Considering buying a used Leica Q...

[NickD81]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that the Leica Q has been out for a few years and the Q2 has been released, used Q's are just about within my budget. I've sold off all my Fujifilm gear (X-T3 & various lenses & X100F) and am thinking about picking up a fixed lens camera. I like the idea of simplifying things and not having to worry about what lens to bring or GAS regarding what lens to buy next. I've had the Fujifilm X100F in the past as my only camera and found shooting with a fixed focal length enjoyable and it helped me work on my composition.

I mainly shoot street and travel photography plus photos of friends and family. At the moment I'm considering a used Q or a new Fujifilm X100V. Has anyone on here used both? I know a lot of it will depend on preferred focal length but how do the two cameras compare for image quality and autofocus? As the Q is now 5 years old is the autofocus slow by today's standards? Is there anything in particular I need to look out for when buying a used Q such as dust on the sensor? 

Thanks

Nick

[Cobram]

My brief experience with Q as a former Fuji X-E1 owner and current Leica M and SL owner:

 

Pros:

 -AF (fast but not always reliable)

 - easy to use (just right amount of buttons)

 - good image quality (not spectacular)

 - Leica Rendering

 - spectacular landscapes

 

Cons:

 - image quality not spectacular comparing to M combo

 - from my experience too orange/brown skin tones (if you will take photos of people you must remember how good Fuji skin tones are)

 - any technical problem with lens will cost you at least 300 EUR for repair. 

 - lens is in my humble opinion (I know I will make other members/owners anger) not so sharp at infinity comparing to Leica M lenses

 - size --> it is too big and to heavy for a point and shot

 

If you look any photo thread you will discover tons of photos that prove how capable Q is. 

But for me it is behind M system in image quality and behind SL or CL in versatility as well as image quality. It was the first Leica camera I felt artificial intelligence footprints in its DNG files... surrealistic - too good photos :-)

Again just my humble opinion.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I'm not sure whether the image quality remarks are supported by reality. Anyway - Leica Q, SL or CL, they all have far more IQ than the vast majority of users will ever need.

[bags27]

Two days ago, I sold my Q (traded it for a M 50 Lux ASPH). It has fantastic image quality. I personally like its IQ more than that in the Q2, though I certainly wouldn't want to be tested blind on that. Both are fantastic. The reason I sold it is that by last summer I grew tired of the look. It never surprised me; it never failed or exceeded my expectations. I began to see it as a highly digitized, highly processed image. For a professional, say, a wedding photographer, that's exactly what you want. But for me as an amateur, it no longer held joy. 

As to dust on the sensor, of course that's a concern on any fixed lens camera. Reports of its proclivity on the Q are vastly exaggerated. Still, I put tape on all the entry points and a black rubber band around the gap between the body and the macro ring. A lot of folks did that, too, and you might want to check before you buy.

I had the original Fuji 100. A great camera, too. But no comparison. Fuji is better for skin tones OOC and its jpegs generally are better. But RAW output and user interface of the Q are vastly superior. And it's a much, much cooler camera to use.

[ropo54]

7 hours ago, NickD81 said:

 

I mainly shoot street and travel photography plus photos of friends and family. At the moment I'm considering a used Q or a new Fujifilm X100V. Has anyone on here used both? I know a lot of it will depend on preferred focal length but how do the two cameras compare for image quality and autofocus? As the Q is now 5 years old is the autofocus slow by today's standards? Is there anything in particular I need to look out for when buying a used Q such as dust on the sensor? 

Thanks

Nick

I do not know the Fuji so cannot comment on the comparison.

For your criteria, the Q is a terrific option. The Q is so very versatile. For ease of travel it is a small enough package and can be shot indoors in low light with the 1.7 aperture. It provides a simple macro option. Or, one can put it in auto mode and anyone can just snap away.

Autofocus is quite capable, too. Fast.

The user interface is terrific.

Rob

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by ropo54

[syam]

I bought a used Q about a year ago and it has been my only camera since then (besides the cell phone). I was cross shopping a used Q with the XT3+lenses, X100F, and Sony A7(R)III at the time and spent a lot of time with all of them at B&H shooting lots of pictures. I came from a Nikon D7000 with a few lenses that I'd been using for 10 or so years.

I love the image rendering and sharpness of the Q. I usually shoot wide open or close to it. The camera just works for my style of shooting, which is landscapes, street, macro, people, candid, etc. I don't think I'm ever 'surprised' by what comes out of the camera, but it never disappoints me either. Focus is quick on single point focus, but you can miss shots sometimes. It doesn't have any of the latest bells and whistles like good tracking autofocus or a good eye auto focus, so you do have to work for your shots a little bit more. I process everything shooting DNG's through lightroom so colors are always adjusted in the end. 

You should worry about dust, but buying from a reputable source is always a good move (like B&H, Adorama, or MPB - I got mine used from here) I taped up my microphone and speaker ports first day I got them, and taped up the HDMI/USB door and do not have a spec of dust yet. It is an older camera so prepare to learn how to use it within its bounds. 

I think a good comparo would be to your previous X100F. Except the lens is much better, the focusing is about the same, it's bigger, heavier, feels better in the hand, not as portable, images are better (IMO), lens is a little bit wider, glass is a little faster, no built in flash, decent EVF, less buttons, more expensive if it breaks.

[Cobram]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/26/2020 at 11:24 PM, bags27 said:

Two days ago, I sold my Q (traded it for a M 50 Lux ASPH). It has fantastic image quality. I personally like its IQ more than that in the Q2, though I certainly wouldn't want to be tested blind on that. Both are fantastic. The reason I sold it is that by last summer I grew tired of the look. It never surprised me; it never failed or exceeded my expectations. I began to see it as a highly digitized, highly processed image. For a professional, say, a wedding photographer, that's exactly what you want. But for me as an amateur, it no longer held joy. 

As to dust on the sensor, of course that's a concern on any fixed lens camera. Reports of its proclivity on the Q are vastly exaggerated. Still, I put tape on all the entry points and a black rubber band around the gap between the body and the macro ring. A lot of folks did that, too, and you might want to check before you buy.

I had the original Fuji 100. A great camera, too. But no comparison. Fuji is better for skin tones OOC and its jpegs generally are better. But RAW output and user interface of the Q are vastly superior. And it's a much, much cooler camera to use.

Same feeling.

M  --> film era like photos. Heaven.

Q --> always perfect photos --> Huawei on steroids with full frame sensor benefits but without access to gmail, internet, no phone calls... :-)

Fuji --> lack of 3D pop, cheap (comparing to Leica), perfect skin tones, inferior rendering

For portable P&S look at Leica X2. Yes very slow autofocus, but very portable, cheap and nice 3D rendering

[Snowman]

The original Q was my choice a few years back when it came out, I instead got the X-Pro2 and to be honest I have been happy with the camera, but really need that FF experience with images now. Fuji make some excellent cameras IMOH.

I'm going for the Q2 now (selling with X-Pro2 body and around 6 X lenses) to help pay for the hefty Leica.

However I'm going to wait until July, as here in the UK there is going to be a mini budget to try and get the UK economy moving, so its on the cards of a VAT drop from 20% to around 15%, so big savings.

Nick

[johntobias]

Nick , I got mine from Park Cameras, got a great deal £400 less than the leica shop in London or Manchester.   have dealt with park for many years and they are pretty good!  

wonder what vat has in store for us come July !

[wda]

On 6/26/2020 at 5:42 PM, Cobram said:

My brief experience with Q as a former Fuji X-E1 owner and current Leica M and SL owner:

 

Pros:

 -AF (fast but not always reliable)

......

In my experience the AF has never let me down. If I need ultimate precision, I switch quickly into manual focus mode augmented by MF Assitance. That is superbly implemented, accurate and relatively quick to use. Some users make it their default method.

[Cobram]

1 hour ago, wda said:

In my experience the AF has never let me down. If I need ultimate precision, I switch quickly into manual focus mode augmented by MF Assitance. That is superbly implemented, accurate and relatively quick to use. Some users make it their default method.

Agree. Manual mode is very very well inplemented.

[Lucena]

I have a Q2 but kept my Q, just in case.

Just sold my M10, 50 lux, and other lenses: too heavy to carry all the time and since I have the Q2 I discovered that it covers all my needs, personnal and pro, (what the Q didn't).

Nevertheless the Q is a great camera, superior to most, and with the advantage of lightweight and volume, allowing us to carry it all the time. I did great photos of people in lost Marocco regions without being noticed, and for plants the DOF is just amazing, I shoot a lot in f/1.7 or 2.8.