Buy q2 now or wait q3?

[dancook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Oh and on topic, and I'll be waiting for the Q3, having sold my Q2/Q2M to help fund the X2D and lenses - knowing that I'll probably get the Q3 when it comes out.

Would quite like a swivel screen, and hope for improvements to AF - to focus on the subject more instead of the sky using wide area AF when hipshooting would be nice.

Edited March 29, 2023 by dancook

[wlaidlaw]

There is a new product announcement from Leica due on April 14. The possible candidates are the Q3 and/or the M11 Monochrome. Fingers crossed. 

Wilson

[Le Chef]

8 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

There is a new product announcement from Leica due on April 14. The possible candidates are the Q3 and/or the M11 Monochrome. Fingers crossed. 

Wilson

Why not SL3?

[T25UFO]

19 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Why not SL3?

I think because Leica Rumours only mentioned Q3 and M11M, but they are wrong more often than they are right 😂

[Le Chef]

If you were looking at this question from a business perspective you might conclude:

1) The SL2 lags behind its competitors

2) The goal of the SL3 must be to add new users to the product and ideally the brand, in addition to retaining existing users.

3) Selling lenses to new SL3 owners is where Leica can make long term money and use that money in the L Alliance to develop lenses to fill the gaps in the current lineup. 

4) The Q2 has very few rivals so there’s less of a need to update

5) The Q2 is a “one and done” purchase. You buy the body, a spare battery and a grip and you’re done. No more money to be made.

6) The M11M will add incremental sales from existing M owners.

7) The M11M will encourage trade in from Q2M owners who will then potentially need to buy a few M lenses.

If it were down to me I would launch the SL3 first, then the M11M and finally a Q3.

But I’m sure others have points that will contradict some or all of the above.

[dem331]

I love this forum. The  OP was a first time, and, to date, only time poster, who last visited the forum on March, 5. Yet here we are three weeks and 65 posts later given him advice on a  question he has either already answered, or, more likely, lost interest in. 

[T25UFO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Le Chef said:

If you were looking at this question from a business perspective you might conclude:

1) The SL2 lags behind its competitors

2) The goal of the SL3 must be to add new users to the product and ideally the brand, in addition to retaining existing users.

3) Selling lenses to new SL3 owners is where Leica can make long term money and use that money in the L Alliance to develop lenses to fill the gaps in the current lineup. 

4) The Q2 has very few rivals so there’s less of a need to update

5) The Q2 is a “one and done” purchase. You buy the body, a spare battery and a grip and you’re done. No more money to be made.

6) The M11M will add incremental sales from existing M owners.

7) The M11M will encourage trade in from Q2M owners who will then potentially need to buy a few M lenses.

If it were down to me I would launch the SL3 first, then the M11M and finally a Q3.

But I’m sure others have points that will contradict some or all of the above.

I could not disagree with any of this.

But if Leica goes the Q3 route first, which I suspect they will, you have to question their product marketing strategy.

[Le Chef]

3 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

I could not disagree with any of this.

But if Leica goes the Q3 route first, which I suspect they will, you have to question their product marketing strategy.

I have many times, finding it flawed and poorly executed.

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, Le Chef said:

If you were looking at this question from a business perspective you might conclude:

1) The SL2 lags behind its competitors

2) The goal of the SL3 must be to add new users to the product and ideally the brand, in addition to retaining existing users.

3) Selling lenses to new SL3 owners is where Leica can make long term money and use that money in the L Alliance to develop lenses to fill the gaps in the current lineup. 

4) The Q2 has very few rivals so there’s less of a need to update

5) The Q2 is a “one and done” purchase. You buy the body, a spare battery and a grip and you’re done. No more money to be made.

6) The M11M will add incremental sales from existing M owners.

7) The M11M will encourage trade in from Q2M owners who will then potentially need to buy a few M lenses.

If it were down to me I would launch the SL3 first, then the M11M and finally a Q3.

But I’m sure others have points that will contradict some or all of the above.

And yet the Q line is said* to be one of Leica's best sellers......

 

 

By a friend whose sister works for an advertising company for a supplier of sandwiches to Singapore's Leica importer.

[newtoleica]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

I have many times, finding it flawed and poorly executed.

However the Q2 is a very big seller for Leica, far more than the M I believe. By keeping it fresh and updated they keep interest in new users (no ‘it’s due to be updated soon’) and encourage current users to upgrade, making new sales. 

[Le Chef]

31 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

And yet the Q line is said* to be one of Leica's best sellers......

 

 

By a friend whose sister works for an advertising company for a supplier of sandwiches to Singapore's Leica importer.

The Q is likely a good seller for sure. Apparently the sales of the Q surprised Leica by a significant factor over their original targets. That tells you two things: 1) It’s clearly a great product 2) Their market research prior to launch was crap at understanding and predicting. success in terms of sales.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Le Chef

[Le Chef]

32 minutes ago, newtoleica said:

However the Q2 is a very big seller for Leica, far more than the M I believe. By keeping it fresh and updated they keep interest in new users (no ‘it’s due to be updated soon’) and encourage current users to upgrade, making new sales. 

That’s obvious, but you need to reduce product portfolio risk. And without doubt the biggest risk to lost sales is the SL2. If this was ER then triage would start with the SL2. Since the Q2 is still healthy you can deal with that later.

[wlaidlaw]

I think the biggest mistake of the SL2 was the dumbing down of the excellent programmable control layout of the SL1. That stopped me buying/upgrading to an SL2. 

April 14 is in line with my dealer's expectations of a Spring announcement for the Q3. 

Wilson

[Le Chef]

3 minutes ago, wlaidlaw said:

I think the biggest mistake of the SL2 was the dumbing down of the excellent programmable control layout of the SL1. That stopped me buying/upgrading to an SL2. 

April 14 is in line with my dealer's expectations of a Spring announcement for the Q3. 

Wilson

I think if you delay refreshing your weakest product then you are implicitly saying you will let it die, unless the refresh is so complicated that it needs another development cycle to fix to which you see a significant ROI and are committed to.

[LocalHero1953]

The SL2 is only a weak product for those who want class-leading continuous autofocus - one aspect among many (the Q2 seems to surge ahead despite having much worse AF). Whether this is a real handicap to actual sales is debatable - I’ve seen no evidence for it. In other respects it is among the leaders. In some it is outstanding. 

FTAOD, I would be happy to see the SL3 with better AF. But it would make little difference to my photography (and I don’t shoot landscapes and still lives). 

Anyway, I’m looking forward to both a Q3 and an SL3, and don’t mind which comes first. 

[Le Chef]

1 minute ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The SL2 is only a weak product for those who want class-leading continuous autofocus - one aspect among many (the Q2 seems to surge ahead despite having much worse AF). Whether this is a real handicap to actual sales is debatable - I’ve seen no evidence for it. In other respects it is among the leaders. In some it is outstanding. 

FTAOD, I would be happy to see the SL3 with better AF. But it would make little difference to my photography (and I don’t shoot landscapes and still lives). 

Anyway, I’m looking forward to both a Q3 and an SL3, and don’t mind which comes first. 

If the SL2 was as successful as the Q or M there would have been an Mono version by now, and both SL2 and SL2-S would have had Reporter editions, when it was only launched as an LE for the SL2-S. And no P version ever mentioned. That tells you it’s a weak product line that either needs a significant refresh or needs to be allowed to die. And that would run counter to the proclamations of the L-Alliance and L2.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

If the SL2 was as successful as the Q or M there would have been an Mono version by now, and both SL2 and SL2-S would have had Reporter editions, when it was only launched as an LE for the SL2-S. And no P version ever mentioned. That tells you it’s a weak product line that either needs a significant refresh or needs to be allowed to die. And that would run counter to the proclamations of the L-Alliance and L2.

I am sure SL sales are below those of the M and Q, but absolute sales numbers are not an indicator of success in the eyes of the maker - return on investment and sales against expectations are better comparators. 

I’ve always seen the SL line as Leica offering us the Swiss Army knife for practical photography, not a lifestyle choice (which both the M and Q have a bit of, even if only for some users). They are saying it needs no fluff of monochrome, P, D, or Reporter (etc) editions. I don’t read their absence as indicative of weakness. (Of course neither of us actually knows!)

 

Edited to better reflect my opinion. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Simone_DF]

12 hours ago, Le Chef said:

If the SL2 was as successful as the Q or M there would have been an Mono version by now, and both SL2 and SL2-S would have had Reporter editions, when it was only launched as an LE for the SL2-S. And no P version ever mentioned. That tells you it’s a weak product line that either needs a significant refresh or needs to be allowed to die. And that would run counter to the proclamations of the L-Alliance and L2.

You can add to the list above that the SL is the only Leica platform that offers kits at reduced prices, special sales and extra bonuses like a free 400€ M-L adapter.

[Farrell Gallery]

12 hours ago, Le Chef said:

If the SL2 was as successful as the Q or M there would have been an Mono version by now, and both SL2 and SL2-S would have had Reporter editions, when it was only launched as an LE for the SL2-S. And no P version ever mentioned. That tells you it’s a weak product line that either needs a significant refresh or needs to be allowed to die. And that would run counter to the proclamations of the L-Alliance and L2.

If they kept true Leica form with aperture rings, and analog look even with AF (like the Q), it would likely make better sense. Can't deny it's a beast of a system, that would not be as fun to use as the Q or M. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica Q

[Le Chef]

2 hours ago, Farrell Gallery said:

If they kept true Leica form with aperture rings

Can’t do it because the current SL lenses have no Aperture rings. It would require significant and costly change to undo their approach to having all(?) controls on the camera body. The TL/CL/SL approach to soft controls works really well in practice even if I for one would also prefer a physical Aperture control ring.