Jump to content

Q Build Quality


Guest

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Q/Q2 forum

Thinking about picking up a used Q (mark 1). I've come across a few reviewers who describe the build as plastic and unimpressive, is there any truth in this? I've handled the Q-P which was really solid but is the original Q really that far off? I'd be wanting to get a good 3+ years of use from it so want something sturdy!

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor einer Stunde schrieb shawrob:

I'd be wanting to get a good 3+ years of use from it so want something sturdy!

Jesus, I have yet to encounter any camera that would not be fit for "a good 3+ years of use". Cameras used to be built for more like 30 years of use, and while that may no longer be true, 8 - 10 years should not be a problem even today, with the exception of professional use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wizard said:

Jesus, I have yet to encounter any camera that would not be fit for "a good 3+ years of use". Cameras used to be built for more like 30 years of use, and while that may no longer be true, 8 - 10 years should not be a problem even today, with the exception of professional use.

A Q manufactured in 2015 would be 8 years old in 3 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Which reviewers, as this seems a bit strange to me - both Qs are well-built cameras.  Just visit a dealer and pick one up...

Very strange indeed, would be difficult to find the reviewers again. I think the comments on build were in comparison to M bodies though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

I've come across a few reviewers who describe the build as plastic and unimpressive...

This is the first I have heard of any model of Q being described that way.

Quote

... 8 - 10 years should not be a problem even today...

I would second that.  Any digital camera made by Leica will easily go 200,000 to 250,000 exposures without a hitch IF you take care of it and don't abuse it.

Disclaimer
For the “I can’t believe people are actually stupid enough that you have to tell them the flagrantly obvious” contingent:  Dropping your Leica in a lake or river, letting it get run over by a lawn mower, tractor, snow plow or freight train or using it as a weapon to beat back thieves, attacking bears or cape buffalo does not constitute “taking care of it and not abusing it” as stipulated above.  😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shawrob said:

a few reviewers who describe the build as plastic and unimpressive

I would argue that the reviewers making this kind of comment are plastic and unimpressive. It boggles the mind that some "reviewers" get their hands on equipment like this and then promptly demonstrate their ignorance about the camera or the brand.

Best one yet: Negative points about the Q - it does not have detachable lenses...If the reviewer had bothered to read the product spec he would have know this beforehand and know that the buyer would select the Q because it had a fixed lens. Are reviewers really that stupid???

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shawrob said:

A Q manufactured in 2015 would be 8 years old in 3 years

And I was 63 ten years ago and will be 83 in ten years from now.  What has that got to do with anything?  Apart from the fact that we can all do maths?

Edited by T25UFO
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember reading one review when it first came out, where the writer said he thought the Battery/Memory Card door was it's weakest point. Everything else I've read has been totally positive. I've had a Q for years and in my opinion the build quality is as one would expect from Leica. Certainly I have no complaints.

https://photographybytomlane.com

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I would argue that the reviewers making this kind of comment are plastic and unimpressive. It boggles the mind that some "reviewers" get their hands on equipment like this and then promptly demonstrate their ignorance about the camera or the brand.

Best one yet: Negative points about the Q - it does not have detachable lenses...If the reviewer had bothered to read the product spec he would have know this beforehand and know that the buyer would select the Q because it had a fixed lens. Are reviewers really that stupid???

Couldn't agree more

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, shawrob said:

I'd be wanting to get a good 3+ years of use from it so want something sturdy!

My Q is 4 1/2 years old.  Its normal mode of travel is to be thrown into a tail case on my motorcycle, i.e. the camera does not get special treatment.   It still works as new. It also looks pretty good, too.  There is not much wear on the body.   The only thing I''ve done in the way of protection was to put small bits of black gaffer's tape over the speaker and mike ports.  I never use my Q for video and thought blocking a possible source of contamination might be a good idea.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

When a pension came out i was finally able to buy a leica so i went to the london camara exchange with my olympus pen ep-5 and tried out the Q 1 and the m 10.

The M 10 was easily the best qualtiy feel and build in the hand and i was smitten.

The Q felt well built compared to the olympus camera but the m blew me away in that department that day in the camera shop.

I bought an m 262 and still use my olympus camera with longer lenses,i also follow the Q ,Q2 thread here because its an interesting camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lanetomlane said:

I seem to remember reading one review when it first came out, where the writer said he thought the Battery/Memory Card door was it's weakest point. Everything else I've read has been totally positive. I've had a Q for years and in my opinion the build quality is as one would expect from Leica. Certainly I have no complaints.

https://photographybytomlane.com

Some people moan over the M camera's bombproof removable base plate, saying it's inconvenient; some moan over the Q camera's memory card door, saying it's frail.  There's just no pleasing some people.  🙄

I have had my Q2 for months, not years but I'm in 100% agreement with @lanetomlane

Edited by Herr Barnack
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely those reviewers have never even picked one up? There are probably many things a reviewer could say but “plastic and unimpressive” is not an attribute i could assign to the Q / Q2
As others have said. Just pick one up and see for yourself.
Cheers,

Delirious. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My used Q was in great shape while the Match thumb grip had the paint worn off.

Only problem with the Q ist the issue with dust inside, the one i bought used had dust inside and got more in 3 months.
Well the other problem is the EVF who is grainy and renders the colors not very accurate,
but for the rest it's a great camera, but definitively inferior to the Q2.

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect the reviewer had an agenda. Possibly paid for by a camera competitor. No way of knowing, but this review is inconsistent with vast amounts of positive reviews and comments about the Q / Q2. I totally discount this type of review. I much more rely on Reid Reviews, Steve Huff and DP Review. 
 

I’ve used a Q / Q2 continuously for 4 1/2 years. Both cameras have been extremely solid and reliable. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're speculating, trying to make sense out of a review that doesn't make any sense compared to the experiences of thousands of Q2 owners and users around the world. 

At the end of the day, it may well boil down to the reviewer in question being one of those who - for whatever irrational reason - harbors resentment against Leica cameras.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Long term usability probably has little to do with "feel".  All the German cars I owned felt more solid than their Japanese counter parts, but they all had all sorts of issues that require expensive repair within a couple of years.  All of "real" Leica cameras (I am excluding old digilux that seems to be rebranded Panasonic) are solid and made mostly of metal.

The biggest problem with real Leica problem has been the M9 sensor corrosion.  That has nothing to do with feeling "plastic".  And Leica provided really good replacement program.

With Q, I have not heard many failure story even under heavy uses.  However, the lack of weather seal also means dust might get into the camera.  There are users who sent Q to Leica multiple times to remove sensor dust, and later taped all the holes to avoid future dusts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • jaapv locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...