Q vs CL and 18-56

[smcmason]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

I currently own a CL with an 18-56 lens that I am quite happy with, although I am also really drawn to the Q. Besides the IBIS and FF sensor, would I really be gaining anything by picking up the original Q? I realize the Q2 has other advantages, but I'm not currently willing to commit that much money to a fixed lens setup. Maybe it's GAS gone wild, but I just love the images I see here from that Summilux. I have a Panasonic S1R for the extra resolution, large-print sorts of projects, and I would not sell the CL. Does anyone have experience with both? Am I just duplicating resources here?  

[jaapv]

Apples and oranges - Exchangeable lens vs Point-and-Shoot (of superb quality) APS vs FF, slowish zoom vs fast wideangle and cropping zoom, etc.

[Advertisement]

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

[smcmason]

Thanks @jaapv I always appreciate seeing your insight in the threads I read through.

Your comment made me think of a better way to summarize my post - Is there enough of a difference in final IQ between the Q and the CL/18-56 to make it worth owning both? 

[jaapv]

That is a personal call, based on your use. For me the answer is no butYMMV. 

[bcapphoto]

The original Q is a marvellous camera with insane IQ. I have been tempted to upgrade mine to the Q2 many times, but I can’t find the will to do it. 
 

Sure, you get more MP and slightly better UX with the buttons. And weather sealing (but I’ve never had a problem with my Q). That’s pretty much it. I found one for a low low low price and even at a small difference in price between the Q and Q2, I had a hard time wanting to do it because the downside is that the files are huuuuuuge.

 

So I’ve just stuck with the Q. You’d love it!

[Rosebud55]

I have the CL and M246 and occasionally use my husband’s Q. I am very impressed with the Q. I was thinking of persuading him to upgrade to the Q2M but not sure, still thinking about it as the files are so huge..  I do like the smaller 24mp of the M246 and I do enjoy using the CL very much.

i think the original Q is amazing, especially now secondhand.

rosie

[smcmason]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@Rosebud55 thanks for the insight! It does seem like such a great pickup when I occasionally see them for around $2k used. I don’t know that I could get an equivalent lens for the CL for $2k! 

When it comes to file size, I found that upgrading the RAM in my desktop alleviated those fears. I now have 64GB of 3200 or 3400 speed, and it was well worth the few hundred dollars. That can handle 60-80MB file processing easily as long as it is paired with a good SSD. 

[Chris Nebard]

I have owned my Q for five years now and, although I now also have the SL2-s (and love it), I will not part with my Leica Q, unless: 1) it dies, or; 2) a future Q3 proves to me that it’s better for my needs. 
The Q2 is a great camera but, essentially, the 28mm f1.7 lens is the same. The original Q is possibly better in low light - very important to me - and I don’t want more than 24 megapixels. Some users say that the Q is a lens with a camera attached. It is. The lens is that good; in fact, no matter what else I may put on my SL2-S,  I see no sense at all in buying the SL 28mm f2 Apo Summicron for it. I’d rather use the Q.
I say this because, going back to smcmason’s question, and although I don’t have a CL, I feel sure that there is no 28mm option (FF or APSC) that would suit me better. The CL’s 18-56 may be a great lens - I honestly don’t know - but the Q offers much more flexibility than you’d think: sharp, great in low light, lovely out of focus rendering, 24mp & the ability to crop, and a superb close-up/macro function. It is a totally different tool to the CL which I would not see as “either/or” - indeed it isn’t with my SL2-S. It sits alongside it which works well for me. 
Apologies - none of this will help to cure your GAS, possibly quite the opposite! 😂😂.  At the end of the day, the 18-56 on your CL may give you great IQ and you do not NEED the Leica Q, it just offers different things. And it’s a bloody great camera.
Good luck! 

[smcmason]

15 hours ago, Chris Nebard said:

The lens is that good; in fact, no matter what else I may put on my SL2-S,  I see no sense at all in buying the SL 28mm f2 Apo Summicron for it. I’d rather use the Q.

Thanks @Chris Nebard I think this part is what keeps pushing me. It seems like I would get so much benefit for the amount of money a well-priced used Q costs these days. An entire extra body, an outstanding lens, equivalent or improved IQ, and I can't imagine they're ever going to get much cheaper. I probably am just convincing myself to get one even though I certainly don't need it when I already have the CL for portability. Maybe I'll just pick one up to see how I feel about it if I see another one come up at a great price

 

[oldwino]

I owned the Q and the Cl at one point. The Q is a very nice camera (the EVF isn't up to today's standards), but I found myself using the CL + 18 Elmarit more often. Why? Portability.

The Q is "small", but the CL is smaller. Also, you really have to love the focal length of the Q, which, I found, I do not. Instead of the Q, I would rather use an M and manually focus a variety of lenses. 

The Q2 may change the game, but I don't own one (yet...). 

[Chris Nebard]

8 minutes ago, oldwino said:

I owned the Q and the Cl at one point. The Q is a very nice camera (the EVF isn't up to today's standards), but I found myself using the CL + 18 Elmarit more often. Why? Portability.

The Q is "small", but the CL is smaller. Also, you really have to love the focal length of the Q, which, I found, I do not. Instead of the Q, I would rather use an M and manually focus a variety of lenses. 

The Q2 may change the game, but I don't own one (yet...). 

Yes, agreed, it’s horses for courses; what suits one photographer may definitely not suit another. I really love the 28mm field of view & the perspective it gives but, as you say, an M+Elmarit 28 or the 18mm CL may be more than adequate for some. I have used the M & 28 Elmarit combination but the versatility of the Q (speaking only for myself) is its low light performance - including at f1.7 without any noticeable loss of IQ - plus the very close focus ability. These have been invaluable to me for weddings, indoors, events, candids, environmental portraits and travel. There is no question though, if you need a 90mm for pure portraiture, or longer for wildlife etc., it wouldn’t be the right choice. And, yes, the CL does look smaller and very portable - a nice looking thing, too. Again though, I love how the Q feels in hand and, good grief, the used price these days looks to represent great value. 
 

[LocalHero1953]

.

Edited April 28, 2022 by LocalHero1953
Moved to new thread

[Le Chef]

I have a CL with a number of lenses and a Q2. I alternate between them based on what I’m going to be doing. Yesterday was a partial “mistake” when I took the Q2 downtown and ended taking pictures of some of the taller buildings and wishing I had brought the CL + 11-23 which would have been perfect.

Another day along the lakefront and the Q2 would be perfect. Horses for courses; but I like the challenge of switching from one camera to the other, but only ever taking one with me. 

[PhotoCruiser]

I had for some month the Q because of backorder of the Q2.The Q has some to me annoying backdraws:
1° dust inside, seems to be a rather common problem and not to fix in DY
2° shitty viewfinder confronting the Q2 viewfinder, I use 95% viewfinder and not the screen
3° the lower resolution makes strong cropping quality wise less appealing

The Q series is a exceptional camera with her limits because of the fixed lens, but that's the deal with her.

If you can live with that then the Q is a cheaper solution, just take care of the dust inside problem before you buy a used one.

Chris
 

[TBPhoto35]

I have had a Q-P for 3 years (which I love and will never sell) and had the CL with the 18-56 for one month last winter.  I wanted to like the CL, but I was getting too many shots with camera shake (wintertime and largely indoors in January in CT) and didn't like how I kept inadvertently changing things on the touch pad or the twin unmarked wheels. The combination of 50-ish year old hands with a slow, longish lens with no IS just didn't work well enough for me to want to keep the camera, so I returned it in the 30-day exchange period.  I was then thinking about getting a CL body and the fast 35mm TL lens to supplement the Q-P's perspective, but it soon became apparent that the camera was going to be discontinued, so I gave up on the CL.  Still looking for something to augment the rather wide 28mm of the Q-P.   Cropping works, but to me doesn't replace the feel/perspective of a 50mm or 85mm lens.  If Leica made a 50mm Q, I'd buy it.

In sum, if you like the CL, you will love the Q - I say: Go for it! 

[Le Chef]

It’s a shame you couldn’t stick with the CL as there are a number of simple fixes you can set to avoid camera shake. That includes setting minimum shutter speeds, organizing the control wheels to do what you want them to do, and saving that to a profile which is always available and can be the default if you choose.

[TBPhoto35]

I hear you, but dyslexia runs in my family and unlabeled binary choices always mess me up.  I've owned boats for forty years, but still have to work through port vs. starboard every time I try to say it!  Plus the thirty day clock makes it hard to really get to know the equipment-