a Q with interchangeable lenses... ?

I had  the T which is pocketable, with three lenses. And then traded it in for the Q which is even more pocketable and has one lens only: now I carry everything in one pocket and with the T I lost the moment in choosing a lens and one T with 3 lenses is not pocketable. If there was a Q with interchangeable lenses, I would not buy it.

 

[ramarren]

Perhaps Leica will see fit to build a simpler, smaller SL variant without the large grip and EVF (and some of the performance plusses of the SL) that takes the SL L-mount lenses, or a larger CL that takes the SL lenses. Call it a QL if you want; this was the basis of all the ballyhoo then disappointment about the rumored "CM" a year or so back (a CL with an M sized sensor...).  

That would be the most sensible thing to do since the SL series lenses are all excellent, are already designed for AF and other conveniences, etc. But don't expect the camera+lens package to be as small as a Q (which isn't appreciably smaller than an M in my hands, although a bit lighter). It would be an appreciably different camera than the Q is without the compactness afforded by a fixed lens and the features enabled by an in-lens shutter. 

[ralphh]

It could be made, just like Fuji made the x100, then the xpro and xt-1. They already have the x100 equiv (q) and xt1 equiv (SL). Maybe they just think that a SL in an RF body is pointless. 

Having owned the xpro2 and xt2 I can say that I prefer the xpro with smaller lenses and the xt2 with larger lenses (better grip etc). All of the current L mount lenses are large. Unless they release some pancakes I'd say it wouldn't be a great addition to the system- the current L lineup would handle poorly on a Q body

Edited July 15, 2019 by ralphh

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jmc014]

I agree that a Q with an interchangeable lens system would be very similar to the SL.

I think that Leica does in fact have a very good and balanced line-up, and perhaps what OP wishes is for a more compact SL.

I just got back from New Zealand having only carried my Q2, and while I sometimes wished for a zoom lens, I took some amazing pictures with the Q2.