m10 with 35 summilux FLE vs Q2

[cesc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering trading my m10 with 35mm FLE for a Q2. Mainly reason, I shoot mostly family, and kids running around. Anyone has been in the same situation and what are your thoughts?

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

The Q2, in my opinion, has a nicer sensor than the one in the M10, and at 47mp to 24mp, it has more resolution as well. I found that it also has less banding than the M10 sensor that I had. In terms of focus, I find it quick and reliable for AFs. I do not use AFC and have not had as much experience with face detection, as I do more landscape work than people. Overall, it is probably easier to focus unless you are very quick with your M10. Since you are asking here, it suggests to me you probably don't feel super quick with the M. Overall, I think you might like the Q2 a lot, but it probably depends on your expectation of the autofocus system. If you treat it more like an M, where you use the center point to AF and focus and recompose, I think you will be a bit faster. In general, I think if you are using AFs you will likely do well. I do not have personal experience, but everything I read anecdotally suggests that the Q series and SL series are not nearly as fast and accurate in AFc and focus tracking as cameras made by Sony, Nikon and Canon. If your goal is to track focus in very fast situations, you may find more success with one of their cameras. But overall, I think you would likely be well served by the Q2. One caveat is that 28mm does feel significantly wider than the 35mm FLE, so you may need to get used to cropping if you are not already.

[Erato]

10 minutes ago, cesc said:

I am considering trading my m10 with 35mm FLE for a Q2. Mainly reason, I shoot mostly family, and kids running around. Anyone has been in the same situation and what are your thoughts?

Q2 fits your requirements, but there's an alternative option as well.

Choose SL2-S if you want to keep the FLE. The advantages are better video quality and a 3rd party directional on-camera shotgun microphone such as the Sennheiser MKE 400 will bring your audio to the next level.

[MarkP]

And you’ll be using the 35 mm Summilux for decades. The same is unlikely for the Q2.

[cesc]

Just now, MarkP said:

And you’ll be using the 35 mm Summilux for decades. The same is unlikely for the Q2.

you mean keeping the m10?

[charlesphoto99]

Depends on whether you prefer looking through the OVF of the M10 and seeing what surrounds the image frame (which is one reason the M is such a great camera for composing) vs looking at a small television all the time (Q2, SL). Personally I've tried the Q and while for what it is it is best in class, I personally couldn't stand it. So YMMV - best to try first. At  the end of the day it's all about making pictures that move you, not perfection. Perhaps the purchase of a 28 and/or 50 for your M10 would be more useful. Below, M10, 28 Summicron (my daughter Leica dancing to Taylor Swift). 

 

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!

[jakontil]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The last Q i gave up was Q2..;i tried so hard to bond with the Q’s and SL’s but i failed..

may be M is within my comfort zone with its bells and whistles.. it’s entirely how you gonna like shooting with Q

as suggested, best is to rent the Q for a week or so and try it yourself if you could stay Q

[MarkP]

13 hours ago, MarkP said:

And you’ll be using the 35 mm Summilux for decades. The same is unlikely for the Q2.

My comment was about the lens, not the camera. 

[MaticB]

Don't sell M 10! A year ago I suddenly feel, that beside my M240 I need something more practical for everyday use. So, I bought Q2. Perfect camera! Autofocus was helpful, cropping even more (I mostly used it as 35mm, and crop lines in viewfinder was indeed excellent help), but than I made some big prints... Somehow, quality was never, as to be expected, it just lack richness of colours and quality of M 240. Nevertheless higher resolution of Q2, prints done from M 240 files was better, even in respect of small details. I then bought M 10R, keep M 240 and sell Q2. If you print your pictures, you may add Q2 to your M 10, but do not sell M 10!

[rramesh]

18 hours ago, MarkP said:

And you’ll be using the 35 mm Summilux for decades. The same is unlikely for the Q2.

Agree. Leica lenses if taken care of will last a really long time. Digital cameras on the other hand, no matter how good, will have a finely lifespan.

[chuhsi1]

I only take pictures of my kids. I had a Q years ago, then went exclusive iPhone, and recently bought an m10-R. I mostly use it with a 35mm FLE.

If you really prefer 35mm over 28mm, then don’t get a Q. I love 28mm.

I think the biggest consideration is if you want autofocus over rangefinder for how you shoot . With young kids that are constantly moving, I need to zone focus and stop down. My hit rate for taking a wide aperture picture with the focus patch is horrible. I miss too many shots.

 

[cesc]

22 minutes ago, MaticB said:

Don't sell M 10! A year ago I suddenly feel, that beside my M240 I need something more practical for everyday use. So, I bought Q2. Perfect camera! Autofocus was helpful, cropping even more (I mostly used it as 35mm, and crop lines in viewfinder was indeed excellent help), but than I made some big prints... Somehow, quality was never, as to be expected, it just lack richness of colours and quality of M 240. Nevertheless higher resolution of Q2, prints done from M 240 files was better, even in respect of small details. I then bought M 10R, keep M 240 and sell Q2. If you print your pictures, you may add Q2 to your M 10, but do not sell M 10!

Thanks! That's really helpful, I normally print (family photos in books) and why not some photos bigger to hang in the walls

 

3 minutes ago, chuhsi1 said:

I only take pictures of my kids. I had a Q years ago, then went exclusive iPhone, and recently bought an m10-R. I mostly use it with a 35mm FLE.

If you really prefer 35mm over 28mm, then don’t get a Q. I love 28mm.

I think the biggest consideration is if you want autofocus over rangefinder for how you shoot . With young kids that are constantly moving, I need to zone focus and stop down. My hit rate for taking a wide aperture picture with the focus patch is horrible. I miss too many shots.

 

I do that, zone focus and high iso so I can have enough dof to hit focus while they are playing. I start to embrace the "not too perfect focus photos" but that caotires the perfect moment

That's why I was wondering how was to shoot with a Q2. Even if I have been using for a while Ms and the analog experience that I get from them is a real pleasure

Also I didn't though about the lens, and so true the FLE is a gem to keep and bodies will come and go

Thanks everyone 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rhyman]

I would say the Q2 is better for this situation. The autofocus will be helpful. I wrote a review comparing these 2 cameras here.

https://www.travelisbeautiful.com/ricks-blog/2019/4/10/a-comparison-of-the-leica-q2-and-m10

[RexGig0]

My first thought is: Keep the M10! A Leica Q-series camera is only incrementally smaller than an M camera. A Q may weigh less, but, I am not bothered by the weight of an M10, plus lens. Being a “lens guy,” I see it as more important to keep the Leica Summilux 35mm FLE, because I always seem to regret trading or selling a lens. Adding a 28mm M-mount lens, especially one of the less-expensive options, could be considered. Of course, this is what I would do, given the scenario presented in the original post. Others’ needs and preferences will vary. (In real life, I do have an M10, though my 35/1.4 is a Zeiss Distagon ZM, and I do already have several 28mm Leica M and adapted-R options.)

On the other hand, I have no argument with anyone who prefers a Q.

I have used 35mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses, on my M10, for photographing my toddler grandsons, usually using zone/scale focusing, because no AF is quite as fast as already being adequately pre-focused. My reference point, for comparison, is a Nikon D5 with a 28mm AF-S 28mm f/1.4E. (A Nikon D5 is most definitely an action-shooting camera.) A 28mm lens does have more DOF than a 35mm lens, at any given aperture, so the young, active subject is more likely to be within the depth of acceptable focus when one is using a 28mm lens.

The modern, faster 28mm M-mount lens that has my attention is the Voigtlander 28mm Ultron II VM. I am not yet convinced that I need a more modern, faster 28mm lens, but, if starting from a position of having no 28mm lenses, this would be a leading candidate.

To be clear, the D5, with the AF-S lens, would absolutely “win” the focusing contest, much more of the time, if I were always shooting with the camera held to my eye, enabling me to move the AF point as needed, but I often like to photograph my grandsons while “shooting from the hip.” Of course, I could even the playing field by mounting my manual-focus Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S lens, with its excellent distance and DOF markings. Any lens with nicely-visible scale markings facilitates zone/scale focusing, but the M-mount lenses, with focusing tabs, enables one to memorize the distance that corresponds to the various positions of the tab.

Trivial addendum: I like the Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8, Version III, which is a Walter Mandler design, for photographing family members. I really like Mandler lenses, and some other vintage/classic lenses, for some types of shooting. For architecture, and other scenarios that require better correction, I might want to use a different, more modern lens, but, I favor 21mm and 35mm lenses for the times I want correction/perfection. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by RexGig0

[cesc]

5 minutes ago, Rhyman said:

I would say the Q2 is better for this situation. The autofocus will be helpful. I wrote a review comparing these 2 cameras here.

https://www.travelisbeautiful.com/ricks-blog/2019/4/10/a-comparison-of-the-leica-q2-and-m10

That's great info! thanks so much for sharing! I  prefer the m10, and I think I can live with pre focus or zone focusing

 

4 minutes ago, RexGig0 said:

My first thought is: Keep the M10! A Leica Q-series camera is only incrementally smaller than an M camera. A Q may weigh less, but, I am not bothered by the weight of an M10, plus lens. Being a “lens guy,” I see it as more important to keep the Leica Summilux 35mm FLE, because I always seem to regret trading or selling a lens. Adding a 28mm M-mount lens, especially one of the less-expensive options, could be considered. Of course, this is what I would do, given the scenario presented in the original post. Others’ needs and preferences will vary. (In real life, I do have an M10, though my 35/1.4 is a Zeiss Distagon ZM, and I do already have several 28mm Leica M and adapted-R options.)

I have used 35mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/2.8 lenses, on my M10, for photographing my toddler grandsons, usually using zone/scale focusing, because no AF is quite as fast as already being adequately pre-focused. My reference point, for comparison, is a Nikon D5 with a 28mm AF-S 28mm f/1.4E. (A Nikon D5 is most definitely an action-shooting camera.) A 28mm lens does have more DOF than a 35mm lens, at any given aperture, so the young, active subject is more likely to be within the depth of acceptable focus when one is using a 28mm lens.

The modern, faster 28mm M-mount lens that has my attention is the Voigtlander 28mm Ultron II VM. I am not yet convinced that I need a more modern, faster 28mm lens, but, if starting from a position of having no 28mm lenses, this would be a leading candidate.

To be clear, the D5, with the AF-S lens, would absolutely “win” the focusing contest, much more of the time, if I were always shooting with the camera held to my eye, enabling me to move the AF point as needed, but I often like to photograph my grandsons while “shooting from the hip.” Of course, I could even the playing field by mounting my manual-focus Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S lens, with its excellent distance and DOF markings. Any lens with nicely-visible scale markings facilitates zone/scale focusing, but the M-mount lenses, with focusing tabs, enables one to memorize the distance that corresponds to the various positions of the tab.

Trivial addendum: I like the Leica Elmarit-M 28mm f/2.8, Version III, which is a Walter Mandler design, for photographing family members. I really like Mandler lenses, and some other vintage/classic lenses, for some types of shooting. For architecture, and other scenarios that require better correction, I might want to use a different, more modern lens, but, I favor 21mm and 35mm lenses for the times I want correction/perfection. 

I think you are absolutely right, I agree with your thoughts and that helps me a lot to keep the m10 instead. Thanks so much!

[microview]

One or two surprisingly negative thoughts on the Q2 here. Personally I would not wish to part with either my Q2 or M10R but the lighter weight of the former and the autofocus of this camera make me enjoy it a little more.

[la1402]

8 hours ago, microview said:

One or two surprisingly negative thoughts on the Q2 here. Personally I would not wish to part with either my Q2 or M10R but the lighter weight of the former and the autofocus of this camera make me enjoy it a little more.

I moved from a M10 to a Q2. I use and take the Q2 much more with me. The sensor of the Q2 is better in every respect, and I like shooting with a fairly open aperture which i find very difficult with the rangefinder. If the argument is for Zone focussing with the M10, there is little benefit of carrying a summilux. Knowing to have weather sealing on the Q2 is also nice. From a handling perspective, I preferred the M10, but results and convienience with the Q2 just beat the M10. But then i was never a rangefinder fan and don't belong to the people with decades of RF muscle memory.

[Stuart Richardson]

On 10/20/2022 at 5:18 AM, MaticB said:

Don't sell M 10! A year ago I suddenly feel, that beside my M240 I need something more practical for everyday use. So, I bought Q2. Perfect camera! Autofocus was helpful, cropping even more (I mostly used it as 35mm, and crop lines in viewfinder was indeed excellent help), but than I made some big prints... Somehow, quality was never, as to be expected, it just lack richness of colours and quality of M 240. Nevertheless higher resolution of Q2, prints done from M 240 files was better, even in respect of small details. I then bought M 10R, keep M 240 and sell Q2. If you print your pictures, you may add Q2 to your M 10, but do not sell M 10!

I find this very interesting, but I just wanted to chime in as an exhibition printer that I found the exact opposite of this. The one caveat I would give is that the 28mm in the Q is not as good a lens as the best M lenses, particularly in the edges, though it is quite good. But perhaps you were cropping in a lot more? I certainly think the color fidelity, lack of banding and character of detail at 100% were better in the Q2 than in the M10.

Edited October 28, 2022 by Stuart Richardson

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[MaticB]

On 10/28/2022 at 11:26 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I find this very interesting, but I just wanted to chime in as an exhibition printer that I found the exact opposite of this. The one caveat I would give is that the 28mm in the Q is not as good a lens as the best M lenses, particularly in the edges, though it is quite good. But perhaps you were cropping in a lot more? I certainly think the color fidelity, lack of banding and character of detail at 100% were better in the Q2 than in the M10.

Hard to explain, but impression I've had watching prints from M 240, was always better than anything coming from Q2. I have to emphasise, I do not print myself - I send files to WhiteWall, but I always chose the same paper  - Hahnemühle Pearl white paper. It might be, that WhiteWall change the process (cheapen it!) over time, but this is just speculation!  

[Robert Jones]

Hi MaticB

I have always used some sort of Hahnemühle but wanted to try new barriers with products from Hahnemühle. About a year ago coloreurope provided me with all kinds of Hahnemühle to try out (bought it myself:)). Hahnemühle is totally worh the price I think.

Edited November 2, 2022 by jaapv
Advertising removed