Jump to content

Survey: Your wishes for future Leica Q models


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I feel like the Q2 is perfect as is. At least for me. I've had a series of D-Luxes for quite a while and more recently got a Leica T, and then of course I had to had to find an M10. Soon I was absolutely overwhelmed by options and choices and I traded it ALL in for one Q2. I feel like the camera was designed just for me and how I like to shoot. I wouldn't mind seeing the Q2 philosophy applied to a D-Lux sized (and priced) camera. Or just take the D-Lux and remove ALL the crazy options and deep menus and buttons and simplify per the Q2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I’d love a lower-resolution version (sensor from SL2-S) with a smaller 35mm f/2 lens.  If it could cost less than the 47MP model, so much the better.  I’d also be more than willing to give up video features for a lower price. A $4000 Q2-S with the SL2-S sensor is something I would jump on immediately, and with a 35mm f/2 lens (or switchable 28+50mm f/2.8) would be the ultimate travel camera.

The variety of answers here just shows how hard it is to please everybody. So many different opinions. So no matter what happens most of us will be disappointed.... I voted for a high res, 50mm with a tilt screen. I think a 35/50 bi-sumarit would be more commercially sensible but I like 50's, so that's what I voted for. My second most used focal length is 28mm so it'd be a perfect companion for my Q2. Couldn't care less about digital lens corrections. Without the resulting lens will be

The Q2 would be hard to improve!   It's quality with stunning images.  After using many M Leicas (film and digital), the Q2 now suits my needs perfectly.  I am not sure why the Q2 often seems to be 'critisized' for being only a 28mm fixed focal length camera.  I use mine mainly on 35 and 50mm crop setting.  Then the bright line frame like an M rangefinder is useful and the resolution is still well up.  After all, you get 30mp at 35mm and 15mp at 50mm.  My old Digilux 2 was 'only' 5.6mp and it ga

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, gteague said:

i thought i noticed this because there's like a narrow shaded area around the raw image. but when you try to uncontrain the image and export it, it's the same size as the original dng. i tried bringing them side to side in dxo to compare them but i couldn't see much if any difference.

tks, /guy

ok, you encouraged me to run a quick experiment with pl4. here's the results:

8798 - 8368 = +430px
orig: 8368px - 85.1mb
dng export: 8798px - 177.3mb
jpg export: 8798px - 38.7mb

the huge question is how much of an angle of view expressed in mm's of focal length that 430 pixels represents. just eyeballing it based on experience it doesn't look like the equivalent of a 24mm lens angle of view. 26-27mm would be my guess but i'm not facile in angle of view equations.

below are screenshots showing the comparison in pl4.

/guy

 

 

Edited by gteague
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal Q-new, that is not current expensive and bulky  Q2 , Leica already made in X1 and X2 cameras. The only problem is that both were so slow in use, and had 16 MP crop sensor.
But the key to a smaller size and an increased portability, and finally lower price, is retractable f/2.8 lens.
Even with a 47 MP FF sensor, the new camera would make more cost-saving and space-saving sense, and would be different enough from the Q2 in its form and utility. The FoV could be 35mm, with crop lines for whatever other FoV desired. But it must be fast in operation and definitely smaller overall with retractable lens.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gteague said:

i thought i noticed this because there's like a narrow shaded area around the raw image. but when you try to uncontrain the image and export it, it's the same size as the original dng. i tried bringing them side to side in dxo to compare them but i couldn't see much if any difference.

tks, /guy

I import a Q2 image as DNG into LrC, transfer it to DxO PhotoLab 4 and export it back to LrC as linear DNG. When comparing in LrC, DxO's linear DNG is wider than the original DNG. The resolution is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my all-time favorite cameras to use when I was still shooting film was the 1A, the first commercially available Leica. It has a built-on (pre-screw mount, not interchangeable) collapsible 50mm lens and no built-in rangefinder (just a simple viewfinder on top). This camera is small, simple, and light, smaller and lighter than the screwmounts and Ms that would eventually replace it. It is really fun to use.

A Q with a 50mm lens but not much else could be a high-quality, contemporary way to rediscover the pleasure found working with the 1A.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Q2 would be hard to improve!   It's quality with stunning images.  After using many M Leicas (film and digital), the Q2 now suits my needs perfectly.  I am not sure why the Q2 often seems to be 'critisized' for being only a 28mm fixed focal length camera.  I use mine mainly on 35 and 50mm crop setting.  Then the bright line frame like an M rangefinder is useful and the resolution is still well up.  After all, you get 30mp at 35mm and 15mp at 50mm.  My old Digilux 2 was 'only' 5.6mp and it gave superb sharp A4 prints!   Not lugging around a bunch of lenses and having to keep changing them, another bonus.   Enough said.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

My questionnaire responses were only relating to minor issues - I too find the Q2 hard to improve on. The thing I miss most is a tele lens to allow me to isolate things like architectural details without requiring a massive crop. I’d happily lose some wide angle perspective to get eg a 75mm perspective that then allowed me to crop to 90 or 135mm. 

Doubt that will happen so probably easier to just keep the Q2 as-is and for me to get a travel zoom compact such as a Sony RX or a Panasonic TZ200. Or stick the smallest zoom Olympus do on the EM 5.2 that hasn’t been out of my bag since getting a Q2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The variety of answers here just shows how hard it is to please everybody. So many different opinions. So no matter what happens most of us will be disappointed....

I voted for a high res, 50mm with a tilt screen. I think a 35/50 bi-sumarit would be more commercially sensible but I like 50's, so that's what I voted for. My second most used focal length is 28mm so it'd be a perfect companion for my Q2.

Couldn't care less about digital lens corrections. Without the resulting lens will be huge or frightengly expensive. Considering that every current digital Leica uses them, I don't think we'll see a camera without them again.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, davidbaddley said:

One of my all-time favorite cameras to use when I was still shooting film was the 1A, the first commercially available Leica. It has a built-on (pre-screw mount, not interchangeable) collapsible 50mm lens and no built-in rangefinder (just a simple viewfinder on top). This camera is small, simple, and light, smaller and lighter than the screwmounts and Ms that would eventually replace it. It is really fun to use.

A Q with a 50mm lens but not much else could be a high-quality, contemporary way to rediscover the pleasure found working with the 1A.

 

Yes, I believe that a new, cheaper and slimmer camera, with a collapsible / retractable lens of a different FoV, would be different enough from the current Q2 to appeal to the different type of users.

Happy users of the current Q2, when they imagine a new Q camera, they imagine same Q2 with an equally bulky lens of a different FoV. But that will only make any new Q only more expensive than the current one.

Thinner, slimmer, more portable, retractable/collapsible lens, with f/2.8, and it can be more affordable and different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Apoqualia said:

Yes, I believe that a new, cheaper and slimmer camera, with a collapsible / retractable lens of a different FoV, would be different enough from the current Q2 to appeal to the different type of users.

Happy users of the current Q2, when they imagine a new Q camera, they imagine same Q2 with an equally bulky lens of a different FoV. But that will only make any new Q only more expensive than the current one.

Thinner, slimmer, more portable, retractable/collapsible lens, with f/2.8, and it can be more affordable and different.

This was pretty much my feedback. I'd happily use an f/2.8 if the overall package was smaller. I'm not too fussed with focal length. Something wide angle 24-28 mm would be ideal. I also like the idea of 24 MP, an established but high quality sensor to keep costs down. I'd also happily forego video and other computational features (stacking modes, astro/night modes, etc), again to keep costs down. For that matter, two slower affordable f/2.8 Q's in 24-28 mm and 50-60 mm would be digital heaven! That said, I know I'd use the wide angle 75% of the time, which is why I prefer the wide angle first. Also love the macro feature. Would need to keep that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Never had (and even held) Q cameras. But I would love one Q3M with the following:

  • 40/1.4
  • 30MP (or somewhere between 24 and 36MP)
  • amazing 64-12800 "almost" noise free
  • 1/8000 SS
  • double battery life

Then take my money.

Edited by Dennis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Never had (and even held) Q cameras. But I would love one Q3M with the following:

  • 40/1.4
  • 30MP (or somewhere between 24 and 36MP)
  • amazing 64-12800 "almost" noise free
  • 1/8000 SS
  • double battery life

Then take my money.

That will cost more than the current Q2. But, by narrowing the aperture to around f/2.8, and making the lens smaller, the cost reduces rapidly. It’s halved at least, which reduces the price by at least $1000.
Take a look at film era’s golden standard in the compact single-lens cameras; Contax had a T2 with Zeiss 38mm f2.8, retractable Sonnar lens., which imho, was superior to anything Ricoh’s done with the GR. 

Sadly, no such camera for the 135 format exists in the digital era.

Is such a digital camera possible to make? Of course, but as much Sony can’t make it and that it performs well, I’m afraid Leica won’t do it; their recent threading into big and bold and expensive, can’t be reversed, I’m afraid. 

Edited by Apoqualia
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The EVF quality/lag/flickering is still an issue so a better evf is a must to get it spot on if leica will never employ OVF/ hybrid; especially during night.

Imho i would find it ideal if the Q could crop to 50mm from a native 35mm, and an 1:1 magnification EVF that simulates the rangefinder style experience i.e larger view than the 35mm (native) crop lines to anticipate the scene.

A 35mm f1.7 dual range macro would be an ideal lens....instant hit i feel. Id be enticing for new leica users switching over from other systems since the 35mm is arguably the  quintessential lens most people people use on a leica apart from the 50mm. I sometimes think leica made a easy upgrade to 28mm just because the 23mm f1.7 leica x typ 113 was the precursor to the Q...

Edited by cboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have been doing something wrong because it wouldn't accept my answer for #7.

Also- when Identifying what I had, you could not pick both, Leica M and L mount

JK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...