Q2: I changed my mind

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My Leica journey started about two years ago with a Q (116). Great camera but two things bothered me most: not weatherproof and the 28mm which isn’t really for me. I sold the Q, took a dive into M and now I have several lenses and a MM and a M10.

I thought the M10 with a 35mm could be my daily cam, replacing the Q. But somehow, it didn’t work out like that. To me, it is too slow, can’t operate it with one hand if needed, can’t walk in the rain etc. To me, the M is for creating images, not taking them. And if I am creative, the monochrom comes with me.

I was (and still am) of the opinion that the Q2 is the perfect camera, except for 28mm. 35 to 50 would fit me better and that is what I hoped for of the Q3.

But I changed my mind: with the Q2, I can easily crop to 35mm which would fit me. In case I need wider, it is there. If I pair it with an m plus 50mm it is actually a perfect match.

So, if it is the perfect match, waiting for a Q3 doesn’t make sense and I am now negotiating on a Q2.

The m10 is up for sale together with some lenses (elmarit 28, vl35 and cron50), leaving me with a mm plus sonnar. Just perfect (though the m will be replaced but that is not for the Q forum).

[PeterBoyadjian]

Q2 is very useable up to 50mm crop, I know professionals will point out that its is not a true 50mm but if you are just taking this as a hobby then who cares. 

If money is no issue then go for a SL2S with a 35SL-APO - it's quite amazing and on another level compared to the Q2. Plus you can use old and new M lenses on it as well. 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Driften]

I totally agree. When I had a Q I felt just like you, but after moving away I'm back now with a Q2 Reporter. While 28 isn't my favorite if the lens was 35 or 50 there are times I would miss going wide and pano shots aren't always the answer to that. I think if the q3 came out and had a 35/40mm lens I would stay with my Q2. It's part of the reason I bought the Q2 now and not waiting for what might be in a year or two.

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, PeterBoyadjian said:

 

If money is no issue then go for a SL2S with a 35SL-APO - it's quite amazing and on another level compared to the Q2. Plus you can use old and new M lenses on it as well. 

 

I do have the original SL with this lens and though great, it is too heavy and cumbersome for me for daily usage.

[northtosouth]

One alternative that doesn't get much discussion is the Sony A7c. Most often the Q2 is compared to the Fuji x100 series but I think the A7c is a more interesting comparison, especially when you consider how well it works with adapted m-mount glass. I still somewhat regret trading mine in for an A7 IV, the advantages of the newer model are slight.

The Q2 is a superior handling camera without even mentioning the quality of the output (which I also prefer). The Q2 is probably more weatherproof, but I've used the A7c is some pretty harsh conditions without problems, I think Sony's AF is vastly better for a wide variety of applications, but Leica Q2 isn't bad and if anything I think its better than the last two Fuji's I owned. I won't go back to crop sensors (although I used them for years) but I might be tempted by an updated A7c. I'll still keep the Q2 for a long time, its a classic design, a joy to use and makes delicious images.

[Olaf_ZG]

7 minutes ago, northtosouth said:

One alternative that doesn't get much discussion is the Sony A7c. Most often the Q2 is compared to the Fuji x100 series but I think the A7c is a more interesting comparison, especially when you consider how well it works with adapted m-mount glass.

Don’t get me wrong, but whatever specs sony or fuji offer, it can’t be compared with the joy of using a q or m.

The only fuji I keep is the gfx because of its long exposure capabilities. 

I came of age where I want to simplify my life 😜

[Farrell Gallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I fail to grasp, what's wrong with moving your feet to compensate for the 7 mm? You can't go wider if your back is against the wall....but you can (usually) move closer. 

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, Farrell Gallery said:

I fail to grasp, what's wrong with moving your feet to compensate for the 7 mm? You can't go wider if your back is against the wall....but you can (usually) move closer. 

Not if your toes are on the river bank, cliff edge, volcano rim, in the safari pick-up looking at the lion........

[Farrell Gallery]

6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Not if your toes are on the river bank, cliff edge, volcano rim, in the safari pick-up looking at the lion........

But then a telephoto would be most helpful. 7mm, if it's that helpful, you can crop. 

[Olaf_ZG]

11 hours ago, Farrell Gallery said:

I fail to grasp, what's wrong with moving your feet to compensate for the 7 mm? You can't go wider if your back is against the wall....but you can (usually) move closer. 

May be some people don’t like to be too close to people? I for sure didn’t mind the social distancing rules … (yes, grumpy old man, I know…)

[Farrell Gallery]

7 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

May be some people don’t like to be too close to people? I for sure didn’t mind the social distancing rules … (yes, grumpy old man, I know…)

You're in good company because I'm a grumpy middle aged fellow too. But the distance for 28 and 35 are negligible. It's more technique and less about lens. I love the simplicity and fun factor of the Q2 as it was with my Fuji X100 before this, and I trained myself to be semi-exclusive to this focal length, and use an 85 when needed.....everything else I'm indifferent about. Mileage varies. 

[Qwertynm]

Am 27.11.2022 um 05:51 schrieb Farrell Gallery:

I fail to grasp, what's wrong with moving your feet to compensate for the 7 mm? You can't go wider if your back is against the wall....but you can (usually) move closer. 

You just change the perspective by moving closer, which obviously is not the same as having a tighter FOV. And as others have already mentioned it is not always feasible to „zoom with your feet“ (what a silly statement)

[matted]

On 11/26/2022 at 11:51 PM, Farrell Gallery said:

I fail to grasp, what's wrong with moving your feet to compensate for the 7 mm? You can't go wider if your back is against the wall....but you can (usually) move closer. 

Picking nits here, but it is closer to 10mm that you need to compensate for... even post software correction the FOV of my Q2 images are closer to my 24 Elmarit on my M/SL2 than they are to my 28 Ultron II on my M/SL2.

[Farrell Gallery]

5 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

You just change the perspective by moving closer, which obviously is not the same as having a tighter FOV. And as others have already mentioned it is not always feasible to „zoom with your feet“ (what a silly statement)

It's not doable every time, but there's nothing silly about it. I'm sorry you feel that way.

[liggy]

On 11/26/2022 at 1:48 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

Don’t get me wrong, but whatever specs sony or fuji offer, it can’t be compared with the joy of using a q or m.

The only fuji I keep is the gfx because of its long exposure capabilities. 

I came of age where I want to simplify my life 😜

I love my Q2 Reporter but derive joy from my A1 and my Fujis.   They all bring something of value to the party.  They don’t feel as solid but definitely do some things better. 

[RM8]

21 hours ago, Qwertynm said:

You just change the perspective by moving closer, which obviously is not the same as having a tighter FOV. And as others have already mentioned it is not always feasible to „zoom with your feet“ (what a silly statement)

You'd be surprised to learn that crop is not different from tele (except maybe for pixel density) so perspective is not an issue

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, RM8 said:

so perspective is not an issue

Well, it is when you move closer (thus not crop, but zoom with your feet). Perspective is a function of distance, not of the lens or sensor format (AKA crop)

 

1 hour ago, RM8 said:

„zoom with your feet“

 

[Qwertynm]

Am 29.11.2022 um 03:00 schrieb Farrell Gallery:

It's not doable every time, but there's nothing silly about it. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I find the phrase „zoom with your feet“ silly. Zooming in the context of photography means changing a wide fov to a thight fov. Not changing perspective. That’s why I find it silly. Sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying. 

Am 29.11.2022 um 19:33 schrieb RM8:

You'd be surprised to learn that crop is not different from tele (except maybe for pixel density) so perspective is not an issue

No one was talking about cropping. The guy I was referring to made the statement that one could bridge the gap by „zooming with your feet“ and thus changing perspective. Cropping is something else.

[Mikep996]

Cropping is zooming without your feet!

FWIW, the phrase "zoom with your feet" has been around for as long as there have been "zoom lenses."  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Qwertynm]

Agreed. But that was not what has been talked about. Someone made the statement that the difference between 28 and 35 is negligible and could easily be bridged by moving closer, which is not the same as zooming or cropping (I think we can all agree on that).
 

Why would other primes exist then if it would just be the same? To be pedantic: Why not have an 8mm lens and just „zoom with your feet“. Preferences exist and there is no denying that some prefer 35/50 over 28. There is hardly any merit in discussing preferences of focallenghts. With the Q2 you have the choice of either cropping in or moving closer. But those two are hardly the same, that was my point.