ralphh Posted July 17, 2019 Share #41 Posted July 17, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) A new body might get a new pancake lens as a joint launch but its certainly not going to get a whole new lineup. Youd be trying to balance the huge SL lenses on a Q sized body. Therein lies the problem for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 17, 2019 Posted July 17, 2019 Hi ralphh, Take a look here Why Not an interchangible Leica Qx?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
ramarren Posted July 17, 2019 Share #42 Posted July 17, 2019 SL primes (other than the 50mm) are not much bigger/heavier than the R system lenses. I used the R system lenses on the SL when I had it almost exclusively (other than the SL24-90 and SL90-280) and I use the same R lenses today on the CL.They're neither too big nor too heavy for good handling. Of course, I like having smaller/lighter lenses too. For that reason, I have a couple of M lenses that I bought specifically for the CL. So ... An FF version of the CL (or a "QL") based on the L mount lens system (and never mind that both Sigma and Panasonic are beginning to deliver L mount lenses too) would be cool. Whether Leica do it is up to their marketing weenies to figure out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2019 Share #43 Posted July 18, 2019 Summicron-R 35/2: 54mm x 66mm, 430g Summicron-SL 35/2: 102mm x 73mm, 750g Summilux-R 50/1.4: 76mm x 75mm, 685g Summilux-SL 50/1.4: 124mm x 88mm, 1055g 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted July 18, 2019 Share #44 Posted July 18, 2019 On 7/14/2019 at 12:18 AM, Einst_Stein said: Imagin a Leica Qx with the interchangible lens ? Is it really hard? Q-Vario instead? They could keep the body/lens combo small-ish, wouldn’t need to worry about it competing with the ‘M’, and it would satisfy those looking for some additional “flexibility” from the Q. It may not even get all that much larger if they let the maximum aperture fall to 4.5 or so at the long end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einst_Stein Posted July 18, 2019 Author Share #45 Posted July 18, 2019 10 hours ago, lct said: If you want autofocus there are SL and TL lenses already. Not sure to see your point. Sorry I don't know how to help you. You can look for people's post about wanting the modernized M style camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2019 Share #46 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said: Sorry I don't know how to help you. You can look for people's post about wanting the modernized M style camera. An M style camera is a camera using manual lenses in my book. AF is another question. There are S, SL and T/CL cameras for that, let alone Q cameras having no interchangeable lenses, hence my question sorry but feel free to ignore it i just tried to understand your point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted July 18, 2019 Share #47 Posted July 18, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) AF lenses don't just require extra space for the AF motor. For the AF to work at speed requires a full redesign of the lens to minimise the mass of the focusing element. I suspect this redesign (while keeping the same image quality) is another factor in making AF lenses larger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jankap Posted July 18, 2019 Share #48 Posted July 18, 2019 6 hours ago, lct said: Summicron-R 35/2: 54mm x 66mm, 430g Summicron-SL 35/2: 102mm x 73mm, 750g Summilux-R 50/1.4: 76mm x 75mm, 685g Summilux-SL 50/1.4: 124mm x 88mm, 1055g And the M-lenses? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphh Posted July 18, 2019 Share #49 Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, ramarren said: SL primes (other than the 50mm) are not much bigger/heavier than the R system lenses. I think you'll find they're still getting on for double the weight, ie in the 1.75x range. A longer lens will feel heavier than a shorter one of the same weight due to center of balance, so 1.75x longer and 1.75x heavier makes for a lens that feels hugely different in handling. It comes down to personal preference though; I personally don't like a lens weighing more than the camera body unless it has a really decent grip, but many people don't mind that at all. I personally don't like to have to support the weight of the lens with my left hand - not that my hand isn't on it to stabilize it and use the controls, but I don't like feeling like I'm having to hold the weight up. As for M vs R, M lenses are a little lighter, eg 540g for the 50 F1.4. Within a few grams of exactly half the SL equivalent. Edited July 18, 2019 by ralphh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicci78 Posted July 18, 2019 Share #50 Posted July 18, 2019 Actually Summilux-M 50mm asph weighs only 335g. Only a third of SL version. Or half the R variant. M lenses are crazy small and light. But they only close focus to 70cm at best. (Except Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 18, 2019 Share #51 Posted July 18, 2019 1 hour ago, jankap said: And the M-lenses? Summicron-M 35/2 v4: 26mm x 52mm, 190g Summicron-M 35/2 asph v2: 36mm x 53mm, 252g Summicron-R 35/2: 54mm x 66mm, 430g Summicron-SL 35/2: 102mm x 73mm, 750g Summilux-M 50/1.4 v3: 47mm x 55mm, 275g Summilux-M 50/1.4 asph: 53mm x 54mm, 335g Summilux-R 50/1.4: 76mm x 75mm, 685g Summilux-SL 50/1.4: 124mm x 88mm, 1055g 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 19, 2019 Share #52 Posted July 19, 2019 22 hours ago, Jared said: Q-Vario instead? They could keep the body/lens combo small-ish, wouldn’t need to worry about it competing with the ‘M’, and it would satisfy those looking for some additional “flexibility” from the Q. It may not even get all that much larger if they let the maximum aperture fall to 4.5 or so at the long end. Given the "success" of the X-Vario I suppose Leica will think twice before going down that road again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted July 19, 2019 Share #53 Posted July 19, 2019 22 hours ago, jaapv said: Given the "success" of the X-Vario I suppose Leica will think twice before going down that road again. Did it do poorly? I was under the impression it was a “success” by “X” standards, at any rate. Obviously, the X series in general was much less successful than the later Q, but the only real knock I ever heard about the Vario was the relatively slow lens. Owners seemed to love the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 20, 2019 Share #54 Posted July 20, 2019 It was -IMO- a fine camera, but the disastrous marketing failure at introduction and the (unjust) hammering of the "slow" lens by reviewers held sales back. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
prk60091 Posted July 20, 2019 Share #55 Posted July 20, 2019 On 7/17/2019 at 8:40 PM, Jared said: Q-Vario instead? They could keep the body/lens combo small-ish, wouldn’t need to worry about it competing with the ‘M’, and it would satisfy those looking for some additional “flexibility” from the Q. It may not even get all that much larger if they let the maximum aperture fall to 4.5 or so at the long end. who would spend upwards of 6000USD for that? Would there be a market for that? the CL/SL line is Leica's answer to the OP question Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted July 20, 2019 Share #56 Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) I would welcome a QL that had a new line of M-mount leaf shutter lenses, free of the mechanical linkage necessary to operate on a true rangefinder. Current/vintage M lenses could be used with electronic shutter. Otherwise, the only alternative is replacing the rangefinder in the M with an EVF, which to me seems like something Leica could produce in parallel with the traditional M. Edited July 20, 2019 by hdmesa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted July 21, 2019 Share #57 Posted July 21, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 9:06 AM, prk60091 said: who would spend upwards of 6000USD for that? Would there be a market for that? the CL/SL line is Leica's answer to the OP question Who would spend 5000USD on a fixed focal length camera? That’s no more or less silly in my opinion. As to the CL/SL line being the answer... If the SL2 is a bit smaller than the current iteration I think I might agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted July 21, 2019 Share #58 Posted July 21, 2019 The SL2 won't be small enough for people looking for compact mirrorless cameras i'm afraid. Only choice for them (us) is Sony or Nikon besides fixed-lens cameras or smaller formats. Don't ask me why Leica tries to sell big FF cameras since the R8 i still don't undestand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 22, 2019 Share #59 Posted July 22, 2019 On 7/15/2019 at 9:20 AM, Einst_Stein said: Ok, then make it interchangable with software correction. Leaf shutter? No, make it global shutter. any objection? That would require its own lens line specific to the camera. The lenses would be impossible to use on any other camera and the other way around. Most importantly, the body would be unable to take other lenses as the sensor configuration would have to be dedicated to the lens corrections. Leica likes their cameras to be able to use their M lenses. Furthermore, the addition of a lens mount will strain the camera size. A global shutter is unusable with fast moving objects. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 22, 2019 Share #60 Posted July 22, 2019 On 7/20/2019 at 4:42 PM, hdmesa said: I would welcome a QL that had a new line of M-mount leaf shutter lenses, free of the mechanical linkage necessary to operate on a true rangefinder. Current/vintage M lenses could be used with electronic shutter. Otherwise, the only alternative is replacing the rangefinder in the M with an EVF, which to me seems like something Leica could produce in parallel with the traditional M. Really? 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/299261-why-not-an-interchangible-leica-qx/?do=findComment&comment=3782991'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now