Why Not an interchangible Leica Qx?

[ralphh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm kinda wondering... is the extra sensor size really worth lugging FF lenses around vs owning a CL?  The TL lenses are much smaller.

Ok, full frame is great, I get it, but if size is a major concern - which is seems to be, hence the thread - then surely the CL fits the bill.  It's a great camera by all accounts - I read a review where the reviewer was blown away by the sensor and said it outperformed many FF offerings. 

I used to be very much in the 'full frame or go home' camp, but having used a APSC Fuji X professionally for 2-3 year and now being very happy cropping my Q2 to 35 & 50mm I've reevaluated my position a bit.

[ralphh]

Its also worth noting that moving from integrated to interchangeable lenses will make a camera a lot bigger. If you've actually compared an X100 and an xpro 2 with 23mm f2 lens in person you've probably been surprised to find the xpro is twice the size and weight. 

The x100 is a tiny camera. The xpro2 is bigger than the Q

A Qx could probably not easily be made the same size as a Q

The xpro2 and xt2 are about the same size (the xpro2 is actually slightly larger). You may find the SL is as small as it can be (leica are not generally in the business of making bloated cameras) and a Qx would be exactly the same size, just with the viewfinder moved to the corner and the grip removed, which doesn't really make a camera smaller from any practical point of view. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by ralphh

[mdp]

59 minutes ago, ralphh said:

Its also worth noting that moving from integrated to interchangeable lenses will make a camera a lot bigger. If you've actually compared an X100 and an xpro 2 with 23mm f2 lens in person you've probably been surprised to find the xpro is twice the size and weight. 

The x100 is a tiny camera. The xpro2 is bigger than the Q

A Qx could probably not easily be made the same size as a Q

The xpro2 and xt2 are about the same size (the xpro2 is actually slightly larger). You may find the SL is as small as it can be (leica are not generally in the business of making bloated cameras) and a Qx would be exactly the same size, just with the viewfinder moved to the corner and the grip removed, which doesn't really make a camera smaller from any practical point of view. 

.. the XT30 is very small, and very capable... 

[ralphh]

Very true but it it doesn't have the hybrid optical EVF and is still a lot larger, and 30% heavier, than the X100 once the XF23mm f2 is on it

I'm just saying that adding a lens mount and everything that goes with it that makes a camera quite a bit bigger, all other things being equal.

Edited July 22, 2019 by ralphh

[hdmesa]

^^ Which is why I said it would be best to have a new line of M-mount Q lenses that would be leaf shutter (or a new, non-M mount if one doesn’t care about M lens compatibility using the electronic shutter). You’d add some size for the mount, but not having the shutter in the camera body would save a lot of space (X1D versus GFX 50S/R for example). Secondly, this new line of leaf shutter lenses would need to rely on software correction like the current Q fixed lens to keep the sizes compact.

But honestly I think most Leica users simply want a new M with a built-in EVF. The only reason to have an interchangeable lens Q is for autofocus. 

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

^^ Which is why I said it would be best to have a new line of M-mount Q lenses that would be leaf shutter (or a new, non-M mount if one doesn’t care about M lens compatibility using the electronic shutter). You’d add some size for the mount, but not having the shutter in the camera body would save a lot of space (X1D versus GFX 50S/R for example). Secondly, this new line of leaf shutter lenses would need to rely on software correction like the current Q fixed lens to keep the sizes compact.

But honestly I think most Leica users simply want a new M with a built-in EVF. The only reason to have an interchangeable lens Q is for autofocus. 

I would replace "most" with "some"...

[ralphh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think a lot of people would like it, however IMO is is no better way to focus an M lens than with a real RF patch.  If they could manage a Fuji style hybrid with both then that would be the ultimate modern M for me

[pico]

I do not know if this would work for everyone, especially left-eye dominants, but I encourage you to try. Open  both eyes when focusing EVF or OVF!  Practice and our brain does amazing things merging our focus and attention so we see the frame and focus point at once.

So far my best has been with a Nikon-F, 85mm lens and Nikon's optical sports finder and Leica M3, later Leica M with .85 finder. You must experiment yourself; my young eyesight (when I had it) was different but not terribly out-of-correction.

Just a thoughtl

 

Edited July 22, 2019 by pico

[ralphh]

I seem to remember I used to do that on my M240, but I've never tried it with a through the lens viewfinder.  I'll give it a try!