Advice on whether I am following my heart too much with buying a Leica Q

[lbuizza]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello friends, 

As the title suggests, I have found a Leica Q (typ 116) near me in good condition, with 6000 clicks and four extra batteries for about €2.5k. I have been looking for a camera for a while, and whilst this is expensive something is pulling at my heart strings for it. 

I have an old Olympus camera that in the past I have really enjoyed shooting (and experimenting with developing in my darkroom bathroom) with meaning I am not a total newbie to photography but I would by no means say I was a good photographer. Recently I have been wanting to shoot more with digital as the workflow would work better for me if I wanted to start editing in e.g. Lightroom etc. So two questions: 

1. Am I thinking of buying a Ferrari when in reality I need to practice on a Golf first?

2. If I did go ahead with the Ferrari option, is the above a decent price? Does something like a Q devalue quickly, bearing in mind the arrival of a Q3 next year? 

 

Thanks for the advice!

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

1. Always follow your heart-always and in all things. You’ll have a happier life and your brain will catch up in the end.2. Although the Q offers plenty of options for the advanced photographer, its controls are simple enough to allow a beginner to take good photographs right from the start. 
3. you found the right forum.  We are always happy to help out. No question too dumb, no answer too controversial. 

[clasami]

There is nothing wrong following your heart. I wouldn't liken the Q to a Ferrari. It is more like a Mercedes S Class. And like the S Class, it is not about speed and sportive driving - it is about the quality and the comfort. Leica prices tend to be less under pressure for older models than most of the competition. But if you follow your heart, your brain should be silent on resale value 🙂

[Viv]

The Q is not a complicated camera to use.

It can produce excellent results.

I would not buy a less capable camera first.

Personally, I never worry about resale value. I tend not to sell cameras, but to pass them on to family members.

Edited July 30, 2022 by Viv

[PaulJohn]

The heart always wants what it hasn’t got. It is not your friend. That said, i think you can buy a Q with your head and have no regrets.

[jankap]

The offer seems ok to me. If you have Olympus and darkroom experience there is no need for buying a training camera first.

Four extra batteries is remarkable, so 5 in total. Perhaps the previous owner used it as a stills-movie camera.

Edited July 30, 2022 by jankap

[Farrell Gallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think it's a bad decision to buy anything because of unexplained gear lust or hype. With that said, only you know what feels right to you as a user. Is it a wonderful camera and are the files and glass amazing, in capable hands? Absolutely! Is it THAT much better than the much less expensive Fuji X100 series, etc.? No. But if the upgrades are worth it to you, then you have your answer. You know what you're trying to accomplish, which tool gets you there? 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Farrell Gallery

[Leica Guy]

Having been an active photographer for over 60 years I can easily say the Q is as close to a pure camera as you’re going to get. A joy to use because it’s so basic yet very very capable. Buy it and you’ll take your photography to the next level. I had the original Q and loved it. The Q2 is better, but not dramatically so. The Q3 will be better too, but almost guaranteed to have the original Q DNA which is superb. 

[Chris O]

I followed my heart and bought a Leica Q.  I learned so much from that camera and I really feel I became a better photographer because I had it with me all the time and practiced so much.  No regrets at all. 

[Chris W]

In your question you never mention the fixed 28mm lens, which is probably the most important factor with the Q.

I had one. It is super easy to use. The images it produces are incredible. However, I didn't want to shoot with 28mm most of the time so I reluctantly sold it.

[jaapv]

The concept of the camera is not to shoot at 28 mm, but to use it as a multi-focal length  (equivalent) one with a widest  angle of 28 mm.

[charlesphoto99]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

The concept of the camera is not to shoot at 28 mm, but to use it as a multi-focal length  (equivalent) one with a widest  angle of 28 mm.

Mmmm, not so sure about that - nice in theory, not so much in practice. Sure one can always crop, but won't get the different sense of depth and perspective that a true longer/wider lens can bring. 

I owned a Q for a week or so and then returned it - it's a nice camera but for me, my M10 was much simpler to use and not that much different in size to carry around (albeit heavier than the Q). The OP might want to consider a used 240 and a 35mm Voigtlander lens (or focal length of choice) for not much more. Of course no AF. All that said they most likely won't go wrong with the Q in enjoyment and picture making, esp if they don't have other Leica's to compare it to.

[EddieCheddar]

Buy the Leica Q.  Absolutely.  

I had the same exact experience as Chris O stated above: “I followed my heart and bought a Leica Q.  I learned so much from that camera and I really feel I became a better photographer because I had it with me all the time and practiced so much.  No regrets at all.”

Truth.

[jaapv]

7 minutes ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Sure one can always crop, but won't get the different sense of depth and perspective that a true longer/wider lens can bring. 

That, I fear, is incorrect. When you change the angle of view by cropping, the end result on perspective is identical to cropping by changing the focal length. Perspective and relationship foreground/background can only be changed by altering the distance between subject and camera.

[charlesphoto99]

15 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That, I fear, is incorrect. When you change the angle of view by cropping, the end result on perspective is identical to cropping by changing the focal length. Perspective and relationship foreground/background can only be changed by altering the distance between subject and camera.

What? I'm sorry, but if I shoot a scene with a 28mm and then crop out a 50mm section (whether in camera or in post), that will look different than if I shot natively full frame with a 50mm lens, same aperture settings. It's the depth the lens creates. Or perhaps we are both talking about something different? 

[jaapv]

No, it won't. Composition and perspective will look the same when shot with a 50 mm from the same position.  Try it. 

[PaulJohn]

Both right? Same compression and perspective but a 50mm 1.7 will have much less depth of field.

[jaapv]

That is correct, but still not because of anything the lens does, but because you must magnify the cropped  image more. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[jaapv]

28 mm

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

70 mm

 

28 mm cropped to 70 mm FOV

 

The only visible difference is the sharpness of the bush in the foreground which means that I would have had to open up one stop for a perfect match, perspective is identical.  Sorry that I could not be bothered to match the colour balance 100%. 

[SrMi]

I see Q2’s digital zoom more of a variation of sensor size (crop) than a focal length change. All advantages and disadvantages of varying sensor size apply, except that the crop is reversible in post.

I wonder how many owners never use the “digital zoom.@